Posted on 05/01/2012 5:49:20 AM PDT by marktwain
BROOKSVILLE — On a sticky summer night in 2010, William Siskos tucked a .22-caliber Ruger in his waistband and walked to a home on Ligonier Road in Spring Hill.
There, in the front yard, he met Joe Kasbach for the first time. In the nine months before that night, Siskos had been dating Kasbach's wife. An argument broke out almost immediately. Within minutes, authorities say, Siskos pulled his gun and fired a round into Kasbach's abdomen. The 46-year-old was pronounced dead at the hospital.
A witness, standing just feet away, told detectives Kasbach never threw a punch or pulled a weapon. Kasbach had spread his arms wide and taken just a half step toward Siskos before, the witness said, he was shot down in cold blood.
But on Monday, two years after the incident, Siskos' public defender told a judge her client had killed Kasbach in self defense. In fact, the attorney argued, Siskos shouldn't even face trial because he had done nothing more that night than stand his ground.
Judges can take days to rule on "stand your ground" motions. In Monday's hearing, which lasted eight hours and included 10 witnesses, Judge Daniel Merritt Jr. decided in just 45 minutes to deny the defense's motion that Siskos, 42, should be immune from prosecution.
The hearing in Siskos' case is a by-product of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law signed in 2005. Though no statistics are kept on how many such hearings have been held in self-defense cases, prosecutors and defense lawyers say they're becoming more common, even when victims suffer minor injuries or defendants have weak self defense cases. They've been filed on behalf of gang members, drug dealers and in spouse abuse cases, sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
"They're almost part of due diligence," said Tampa defense attorney Joe Caimano, who argued a successful "stand your ground" motion before a Hillsborough County judge late last year. His client, a bouncer at a strip club, shot and injured a patron who had thrown a beer bottle in his direction.
In 2010, Florida's Supreme Court ruled that trial judges must hold a hearing any time a defendant asks for it, then make a decision based on the "preponderance of the evidence." That's easier to prove, experts said, than the "reasonable doubt" standard used by juries.
Critics of the law say the mandatory immunity hearing adds costs and complexity to an already overburdened court system.
Monday's hearing may have bolstered that criticism. Costs included the all-day use of a courtroom, a judge, a public defender, two prosecutors, clerks and bailiffs and, for a few hours, one very expensive witness.
Dr. Otsenre E. Matos, a Pasco County psychiatrist who charges $750 an hour for court appearances, had analyzed Siskos and determined that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder because of an injury the defendant suffered as a corrections officer in the late 1990s.
His public defender, Barbara-Jo Bell, argued to the court that the condition had skewed her client's psyche so significantly that, two years ago, Siskos "reasonably believed" he would be killed or suffer great bodily harm — legally justifying deadly force — even though he may not have been in real danger.
In his testimony, Siskos said he carried the gun for protection that night because he was trying to retrieve his girlfriend from a friend's home — a place he described as a "drug house."
As Kasbach left the home, Siskos confronted him in the front yard. During the dispute, the defendant testified, Kasbach punched him once in the mouth and then again in the temple. Dazed from the blows, Siskos said, he fired only after he saw Kasbach reach for a weapon.
Photographs taken of his face the night of the incident show no marks or bruises. Investigators didn't find any weapon at the scene other than Siskos' pistol.
Much of what he said Monday differed from what he told authorities the night of the shooting. The stress disorder, Bell asserted, had distorted his memory back then.
Prosecutors said he's just lying.
"His PTSD didn't play any part in this," said Assistant State Attorney Sonny McCathran. "He went down there and confronted these people … the defendant was the aggressor, therefore he's not entitled to immunity."
Though Merritt ruled against her, Bell said the case she offered to the judge will mimic what she presents to jurors at trial.
The intense national scrutiny on "stand your ground," however, might make finding a jury that will accept her argument more difficult.
"I'm not sure if people are really educated on what the law is," she said. "I think I would be remiss not to bring that up in jury selection."
Times staff writer Kris Hundley contributed to this report. John Woodrow Cox can be reached at (352) 848-1432 or jcox@tampabay.com.
The argument seems to be: We cannot afford judicial scrutiny. It is too expensive. Trials are far more expensive.
If George Zimmerman does not go to trial, then under the Stand Your Ground law, he is immune from civil suit. The Martin's lawyers only chance at a big payout is from a civil suit. They do not have to win at trial, they onloy need to get Zimmerman arrested (first base) and then have the immunity hearing ruled against him (second base). It does not matter if he is found not guilty, because once he goes to trial, he loses immunity from civil suit.
