But at least one case in Missouri has demonstrated that killings can be deemed justified on broader, more complex grounds than the right to stand one’s ground under Missouri law.

In May 2013, Brandon Coleman was shot to death by Dustin Deacon in Columbia, Missouri. Before he died, Coleman was brandishing a gun at Deacon’s father, who had been attempting to drive Coleman from his property. Deacon’s father was armed with a large knife during the confrontation.

Boone County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Knight ruled that Coleman’s killing was justified under Missouri law; Deacon reasonably felt that force was needed to defend his father from the imminent use of unlawful force by Coleman.

“Force used in defense of another can include deadly force if the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to protect the other against death, serious physical injury or any forcible felony,” Knight wrote in a letter explaining his decision.

Missouri’s “castle doctrine” law would have acted as the governing legal authority. Such laws share some noticeable similarities with the better-known stand your ground legislation.

Under the state’s castle doctrine law, a person is permitted to use force against an intruder who unlawfully enters or tries to enter a residence, vehicle or private property that is lawfully occupied by the person, who need not retreat in such circumstances — as was deemed the case with Deacon’s father.

At first blush, the distinction between the two concepts is not entirely clear.

“The line between the castle doctrine and stand your ground has been a little bit blurred,” said Platte County Prosecuting Attorney Eric Zahnd.

Put the experienced Missouri criminal defense lawyers at James Law Group on your side. Learn more at http://www.jameslawgroup.net/

As you may already know, an individual may be prosecuted in both criminal and civil proceedings when they are alleged to be responsible for the death of another. The civil side is called a wrongful death lawsuit. Perhaps the best-known example in the U.S. is that of O. J. Simpson. In 1995, Simpson was found not guilty of the murder of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman. But in a subsequent wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of Nicole Simpson and Goldman, O. J. Simpson was ordered to pay a combined $46.1 million to the victims’ families.

Likewise, George Zimmerman is likely to face a wrongful death lawsuit. Zimmerman is not a target with great personal wealth like Simpson, and any large civil judgment against him may go mostly unpaid. But Trayvon Martin’s family may nevertheless decide to sue.

You may wonder how a civil lawsuit can succeed if prosecutors have already failed to prove a suspect’s guilt in a lengthy criminal trial. Civil suits are decided by entirely separate juries from their corresponding criminal trials, but more importantly, they are decided by different standards of proof. In criminal trials, juries must find a defendant guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to convict. One small, but reasonable, doubt can negate a mountain of evidence. But in civil lawsuits, all that is typically necessary is a “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that it is more likely than not that the defendant is guilty. This is far easier to argue.

In fact, Martin’s parents have already filed and settled a wrongful death suit against the homeowners’ association that owns the gated community in which he was killed. As is usually the case in such settlements, the terms are confidential, and the association did not admit guilt in Martin’s death. However, Martin’s parents are said to have previously rejected a settlement offer of $1 million.

Zimmerman could also face federal civil rights charges. The NAACP is petitioning the Department of Justice to file those charges, alleging Zimmerman violated Martin’s civil rights. The DOJ has said they will examine the evidence to determine whether such a violation occurred.

If you need to speak with a wrongful death attorney or lawyer, Call Joyce & Reyes at 1.888.771.1529 or visit more of http://www.joyceandreyespa.com/.

Normally in a criminal trial, the attorneys will invoke the “Rule of Sequestration” that prevents witnesses from being present in the court room when another witness is testifying.  It also prevents the witnesses from talking to each other about the case once the rule is invoked.  The purpose of the rule is to insure that each witness’ testimony is not influenced by what other witnesses say.

So why is Trayvon’s mother allowed to be in the courtroom and watch the proceedings and still testify against George Zimmerman?  There is an exception to the rule.  Florida Statute 90.616 “Exclusion of witnesses” states:

(2) A witness may not be excluded if the witness is:

(d) In a criminal case, the victim of the crime, the victim’s next of kin, the parent or guardian of a minor child victim, or a lawful representative of such person, unless, upon motion, the court determines such person’s presence to be prejudicial.

Also Article I, section 16(b) of the Florida Constitution provides:

Alleged victims of crime or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims, are entitled to the right to be informed, to be present, and to be heard when relevant, at all crucial stages of criminal proceedings, to the extent that these rights do not interfere with the constitutional rights of the accused.

Because her son was a minor at the time of the alleged offense, she can remain in the court room during the entire proceeding.  Davis v. State, 875 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2003).

The Rules of Evidence are extremely important in a criminal case.  Call an experienced Polk criminal lawyer who knows the rules of evidence and will use them to take advantage of the facts in your case.

CALL AND SET YOUR FREE OFFICE CONSULTATION NOW! 

You will not have to drive to another county. Office – Lakeland, Polk County.

 Thomas C. Grajek  863-688-4606

Handling all felony and misdemeanor criminal cases in Polk County, Florida.

Most people gave high marks to the prosecutor for the State’s opening statement.  The prosecutor did an effective job to create emotion with their very first words.  The prosecutor also did a good job of creating a story and images that will stay with the jurors throughout the trial.  I think he used the expletives too much and did not have to repeat them so much, but a very effective job.

The defense on the other hand opened with a “knock, knock” joke.  In a murder trial.  That is a horrendous start in my opinion.  You only get one chance to make a first impression.  The defense made it worse, by harping on the “joke” by saying “C’mon, that was funny.”  A case this serious, with this much controversy, must be treated with respect.  It puts the defense in an early hole in the juror’s minds.  Another complaint by many people was that the defense did not tell a compelling story in opening.  Opening statements are a road map for the jury as to what the case will be about and what evidence the jury can expect to see.  A good defense attorney tries to paint a picture that places the jury at the scene of the incident.  In this case, you want to make the jury feel the fear George Zimmerman would have felt that night.  He is in a dark area, there are repeated criminal episodes in this area, when all of the sudden, a hooded figure turns and bears down George Zimmerman left to wonder what is about to happen to me?!?”  Instead, we remember the “knock, knock joke”.  Hopefully, the defense will get better as the trial continues.

CALL NOW AND SPEAK TO AN EXPERIENCED POLK COUNTY CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER

Office – Lakeland, Polk County.

 Thomas C. Grajek  863-688-4606

Handling all felony and misdemeanor criminal cases in Polk County, Florida including Bartow, Lakeland, Winter Haven, Auburndale, Haines City, and Davenport.