As jury selection began Monday in the trial of George Zimmerman for shooting dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, news reports have swirled with commentary about the race of the jury. If Zimmerman can pack the jury with “white, conservative, pro-conviction jurors,” he increases his odds of winning on a claim of self-defense, defense lawyer Jose Baez told several news outlets.

The tragic death of Martin, a black unarmed teen wearing a hoodie, has sparked national controversy not just over the now-notorious Stand Your Ground law that initially thwarted Zimmerman’s arrest, but also over the role that race plays in this and other so-called self-defense killings, as even President Obama declared, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

But while race may be particularly relevant during this trial, it can play only a very limited role during jury selection. Although potential jurors’ views about race, racism, or related questions may be considered and are particularly important as the lawyers seek to root out bias, any attempt by the lawyers – veiled or otherwise – to eliminate jurors based on their racial identity, is unlawful and can be cause for a challenge to jury selection.

Here’s how it works: During jury selection, both the prosecutor and the defense attorney have the opportunity to question jurors and to exclude them in two ways. Jurors are rejected “for cause” where the lawyers have reason to believe they cannot try the case objectively. The parties can also reject a select number of jurors by “peremptory strike” whom they suspect hold an unfavorable bias. But when using their peremptory strikes, lawyers do not have to provide a reason, which makes it particularly difficult to root out when race or gender played a role in their calculations.

Under a formula set out in a 1985 Supreme Court decision, opposing lawyers who can establish reason to believe race played a role (such as no black jurors in a case, or a history of rejecting black jurors) can raise an inference of discrimination. If, for example, the prosecutor in this case can establish an inference that Zimmerman is explicitly rejecting non-white jurors, the judge will compel Zimmerman to provide a race-neutral reason for the rejection. These reasons, however, pass muster so long as they don’t exhibit intentional racial discrimination. Lawyers often use thinly veiled excuses to reject black jurors, such as “having relatives who attended historically black colleges; for the way they walk; for chewing gum; and, frequently, for living in predominantly black neighborhoods,” according to a 2011 Equal Justice Institute report on jury selection discrimination.

In Florida, state law actually imposes a slightly higher burden than even the federal standard, by requiring the judge to consider whether the race-neutral reason for rejecting a juror was “genuine” via several factors, such as whether other jurors gave similar answers during questioning but were not struck. This has led to some reasonable success, as state appeals courts have overturned 33 criminal cases in which prosecutors struck jurors based on race since the 1985 Supreme Court ruling.

But even under this standard, rooting out intentional jury discrimination has proved difficult where any race-neutral explanation exists. As a consequence, should George Zimmerman’s lawyers heed the advice of Baez or others during jury selection, they might succeed in excluding non-white jurors even in spite of the law.

A Texas jury acquitted a man for the murder of a woman he hired as an escort, after his lawyers claimed he was authorized to use deadly force because she refused sex.

Ezekiel Gilbert shot Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve, after she denied his requests for sex and wouldn’t return the $150 he had paid her, according to the San Antonio Express-News. Under Texas law, an individual is authorized to use deadly force to “retrieve stolen property at night,” and Gilbert’s lawyers cited that provision as justification for Gilbert’s action, reasoning that Frago had stolen $150 from him by taking his money without delivering sex. In a police interview played for jurors, Gilbert “never mentioned anything about theft,” a detective told the San Antonio Express-News. Frago, who was 21, was critically injured and died several months later.

While the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida has generated notoriety for NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws, which authorize the unfettered use of deadly force without a duty to retreat in defense of one’s person or home, Texas’ exceedingly broad law goes well beyond this, to allow deadly force in protection of any piece of “tangible” or “movable” property.

The Texas provision authorizes deadly force not only to “retrieve stolen property at night” but also during “criminal mischief in the nighttime” and even to prevent someone who is fleeing immediately after a theft during the night or a burglary or robbery, so long as the individual “reasonably” thinks the property cannot be protected by other means.

