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If repealed, the state would return to the so-called “castle doctrine” under which there is a duty to retreat from a threatening situation unless it occurs inside a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

It’s been nearly a year since George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old on his way back to his father’s townhouse. In the weeks following the shooting, the story captured the nation’s attention, culminating with Zimmerman being charged with second-degree murder last April.

But as the story has receded from the headlines, the legal case has plodded along and the trial is likely to be completed this summer. Here’s what you may have missed:

1. Zimmerman has spent over $300,000 in donations over the last year and is desperate for more funds to finance his defense. Zimmerman has “spent more than $125,000″ on living expenses — not including security — over the last year. His lawyer acknowledged that “Zimmerman’s personal spending may seem exorbitant.” Zimmerman is considering asking the court to declare him “indigent, meaning the public would have to pay for Zimmerman’s defense.” Zimmerman was also sued by a security company for unpaid bills. [Orlando Sentinel, 1/20/2013; Miami Herald, 12/27/12]

2. The trial has been set for June 10. Zimmerman recently asked for a delay of the trial until November but a judge denied his request. Zimmerman’s lawyer says it is “physically impossible for us to be prepared” for trial at that time. A separate proceeding, essentially a mini-trial, to determine whether Zimmerman is immune from prosecution due to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, is scheduled for April 22. [Orlando Sentinel, 2/5/13; Headline News, 2/13/13]

3. New forensic analysis “casts doubt on Zimmerman’s timeline on the night he shot and killed the unarmed teen.” The analysis was done by “Michael Knox, a retired Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office detective and crime scene investigator.” According to Knox, “based on the times and distances Zimmerman said he covered, Zimmerman would have still been on the phone with Sanford police when he claims he was attacked by Martin.” Knox says that other aspects of Zimmerman’s story, like the claim Martin was leaning over him at the time the shot was fired, are supported by forensic evidence. [News 4 Jacksonville, 2/10/13]

4. Zimmerman has gained 105 pounds. [Orlando Sentinel, 1/20/2013]

Zimmerman in February 2013. AP Images.

5. The defense team acquired Trayvon Martin’s school records. According to Zimmerman’s lawyers “some information in Trayvon Martin’s file could be relevant in the defense of George Zimmerman.” State prosecutors and the Martin family attorney opposed Zimmerman’s efforts to acquire the records arguing “because Zimmerman did not know Trayvon before the Feb. 26 shooting, the teen’s past was not a factor in the case.” [Orlando Sentinel, 1/16/13]

6. Zimmerman is suing NBC News. In the suit, Zimmerman claims NBC unfairly portrayed him as a “racist and predatory villain.” [ABC News, 12/6/12]

7. The judged denied Zimmerman’s request to be removed from GPS tracking. [Fox Orlando, 12/11/12]

8. Trayvon Martin would have turned 18 on February 5. [Huffington Post, 2/5/13]

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.

When police investigated the death of Brian Epp, they determined that John McNeil was merely acting in self-defense when he shot Epp for allegedly loitering on his property, threatening him and his 19-year-old son with a knife. They didn’t charge him with any crime. But 274 days later, McNeil was prosecuted and sentenced to life in prison, theGrio explains:

The case relates to events on December 6, 2005, when McNeil received a distress call from his teenage son that a man was lurking around in their backyard.

“John called 911 and told the police he was on his way home,” said his wife, who is living with advanced stage cancer. According to testimony, the man, Brian Epp, a hired contractor with whom McNeil had past disagreements, had already pulled out a knife on McNeil’s 19-year-old son.

When McNeil returned home, Epp, who is white, refused to leave, despite being asked several times. McNeil and eye-witnesses testified that he fired a warning shot but when Epp charged towards him with his hand in his pocket he shot out in self-defense.

Witnesses corroborated this account, as well as McNeil’s fear of Epps. A couple who had also hired Epps testified at trial that they carried a gun around him because of his threatening behavior. Nevertheless, McNeil, a black property owner who has now been in jail for almost six years for the death of a white trespasser, lost his appeal before the Supreme Court in 2008.

McNeil’s case is, in many respects, the mirror image of the infamous shooting of Trayvon Martin earlier this year. In Florida, a “Stand Your Ground” law that often enables shooters to literally get away with murder initially protected George Zimmerman from prosecution, although he has since been charged with second-degree murder, and Zimmerman could still escape justice because of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. McNeil, on the other hand, has now lost six years of his life in spite of what appears to be a much clearer case of self-defense under Georgia’s “Castle Doctrine,” a more limited law that permits the use of deadly force to defend one’s own property.

Civil rights groups are now calling for McNeil’s immediate release, pointing to the Trayvon Martin case to show that laws intended to apply equally to all races discriminate against African Americans whether they are the alleged perpetrator or the victim.

“We are victims at both ends of the gun,” said Marcus Coleman, who leads the Atlanta chapter of the National Action Network.

The mayor of McNeil’s hometown, Wilson, N.C., has also joined in calling for McNeil’s release. In a letter to Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal, he said, “I have read the entire trial transcript and I believe it’s clear that John only acted to protect his family.”

In the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion, the one dissenting justice, Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, wrote unequivocally that McNeil should have been protected by Georgia’s “Castle doctrine,” writing: “the evidence was overwhelming in showing that a reasonable person in McNeil’s shoes would have believed that he was subject to an imminent physical attack by an aggressor possessing a knife and that it was necessary to use deadly force to protect himself from serious bodily injury or a forcible felony.”

McNeil, who had no other criminal history, has a second appeal pending. If he loses that, he will have to file a clemency request with the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.

“The John McNeil case is unique in the Southern and American criminal justice system,” said Rev. William Barber, president of the North Carolina NAACP, in an interview with theGrio. “You just can’t find a case where a black man on his property shoots a white armed aggressor and the black man is defended by two senior white detectives, white eyewitnesses, a black female Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court, all who challenge the conclusion of and prosecution by a white DA.”