Interesting and helpful analysis. You may be right about ineffective assistance of counsel. O’Mara was doing some fancing dancing with SYG. Here’s his explanation of why he didn’t bring it in under SYG explcitly, but was looking at getting an immunity hearing anyway:
“If the “Stand Your Ground” portion of the law was to be applied to the Zimmerman Case, even if George had an ability to retreat, he would not be required to do so before utilizing deadly force. In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the “Stand Your Ground” “benefit” given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George’s case: it is traditional self-defense. Of course, the immunity provision still does apply, and we will take full advantage of the immunity afforded by the Florida Legislature.”
Honestly, I do not understand his analysis. I would think SYG would still apply to at least some of the scenarios leading up to the moment when the gun was fired.
What I cannot recall is whatever happened to this immunity hearing. Did it just not happen? If not, why not, because O’Mara was clearly considering it at one point. I don’t know the pretrial timeline.
Let me try again - The SYG applies in any case claiming self-defense. Since the defendant is immune from arrest, prosecution and civil liablity the LEOs must first establish probable cause that the defendant committed a crime.
Once charged, the dismissal hearing is available to short-circuit all the hoorah of a trial to quickly determine if the actions of the defendant were legitimate self-defense. If so, case dismissed and the family of the “victim”cannot sue him for damages. Another plus. ;-)