This shockingly broad statute authorizes individuals to take not just law enforcement, but punishment, into their own hands and impose death for alleged offenses that would never warrant the death penalty even if the person were convicted in court. But even in light of the expansive vigilante justice made legal by the statute, it is difficult to see how Gilbert’s behavior was justified, given that escorts are not entitled to deliver sex under the law, and delivering sex for money is an illegal transaction.

(HT: Gawker)

In the months leading up to the trial of the Florida man who sparked national controversy over state Stand Your Ground laws when he shot dead 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, several defendants have escaped criminal liability for deadly shootings under the law. Just last week, a Florida jury acquitted a man who killed his wife’s lover in his home after firing three shots into his head and back. But just months after Trayvon’s death, Florida’s notorious Stand Your Ground law did not spare Marissa Alexander, who fired a mere warning shot into the wall during a violent incident with her husband.

Alexander was sentenced to 20 years in prison last year, after a judge rejected her Stand Your Ground defense and a jury convicted her on three counts of aggravated assault. Alexander’s husband was arrested twice before on misdemeanor battery charges against other women. But authorities said Alexander initiated the 2010 incident and pointed the gun at her husband and two step-sons before firing the warning shot into the ceiling.

Alexander would not have needed a Stand Your Ground law to defend her action. While that law goes so far as to authorize unfettered deadly force in self-defense without a duty to retreat, Alexander used significantly lesser force that would fall under a typical self-defense claim. But the judge’s failure to allow the claim comports with studies that have shown the ALEC and NRA-backed laws are discriminatory and applied arbitrarily. Last week, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission voted to undertake an in-depth investigation into racial bias in Stand Your Ground laws, the first such investigation by the agency in decades.

In the meantime, laws that allow deadly force without any duty to retreat remain the law in at least 21 states, and efforts to repeal or alter the laws have failed thus far. And in spite of outcry from the NAACP and others, Alexander remains in prison.

(HT: EURWeb.com)

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission voted Friday to investigate racial bias in Stand Your Ground laws, the ALEC and NRA-backed statutes that authorize the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense. The vote initiates the first full-blown investigation by the commission in decades, according to Commissioner Michael Yaki.

The announcement comes as trial approaches for George Zimmerman, who sparked national outrage over Stand Your Ground laws when he invoked Florida’s law as a total defense for his shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Police eventually decided to charge Zimmerman, but he may still raise the defense at trial.

Around the country, laws authorize the use of deadly force with no duty to retreat, giving individuals immense discretion to shoot and kill even when other remedies would eliminate fear of assault without costing a life. Just this past month in Alabama, prosecutors opted not to charge a woman who shot a 21-year-old African American outside her home who turned out to be her ex-boyfriend’s step-son, and a jury cleared another defendant who shot a man dead who hit him with a socket wrench.

A 2012 study found that defendants invoking the defense that they were “standing their ground” are significantly more likely to prevail if the victim was black. Other research has found that states with Stand Your Ground laws have more homicides, and that the laws do not deter crime at all.

Although outrage followed the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, no state has since altered or repealed its Stand Your Ground statute, in spite of several attempts.

The commission voted 5-3 in favor of the investigation, the Huffington Post reports, meaning one of the body’s non-Democrats joined with the majority. This is the second year the Commission has voted to hold such an investigation. Last year, it also voted 5-3, with Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican, joining the majority. Yaki told the Huffington Post that they have both the funds and the staff director they lacked last year to move forward with the study.

Earlier this month, a 21-year-old African American approached the home of his step-father’s ex-girlfriend in Jefferson County, Alabama, and ended up dead. The woman who lived in the home said she shot him out of fear for her safety, and as a result, no charges will be filed against her under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law — the same law that gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.

The woman, whose name was not released, said she was out walking her dog when she saw a man run by her home and went inside to get a gun. When she came back out, a man she believed to be the same person was walking down her driveway. She told him to stop, and that she had a gun. But he kept approaching. She shot and he died.

