Search

Many critics of stand your ground law are motivated by the inaccurate belief that it gives Floridians a license to kill and a get-out-of-jail-free card before trial ever begins. This is a severe misinterpretation of Florida law. Stand your ground does not allow a person to kill anyone who makes him feel threatened, and it certainly does not grant defendants immunity from criminal prosecution based solely on their subjective fear of the victim. However, there still exists an aspect of stand your ground that is in obvious need of critical review and reform: self-defense jury instructions. This comment proposes that to function effectively and justly, Florida jurors acting as decision-makers in criminal trials must be reminded that they inadvertently operate with subconscious bias, and more importantly, that those biases have no place in the courtroom or in their verdict. Accordingly, in self-defense cases where race is at the heart of the issue, courts should refrain from using a color-blind approach--by banning discussions of race from the courtroom--and, instead, should adopt model jury instructions that explicitly prohibit race from being a part of the factual determination that the use of deadly force in self-defense was or was not reasonable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses what the author refers to as the problems that defendants in direct criminal appeals proceedings can have when trying to raise issues involving jury instructions that were not preserved during trial court matters, and it mentions how preservation is required to promote judicial economy and trial judge neutrality. Ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims and errors during trials are examined, along with Florida's courts and laws.

The article discusses the Florida Supreme Court's decision on June 6, 2013 to approve jury instructions for use in contract and business litigation cases, focusing on appellate attorneys in Florida and jury trials in the state. It states that Florida's Committee on Standard Jury Instructions--Contract and Business Cases was comprised of Florida Supreme Court justices, trial attorneys, and other appellate judges. Breaches of contract, implied contracts, and affirmative defenses are examined.

The article discusses criminal litigation in Florida and the reportedly unnecessary limitations of the state's collateral crimes jury instructions as of December 2013, focusing on the Florida Supreme Court, special jury-related instructions, and the Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases. Material facts and the admissibility of collateral crimes evidence are mentioned, along with juries in Florida and criminal cases involving allegations of child molestation.

The article discusses the Florida Supreme Court's definition of fundamental error, particularly the faulty jury instructions. It is stated that an improper instruction not only violates the Fifth Amendment Due Process rights of the accused to a fair trial, but also the derivative Sixth Amendment jury trial right. Furthermore, the article summarizes common scenarios where fundamentally erroneous jury instructions may arise.

The article presents the 2013-2014 annual report of the Florida Bar Association's Civil Procedure Rules Committee. Topics include the questions stemming from the Florida Supreme Court case Pino v. Bank of New York, the proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the rules regarding jury instruction.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Broadening Horizons: The Unnecessary Limitations of Florida's Collateral Crimes Jury Instructions" which appears in the December 2013 issue.