George Zimmerman is now suing Trayvon Martin’s family for $100 million

[Anchored]

The Martins should have sued HIM in a wrongful death suit!

One of the attorneys for his parents say that because there is no statute of limitations for wrongful death lawsuits, because he has no money now, they haven’t sued him. If he ever tries to do a book or movie etc that earns him money, they will sue then. Can’t get blood from a rock, he would file bankruptcy now if there were a judgement against him. Gotta wait til he tries to cash in.

 

[bcla]

Well, I am not a lawyer, but the Judge's instructions on the law in the civil case I was on made a specific point of saying that the jury could not under any circumstances consider how we felt about any of the lawyers, or anything that may have come up in the trial about the lawyers. Just the evidence presented, and the credibility of those presenting it on the witness stand.

Klayman’s filings are always filled with claims of conspiracy theories and questionable legal theories. I’ve noted that he’s specifically been barred from ever appearing before a certain Chinese-American judge for questioning his impartiality simply based on race.

What I’m saying is that he’ll file lawsuits that stand no chance of winning based on ideological grounds. I mean, he announced his own “indictment” of a federal prosecutor. Larry Klayman is a crackpot attorney of last resort. He doesn’t seem to win many cases.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Yes I completely understand. I think that people who understand JURIES understand there is risk in letting a case like this go to trial before a jury. I disagree, his chances of winning are not slim to none, at this point I'd say 50-50 given the political pressure to prosecute. Ultimately his prosecution may not have been malicious, but the certainly was not well executed.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...fense/suing-for-damages-malicious-prosecutionhttps://www.alllaw.com/articles/nol...uits-malicious-prosecution-abuse-process.html

Well your statements indicate that you don't.

Yes, exactly. So given the lower standard, under the law, George Zimmerman would win this civil suit.

Again in the criminal case the burden was the state's beyond a reasonably doubt. For the criminal trial, Zimmerman only had to create reasonable doubt. He didn't actually have to prove anything. This time, he is the plaintiff and he is going to have to prove by preponderance of the evidence, the conspiracy he alleges and that people lied and that he was damaged. So for Zimmerman, that is a much higher standard of proof for him to win his civil case as the plaintiff than it was to beat the rap in the criminal case as the defendant, not a lower one.

 

[bcla]

Well your statements indicate that you don't.



Again in the criminal case the burden was the state's beyond a reasonably doubt. For the criminal trial, Zimmerman only had to create reasonable doubt. He didn't actually have to prove anything. This time, he is the plaintiff and he is going to have to prove by preponderance of the evidence, the conspiracy he alleges and that people lied and that he was damaged. So for Zimmerman, that is a much higher standard of proof for him to win his civil case as the plaintiff than it was to beat the rap in the criminal case as the defendant, not a lower one.

I think it’s pretty telling that he’s going to Larry Klayman for representation.

While it’s not ”proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt”, that doesn’t mean it’s easy or that it’s a coin flip. I’ve rarely heard of malicious prosecution cases being successful. A county prosecutor has ample resources to defend itself. This is more a sound bite lawsuit. I doubt that an attorney expecting to collect would take this.

 

[tvguy]

Well your statements indicate that you don't.



Again in the criminal case the burden was the state's beyond a reasonably doubt. For the criminal trial, Zimmerman only had to create reasonable doubt. He didn't actually have to prove anything. This time, he is the plaintiff and he is going to have to prove by preponderance of the evidence, the conspiracy he alleges and that people lied and that he was damaged. So for Zimmerman, that is a much higher standard of proof for him to win his civil case as the plaintiff than it was to beat the rap in the criminal case as the defendant, not a lower one.

Yes, Zimmerman didn't have to do anything in the criminal case, it was entirely up to the DA. But the standard of proof in Civil Court is much LOWER than Criminal court. As the Judge in the Civil case I was on put it, "in civil case, the plaintiff just has to tip the scales of Justice a hair in their favor to prove their case"
From a practical standpoint, if he wins, I doubt the defendants have the money he is seeking. And, yes, while a jury can't consider the attorney in the case, the attorney does have a poor record of winning cases, but a excellent record of getting new facts revealed in the discovery portion of the case. That may be what this suit is all about. Getting information about the criminal case that has not been made public, in the public domain.

 

[bcla]

Yes, Zimmerman didn't have to do anything in the criminal case, it was entirely up to the DA. But the standard of proof in Civil Court is much LOWER than Criminal court. As the Judge in the Civil case I was on put it, "in civil case, the plaintiff just has to tip the scales of Justice a hair in their favor to prove their case"
From a practical standpoint, if he wins, I doubt the defendants have the money he is seeking. And, yes, while a jury can't consider the attorney in the case, the attorney does have a poor record of winning cases, but a excellent record of getting new facts revealed in the discovery portion of the case. That may be what this suit is all about. Getting information about the criminal case that has not been made public, in the public domain.