Unfortunately, little else is known about the case, and likely never will be now that the inquiry has ended with the state’s Stand Your Ground law. The woman said she could not identify the man and feared he was planning to attack her. She said she had particular fear because her boyfriend had been recently robbed, according to Jefferson County District Attorney Brandon Falls. The man, Demetrius Antuan Thompson, had no criminal record. He had no known motive for an attack or break-in.

Under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law, the woman had no duty to retreat, and it didn’t matter that she voluntarily came outside with a gun. Even if she only feared second-degree assault (intent and execution of serious physical injury), she was authorized to use deadly force. ”This is a tragic situation, but legally she was justified,” Falls told AL.com.

This is the second case this month in which an individual who fatally shot another will escape any criminal liability under Alabama’s Stand Your Ground law. Another was cleared by a jury after shooting dead a man who hit him with a socket wrench. Even the prosecutor who charged him said, “we felt Scoggins could have just driven away. That he was in no immediate danger.”

Alabama is one of at least nine states that passed the aggressive ALEC and NRA-backed “Stand Your Ground” statute that authorizes unfettered deadly force in self-defense, and one of 21 with a similar law that imposes no duty to retreat when facing an “attacker” in any place where one is lawfully present, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Even after the outrage and movement for reform that followed the tragic death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin more than a year ago, not a single state has successfully repealed or scaled back one of these laws. Earlier this month, a New Hampshire repeal effort that passed the House was blocked by the Republican-led Senate after four months of debate. And even in Florida, a task force dedicated to review the Stand Your Ground law declined to make any changes in spite of several empirical studies associating these laws with an increase in homicides, a disproportionate impact on African Americans, and no deterrent effect.

 

Although possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is illegal, it does not prevent a defendant from invoking the state’s Stand Your Ground law, a Florida appeals court ruled. A three-judge panel held that the controversial law immunized Aaron A. Little from second-degree murder charges, after he shot dead a man who threatened him during an encounter on the street.

The Stand Your Ground law, which gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense. One provision of the law explicitly limits the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat to those “not engaged in an unlawful activity.” But the judges held that this provision need not apply, because other provisions are silent on whether or not the activity must be lawful.

Little’s particular self-defense probably could have been justified under other, less expansive self-defense laws because he both attempted to retreat and entered his home, protected in many states by the “Castle Doctrine” (although there is no evidence that he or others at the scene attempted to call law enforcement).

But this is not required by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, modeled after ALEC and NRA-backed language that has now been adopted by at least 15 other states, and declaring that a person “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground” to prevent great bodily harm or even the commission of a felony. This decision, if upheld would ostensibly allow individuals to claim immunity for deadly force even if used while committing a crime. The intermediate appeals court will not have the final word on this question, as the judges asked the Florida Supreme Court to review the case. But the court is not entirely to blame for this perverse result. The statute is confusing, to say the least, and the court rightly states that a statute should be interpreted most favorably to the accused. The best solution to this problem — in addition to more stringent background checks at both the state and federal level — may be through the state legislature, which has thus far declined to make any substantive changes to the law, in spite of significant empirical evidence that the law is dangerous and ineffective.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives is on a criminal justice roll. Last week, legislators voted to prohibit private prisons. This week, they passed a bill to repeal the ALEC-sponsored Stand Your Ground law, which authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense. The NRA-backed laws, also known as “Kill at Will,” gained notoriety after the tragic killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. Police cited Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as the reason for not initially arresting the suspect in that case. Reuters reports:

The National Rifle Association and gun rights supporters had campaigned to defeat the bill repealing the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, arguing the change would embolden criminals and lead to greater violence against women.

The bill passed by a roll call vote of 189-184 after a heated debate. The proposed change may face tougher odds in the state Senate, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans.

If repealed, the state would return to the so-called “castle doctrine” under which there is a duty to retreat from a threatening situation unless it occurs inside a person’s home. […]

New Hampshire passed a number of laws loosening control on gun usage in 2011, when Republicans commanded large majorities in both chambers. Since regaining control of the House, Democrats have sought to push back on some of these measures.

