Trayvon Martin Case

[mlmpetert]

So as im starting to think ole Z might get off in the criminal trial I start wondering about the likelihood Zimmerman has in winning a civil suite (prob not great). And I do one of those internet searches and I read this:

Zimmerman to argue self-defense, won't seek stand-your-ground hearing - CNN.com

If you guys remember Zimmerman waived his right to a "pre-trial" "stand your ground" review/request in which he could seek immunity towards criminal AND civil liability from a judge. However, based of off the linked article, now I cant help but to think that theres a chance that this thing wont even go to jury decision.

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

To me it sounds like Z's defense team is thinking we got 2 trials in 1 going on right now; 1) to throw the whole thing out based off of the stand your ground rights, and 2) if that doesn't work then let the jury decide. Am I correct in the thinking that nothing was really waived by Z's defense team, rather the stand your ground review was just postponed?

Also, any ideas as to what type of civil liability Z is at risk of? I suspect Martin's family could be awarded a huge payout from a jury but wouldn't the big bucks be from punitive damages? And arnt punitive damages dispensable through bankruptcy? Whats the compensatory damages for killing someone when little to no medical bills were incurred?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

To the law guys out there, am I right in assuming that if things are going the defense's way that they will very likely ask the judge to make an immunity or affirmative defense or other type of ruling that prevents or limits criminal or civil liability before jury deliberations even start?

i can only tell you maryland law. there is a strange twist.

1) if a person pays a traffic fine by mail = cant use in civil trial (this only applied to fine traffic citations and not murder) reason is that the person may have just paid the fine out of convenience and it is not considered an admission of guilt

2) if a person pleads guilty in open court = can be used as admissible evidence of negligence in the civil trial

3) if the person pleads not guilty and is found guilty after a trial = the conviction can not be used in the civil trial as evidence of negligence. the person's statements under oath (if they took the stand) can be used in the civil trial for impeachment/inconsistent statement issues if they arise in the civil trial.

its weird, you would think that if a person was found guilty where the burden of proof was the highest standard of "beyond a reas doubt", that it surely should be admissible for a civil trial with the lesser burden of proof being a "preponderance of evidence" = is something more likely than not likely = 51% true vs 49% not true.