Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
There is no right to a jury in civil trials in state court.
Okay, now you're just outright wrong and I say...need to check things a bit more carefully. It took me a couple minutes to find, but only a couple.
Your client has a constitutional right, in both civil and criminal cases, to have his or her case heard and decided by an “impartial” jury.
See Florida Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 22 and Section 16.
This fundamental right to an impartial jury is the same in both civil and criminal cases. State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984); City of Miami v.
Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3DCA 1985). The trial lawyer must be aware of Florida Statute 913.12 which states: “The qualifications of jurors in
criminal cases shall be the same as their qualifications in civil cases.” The “burden of proof” may be different between civil and criminal
cases, but the qualifications of jurors are not!
The status of the right to a jury in a civil trial is determined by the Constitution or laws of each state. In the state of Florida, it absolutely is
a basic right to have a jury at a civil trial and while the rules of evidence ARE different, the rules regarding the requirements to produce evidence
for the case sure aren't more lenient. We'd have learned the truth and on the record of open court for all to read themselves, forever.
Before there were any civil proceedings the HOA's insurance company offered 1 million to Martin's family. They refused that offer.
Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara said in February that Trayvon’s parents attempted to settle, but they rejected an offer of $1 million from
the association or its insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America.
"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," Travelers said in a statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners
association and/or the property managers."
Indeed they did. It's interesting to see that a single company was turned down but now multiple companies, as the statement there suggests it's
plural, were fine to settle with. Hmm.. I wonder if it wasn't more like a million PER. Who knows... Cash was the play though. Truth got kicked to the
curb of personal wealth. I, for one, had been hoping for some truth in civil court from the start on this. A good amount about other high profile
cases wouldn't be known or known as widely without civil cases in the past.
If something horrible happened to one of your family members, and you felt a party was liable for that event, and the only place you COULD hit
them was the wallet - you really wouldn't?
I guess that would depend 100% on circumstances. I'll say what I would NOT do is sell principle for establishing what happened in a wrongful death (as
the basis of this suit) for the quick pay of a pile of cash.
EVERYTHING about this society has become about cash ...and as the first part of my reply indicates, truth WAS to be had here, by simply not settling
and going to trial. Cash also would have come as part of THAT path too. It just would not have been the quickest or easiest path. One of my family
members would deserve my effort for their memory. Just that one last time.
I agree, no amount of money can replace a lost life... But what else can be given for reparation?
If the HOA was REALLY liable in any logical (not legal technicality) way, the policy change, public admission of guilt and then.....and only then ...
Perhaps they do pay for what they would have just been forced to admit to. Absolutely if it took all that to get that admission and positive action
toward insuring it could never happen again.
The criminal case sure won't have impact on whether policies change for those who didn't become millionaires and still live there. I don't know if the
HOA really was liable or not...no one ever really will, either.
The best system money can buy ,,,into silence, entirely too often.
edit on 7-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: Corrections to quoting