But on Monday, two years after the incident, Siskos' public defender told a judge her client had killed Kasbach in self defense. In fact, the attorney argued, Siskos shouldn't even face trial because he had done nothing more that night than stand his ground.Judges can take days to rule on "stand your ground" motions. In Monday's hearing, which lasted eight hours and included 10 witnesses, Judge Daniel Merritt Jr. decided in just 45 minutes to deny the defense's motion that Siskos, 42, should be immune from prosecution.
Then the law worked as intended. The article goes on to complain about "court costs," but isn't it worth the price of not sending an innocent man to jail?
To the Tampa Bay Times (formerly St. Petersburg Times), no.
So going to trial rather than avoiding one SAVES money??? Bull#hit. And what about the money that really counts, ours? This law helps prevent the system from intimidating someone into pleading to something he shouldn't have to because he's not up to mounting a defense. Avoiding a trial adds to expense, please. You know these idiots are scraping the bottom of the barrel now when they have to trot out stupidity like that.
There are a multitude of laws out there that attorneys use for their clients’ self defense. Stand your ground is only one of them, and right now happens to be the one in the spotlight. The anti-gun people have decided this is their next argument against people being allowed to carry guns.
I had a liberal aquaintence argue this kind of case to me. Saying how people can just up and kill people without any cause and then claim self defense. I asked for any instances of this. He had none (of course). Pointed out a few cases (which then turned out that the SYG defense was denied). Liberals love making up circumstances and fats. It's their MO.
Unfortunately even if he goes to trial and is found to be not guilty, he will not be immune to further prosecution (persecution) from federal criminal charges and if Holder is still in office, you can bet your bottom dollar that he will stand trial on federal criminal charges. Not murder of course, that would be double jeopardy but "hate crimes" or "denial of civil rights".
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 for example.
Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.
Zimmerman is likely to be tried at the federal level too, even if found guilty at the state level.....with the racist Holder still in charge. Gotta throw the book at this "white hispanic", make an example of him, so other uppity whites will know their place in the pecking order.
Good points... let’s hope his attorneys can drag this out until January 20th, 2013.
The expense argument is a particularly odd one.
Apparently the paper believes the state saves money by having a full-blown trial rather than a single-day hearing.
It is also very odd to claim that a law should be repealed because defense attorneys attempt to use it where it doesn’t apply, unsuccessfully in this case. That’s what defense attorneys do. In fact, it’s what they’re supposed to do.
Did you notice the attempt to claim self-defense because the shooter’s perception was damaged by past trauma? I suspect that’s another misapplication. Surely when the law says “reasonably believes” it refers to a rational person, not a delusional one, whose beliefs are by definition not reasonable.
What an idiotic argument against the law. If the "reasonable doubt" standard were used, a lot more defendants would be ruled to have acted in self-defense.
Check out Tactical Gear Mag.com Massad Ayoob did a video that explains Stand your ground perfectly.
Here's another argument, from the Democrat legislator who started his own task force, from Bay News 9:
Monday, state Sen. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, came out with the findings of his own task force, which found that people who fire their guns at others and claim self-defense should still have to face a grand jury.
Grand Jury? Zimmerman could have only been so lucky.
How about a link? I searched the site and couldn’t find it.
I think this is why the lawyers are all excited.
Since stand your ground they have been cut off from the jackpot trial fawcet.
Consider what happens with lazy do nothing prosecutors. These are easy cases for them to make. One person shot and they can intimidate via the 10-20-life laws.
Prosecutors have a terrifying scare and intimidation weapon.
Perhaps we need term limits for all prosecutors. No more than 6 or 8 years at any level of prosecution. No more than 4 as an elected prosecutor.
Personally, I find inappropriate the notion that a prosecutor can make an administrative decision not to file charges in a case involving the death of a human being.
I believe in all such cases there should be some sort of a formal hearing, if only to establish the facts of the case.
Had this been done in the Zimmerman case, it is unlikely it would ever have attained national prominence. The biggest driver was the perception that the cops just patted him on the back and walked away leaving a dead black kid on the ground.
That is almost certainly not what happened in reality, but the law as presently implemented contributed to that perception.
I see your point. I’m also offended that they can skip the grand jury when they want to. What’s the point of having a grand jury system if our employees can bypass us when they don’t think we’ll vote the way they want?
Unless I’m mistaken, such an administrative decision by a DA can be changed by him or a later holder of the office. Charges can be filed at any time up to the point where the statute of limitations kicks in.
IOW, the shooter has that possibility hanging over him for years. I would much prefer to have a court hearing to determine that it was indeed self-defense and future prosecutions are prohibited.
Agreed.
perponderance of the evidence is a much lower threshold to meet. This is intentional. It is 51% vs all reasonble doubt. This is also to kill any civil suit claims and prevent civil trial lawyer jackpot payoffs.
This is part of tort reform.
There should not even be an arrest at the start.
We just have a mob trying to create institutional Nifongs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.