Florida Stand Your Ground Law Ruled Unconstitutional

[adit]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/0...ound-law-ruled-unconstitutional-by-judge.html

Florida’s updated “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law is unconstitutional, a Miami judge ruled on Monday.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that lawmakers overstepped their authority in modifying the law this year to force prosecutors to disprove a defendant’s self-defense claim at a pre-trial hearing.

Activist Judge apparently....Holding inmates for ICE is unconstitutional
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...es-ice-unconstitutional-florida-judge-n728786

 

[j_h_smith]

Just another bump in the road. This will be overturned.

Shame it has to be done this way.

 

[swinokur]

George Zimmerman weeps.

Trayvon would if he could.

 

[j_h_smith]

George Zimmerman weeps.

Trayvon would if he could.

Oh, he's weeping.... Just not tears. More like skin.

Sorry, just had to.

 

[Rab1515]

So let me get this straight. The judge is claiming the law is unconstitutional, because it exists??? Legislators cannot legislate or it's infringing on the juditial branch?

 

[swinokur]

i think what the judge ruled against was the requirement the the stand your ground defense had to be raised in a preliminary hearing, and not the actual trial.

or I could be talking out of my a$$ as I have done before.

 

[Rab1515]

i think what the judge ruled against was the requirement the the stand your ground defense had to be raised in a preliminary hearing, and not the actual trial.

What difference would that make? The legislators are allowed to legislate, and the goal of that law was to avoid unnecessary prosecutions.

 

[swinokur]

did you read the last sentence in my post?

 

[j_h_smith]

As I read it and IANAL, I believe the judge feels that the law could not amended by legislation, it had to be amended by the Florida Supreme Court. I'm not sure I understand his point of view, but again, IANAL.

“As a matter of constitutional separation of powers, that procedure cannot be legislatively modified,” Hirsch wrote.

I believe what the judge is saying is that since the Florida Supreme Court ruled on the existing law, the legislature could not amend the law to put the burden of proof on the state. However I do believe that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not sure how this judge can make this ruling.

The Florida Supreme Court had ruled in 2015 to shift the burden to defendants, requiring them to prove in pretrial hearings that they were defending themselves in order to avoid prosecution on charges for a violent act.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott signed the amended legislation, backed by the National Rifle Association, into effect in June. Prosecutors were vehemently against the updated law because they believed it made it easier for defendants to get away from murder. Prosecutors also had to provide "clear and convincing" evidence that a defendant was not using the force as an act of self-defense.

 

[Rab1515]

As I read it and IANAL, I believe the judge feels that the law could not amended by legislation, it had to be amended by the Florida Supreme Court. I'm not sure I understand his point of view, but again, IANAL.


I believe what the judge is saying is that since the Florida Supreme Court ruled on the existing law, the legislature could not amend the law to put the burden of proof on the state. However I do believe that you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. So I'm not sure how this judge can make this ruling.

So legislation in FL must be approved by the FL SC as constitutional? I could theoretically see some one changing a law, the court putting a stay on the law, then ruling in favor of said law. But if the law changed that wouldn't change the ruling. Maybe i am missing something.

 

[j_h_smith]

So legislation in FL must be approved by the FL SC as constitutional? I could theoretically see some one changing a law, the court putting a stay on the law, then ruling in favor of said law. But if the law changed that wouldn't change the ruling. Maybe i am missing something.

Makes no sense to me either, but I think that' what the judge is trying to convey.

 

[GTOGUNNER]

From what I gather, the burden was put on the defendant to prove it was a good shoot, and the judge said NO. This is a good ruling.

Sent from the 3rd Rock

 

[Biggfoot44]

The inderlieing parts of the law were not changed by any of this regarding an outcome * at Trial * . What all of this current business is about is the procedures of asserting Self Defense to avoid having a Trial .

The 2015 Fla Decision ruled that * If * the defendant wished to avoid a Trial, the Defendant had the burden at Preliminary Hearing to show SD .

The Legislation stated the prosecutor had burden to prove was NOT Self Defense at preliminary hearing . The current judicial ruling was that the Legislature did not have authority to dictate that question of procedure for Preliminary Hearings . Personally I think the Legislature does, but we'll see in the Appeals .

A Defendant does not have to assert a defense at preliminary hearing. Not asserting Self Defense or any other defense at Preliminary Hearing does not limit Defendant from doing so at Trial.

 

[MDFF2008]

So it sounds like the actual law itself isn't impacted, just the way its applied to the pre-trail hearings.

 

[swinokur]

which is kinda what I said earlier.

 

[Mr H]

I can't understand why folks are still trying to bring up the Zimmerman case WRT the SYG laws...

SYG was never invoked during Zimmerman!

 

[swinokur]

Because the media did

 

[randian]

I believe what the judge is saying is that since the Florida Supreme Court ruled on the existing law, the legislature could not amend the law to put the burden of proof on the state.

If so, it's absurdly wrong. Legislatures amend law to reverse court rulings all the time. It has never been considered outside the legislature's power before.

 

[Boxcab]

MDS member Andrew Branca has a write-up on this,

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/0...lf-defense-immunity-law-are-unconstitutional/


.

 

[j_h_smith]

Just as we all thought, a grandstanding judge trying to make a name for himself over the 4th of July holiday.

Outstanding. He should be disbarred and removed from the bench.