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy, a Florida committee to reform the bill stacked with lawmakers who first proposed the law did not recommend any substantive changes, in spite of empirical research finding these laws were associated with a significant increase in homicides. Some 21 states have laws establishing that there is no duty to retreat, and at least nine include language stating that one may “stand his or her ground,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The NRA has gone so far to offer insurance to cover the costs of a Stand Your Ground defense.

A Florida man defended his decision to shoot an impatient pizza customer over the weekend, citing the state’s infamous “Stand Your Ground” law.

Michael Jock, a 52-year-old resident of St. Petersburg, was standing in line behind 49-year-old Randall White at a local Little Caesars on Sunday when Jock grew angry over White’s complaints about the speed of service. The two began to shove one another, prompting Jock to pull out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver that had been concealed on his person and fire twice, hitting White both times in the lower torso.

The Tampa Bay Times has more:

After the shooting, both men went outside and waited for police. Jock told officers the shooting was justified under “stand your ground,” [police spokesman Mike] Puetz said.

“He felt he was in his rights,” Puetz said. “He brought it up specifically and cited it to the officer.”

He told officers he feared for his life. He mentioned that he thought White had an object in his hand, then backed off that when officers pressed him. Florida’s “stand your ground law” says people are not required to retreat before using deadly force.

Police, however, disagreed with Jock’s interpretation of the law and arrested him on charges of aggravated battery and firing a weapon within a building.

The Stand Your Ground law that Jock referenced came under intense scrutiny this year after George Zimmerman invoked it to justify his shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin. Multiple studies have found that Stand Your Ground laws increase the number of homicides in a state. Still, such laws are a crown jewel for the National Rifle Association, which has been working tirelessly for years to spread them from state to state.

In the months since the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin drew national attention to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and others like it that authorize the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense, several empirical studies have found these laws are associated with a significant increase in homicides, have a disproportionate impact on African Americans, and do not appear to deter crime at all.

But you wouldn’t know any of this from the draft report coming out of a Florida task force commissioned by Gov. Rick Scott. Following a six-month review, not one of these studies were even incorporated into the task force’s recommendation that the NRA-backed Stand Your Ground law remain largely unchanged. Instead, the recommendation states:

[A]ll persons have a fundamental right to stand their ground and defend themselves from attack with proportionate force in every place they have a lawful right to be and are conducting themselves in a lawful manner.

The task force did recommend that the Legislature review some of the law’s language to clarify what the law means for police, who can claim self-defense, and whether it encourages vigilantism. But for the most part, the recommendation stood as a strong defense of the law that arguably gives perpetrators more authority to shoot and kill than U.S. troops have in war.

The recommendation surprised few stakeholders — among the six lawmakers on the 19-member panel selected by Gov. Scott were two who helped draft the original law, another two who voted for it in 2005, and the chief sponsor of a law prohibiting doctors from asking patients about guns. Three are members of corporate front-group ALEC, which backed the law. Others who have supported gun control legislation say they were excluded from the task force.

In a column published just before the release of the task force’s findings that cites the various academic studies on “Stand Your Ground” laws, Harvard Injury Control Research Center Director David Hemenway, ironically, implores the task force not to “ignore the evidence,” writing:

I was pleased to hear that one of its monthly meetings would be devoted to scholarly research about the effects of the law since its passage in 2005. This was the Task Force’s chance to take scientific evidence into its assessment of what has understandably become an emotionally charged issue.

The Task Force asked the University of Florida to conduct research on the impact of the state’s Stand Your Ground law. Not surprisingly the researchers were unable to draw strong conclusions given the data and the short time frame they were allowed. But frighteningly, the Task Force seemed to take the researchers’ incomplete report as evidence that Stand Your Ground is a good law. Task Force member and Stand Your Ground bill sponsor Rep. Dennis Baxley even went so far as to assert that the data supported his contention that the law is not associated with an increase in violent crime. Contrary to that claim, the best available research evidence indicates that Stand Your Ground laws are dangerous, with few redeeming benefits to society.

The task force still has until March to submit its final recommendations to the Legislature, although the incoming House speaker has already said he would not support major changes to the law.