The thing about Klayman is that he's well known for filing suits that he won't win in order to harass people on ideological grounds.

But it's still not an issue of standard of proof. Preponderance of evidence is about who one believes. But it's not a coin flip. They also have to have the law on their side, and it's not going to help if the rationale for the lawsuit is defective. On top of that, discovery works both ways. As soon as this goes to discovery (if it isn't already tossed by a judge as many legal analysts predict), there's Zimmerman worrying about disclosing all sorts of things about himself.

 

[Heather07438]

How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?
Take your foot off his head

Kidding of course, not all lawyers are gross but 95% of lawyers give the rest a bad name! lol

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

Yes, Zimmerman didn't have to do anything in the criminal case, it was entirely up to the DA. But the standard of proof in Civil Court is much LOWER than Criminal court. As the Judge in the Civil case I was on put it, "in civil case, the plaintiff just has to tip the scales of Justice a hair in their favor to prove their case"
From a practical standpoint, if he wins, I doubt the defendants have the money he is seeking. And, yes, while a jury can't consider the attorney in the case, the attorney does have a poor record of winning cases, but a excellent record of getting new facts revealed in the discovery portion of the case. That may be what this suit is all about. Getting information about the criminal case that has not been made public, in the public domain.

You keep saying it's an easier burden of proof but you still don't get it. The burden of proof has switched. Before it was on the prosecution. Now it's on Zimmerman. Tipping the scales in his favor is a harder standard for Zimmerman than merely preventing the other side from tipping them all the way beyond a reasonable doubt, not an easier one. Further, it isn't just about tipping the scales. The law has to be applied correctly as well. Simply because Zimmerman was acquitted doesn't mean he's going to win here.

The thing about Klayman is that he's well known for filing suits that he won't win in order to harass people on ideological grounds.

But it's still not an issue of standard of proof. Preponderance of evidence is about who one believes. But it's not a coin flip. They also have to have the law on their side, and it's not going to help if the rationale for the lawsuit is defective. On top of that, discovery works both ways. As soon as this goes to discovery (if it isn't already tossed by a judge as many legal analysts predict), there's Zimmerman worrying about disclosing all sorts of things about himself.

I don't think they're really out to win a lawsuit. They're out to make big bucks on the bigot bucks circuit and/or conspiracy fantasy circuit. What are the chances you think that the crackpot lawsuit specialist banks some coin and the book writers and movie makers bank some coin and Zimmerman ends up used?

How do you keep a lawyer from drowning?

Throw him an anvil.

 

[bcla]

I don't think they're really out to win a lawsuit. They're out to make big bucks on the bigot bucks circuit and/or conspiracy fantasy circuit. What are the chances you think that the crackpot lawsuit specialist banks some coin and the book writers and movie makers bank some coin and Zimmerman ends up used?

I'm pretty sure I've hinted as such - that he's not really out to win the case. He's also staring at a possible 2+ ban on his practicing of law in DC.

 

[tvguy]

You keep saying it's an easier burden of proof but you still don't get it. The burden of proof has switched. Before it was on the prosecution. Now it's on Zimmerman. Tipping the scales in his favor is a harder standard for Zimmerman than merely preventing the other side from tipping them all the way beyond a reasonable doubt, not an easier one. Further, it isn't just about tipping the scales. The law has to be applied correctly as well. Simply because Zimmerman was acquitted doesn't mean he's going to win here.


I don't think they're really out to win a lawsuit. They're out to make big bucks on the bigot bucks circuit and/or conspiracy fantasy circuit. What are the chances you think that the crackpot lawsuit specialist banks some coin and the book writers and movie makers bank some coin and Zimmerman ends up used?


Throw him an anvil.

No I get that. In my experience with civil cases, it is not uncommon for a plaintiff to prove their case, but the defendant only being found to be a tiny bit responsible, which is where you end up with $1 damage awards.

 

[bcla]

No I get that. In my experience with civil cases, it is not uncommon for a plaintiff to prove their case, but the defendant only being found to be a tiny bit responsible, which is where you end up with $1 damage awards.

This isn't a negligence case where it's about splitting liability or where they might think there's not much damage from the liability. I'm pretty sure you've followed a number of libel cases, which are very hard to win. And malicious prosecution is extremely rarely won.