Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

The recent death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin has garnered national attention for a number of reasons. However, most of the controversy centers on Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Passed in 2005, the law has long been controversial; critics claim that its broad provisions encourage vigilante justice.

For those of you not aware of the facts of the case, they are as follows. On February 26, African-American teen Trayvon Martin was walking to his father's girlfriend's house. Upon seeing the teen walking, neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman called 911 to report a "suspicious person." The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to not follow the boy, but Zimmerman disregarded the request and went after him with 9mm gun. Martin, while on the phone with his girlfriend, noted that Zimmerman was following him and tried to walk away a little faster. He was unarmed, possessing only a bag of Skittles and bottle of iced tea. A struggle ensued, ending when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and the police cut short their initial investigation. It is a genuine possibility that under Florida law, Zimmerman's claim of self-defense could give him absolute immunity from prosecution.

Most states, including Missouri, have what's called the "Castle Doctrine." As we discussed in an earlier post, the Castle Doctrine is a very old legal principle that states a person does not have to retreat in the face of a home invader, and may use "deadly force" when reasonably fearing death or serious bodily harm from the intruder. The term comes from the old saying that "a man's home is his castle." Back in 2007, the Missouri legislature passed a law that made it even easier to invoke the Castle Doctrine. If a person breaks into your home, it is now presumed that a person breaking into your home or vehicle intends to do you harm.

The Florida "Stand Your Ground" law goes a step further. The portion of the law that's being cited as the source of the Martin controversy reads:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Under Florida law, the right to "meet force with force is not only not limited to the home, but also allowed if the perpetrator "reasonably believes" that it's "necessary" to prevent death, great bodily harm to himself or someone else, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. Zimmerman stated that Martin attacked him and absent evidence to the contrary, he could be immune from prosecution. Since the law has passed, the number of "justified killings" has nearly tripled. The reason that this case has garnered so much attention is that there appears to be significant evidence that Zimmerman incited the encounter, that the "self-defense" claim is incredibly weak, and that despite all that, the Stand Your Ground law may make it extremely difficult to prosecute what to many looks like a vigilante murder.

The Castle Doctrine does have its place in American law and is a viable defense for protecting one's home and loved ones. If you find yourself in such a situation, contact our St. Louis criminal defense attorneys today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "'Stand Your Ground Law' at center of Fla. shooting," by The Associated Press, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Self-defense in St. Louis and the impact of the "castle doctrine"
St. Louis City gets Tough on Gun Crimes by Setting High Bonds

As an experienced St. Louis criminal defense lawyer, I can tell you that the vast majority of cases are resolved with a plea bargain long before they ever reach a courtroom. Plea bargains serve prosecutors by efficiently clearing dockets and allowing them to prosecute more cases. They can also be beneficial defendants by allowing them to serve a lesser sentence than what the state would ask for during trial. However, a plea bargain can only be effective if the defendant is aware of it in the first place. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that defense lawyers must inform their clients of any plea offers and give competent advice about whether to accept them. To do otherwise would violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.

The two cases before the court involved a man in Missouri who pleaded guilty to driving without a license, and a Michigan man who was convicted of assault and attempted murder after following his attorney's advice and rejecting a plea bargain.

In the Missouri case, Galin Edward Frye was arrested for driving without a license for the fourth time, a felony. The prosecutor offered two deals, including one that involved pleading to a misdemeanor and a three month recommended sentence. Frye's attorney never told him of the offer, which ultimately led to him entering a guilty plea and getting a three year sentence.

In the Michigan case, Anthony Cooper repeatedly shot a woman, and was charged with four counts, including assault with attempt to murder. The prosecutors offered a plea deal where two of the charges would be dropped and Cooper would serve a maximum of 85 month in prison. Due to incorrect advice from his attorney, Cooper rejected the deal and was sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison.

In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

"This court now holds that, as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the accused... when the defense counsel allowed the offer to expire without advising the defendant or allowing him to consider it, defense counsel did not render the effective assistance the Constitution requires."

Justice Scalia dissented, claiming that the decision was "absurd" and that courts would be inundated with criminals making claims about how their plea bargain rights were violated. He also noted that it was unfair that prosecutors were being punished with extra work due to the errors of defense counsel. In his own dissent, Justice Alito also worried about "[expenditures] of scarce prosecutorial or judicial resources."

Both cases will be sent back down to the lower courts for further disposition. It remains to be seen if this "flood of claims regarding the violation of plea bargain rights" will actually manifest.

If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime in the St. Louis area contact our St. Louis Criminal Defense Firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Court: Lawyers must do good job on plea bargains," by The Associated Press, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
SUPREME COURT REQUIRES WARRANT TO USE GPS TO TRACK PEOPLE
Self-defense in St. Louis and the impact of the "castle doctrine"