In the wake of the Trayvon Martin killing by George Zimmerman on February 26th, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law has come under intense scrutiny. The law, passed by Florida legislators in 2005, allows people to employ deadly force in cases of self-defense where they believe their lives are at risk. (2005 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2005-27) The law’s original Senate sponsor, Durrell Peaden, stated it was crafted after an elderly man from Pensacola shot an intruder who tried to loot his hurricane-ravaged home. George Zimmerman now seeks protection under “Stand Your Ground” by claiming that he feared for his life and that his actions were made in self-defense.

While the facts remain in question, a few observers have opined that “Stand Your Ground” is inapplicable in the Trayvon Martin shooting as George Zimmerman is believed to have followed and later confronted the teenage victim. If correct, Zimmerman may have to rely on common-law self-defense. This will likely raise the question of whether use of deadly force was justifiable under the circumstances. According to Robbins v. State, “A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes such force is necessary to protect one’s self from imminent death or great bodily harm; the circumstances must be such that the defendant had cause to think loss of life or serious injury is imminent.” (891 So.2d 1102)

The primary difference between common-law self-defense and “Stand Your Ground” is the matter of retreat. While “Stand Your Ground” abolished the duty to retreat, common-law self-defense requires one–outside of the home or curtilage–to retreat if possible, and if doing so will avoid the need to use deadly force. (Falco v. State, 407 So. 2d 203)

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Database/Content Category: Florida Hist. Legislative Service (FL-LEGIS-OLD) Search:  “deadly force” & da(2005) (1 doc)

Database/Content Category: Florida Cases (FL-CS) Search: SY,DI(“SELF-DEFENSE” /S “DEADLY FORCE” /S JUSTIF!) % (“NON-DEADLY FORCE” /S “SELF DEFENSE” “NOT JUSTIF!”) (22 Docs) Search: self-defense /s common-law (18 Docs)

Database: BLACKS

Search: curitilage

curtilage (k<<schwa>>r-t<<schwa>>-lij). (14c) The land or yard adjoining a house, usu. within an enclosure. • Under the Fourth Amendment, the curtilage is an area usu. protected from warrantless searches. — Also termed (in Latin) curtillium. See open-fields doctrine. Cf. messuage. [Cases: Searches and Seizures27.]

Warner Brother’s The Hangover II features a monkey involved in drug trafficking, an eccentric “stay-at-home son,” and an international criminal with an insatiable appetite for drugs and debauchery.  There is also a very recognizable tribal facial tattoo.  There is at least one person for whom that last detail is no laughing matter.

S. Victor Whitmill is the visual artist who created the Maori-inspired tribal tattoo adorning the face of former champion pugilist “Iron” Mike Tyson.  Whitmill was not pleased to see his work reproduced on the face of actor Ed Helms in The Hangover II without his consent.  His displeasure led him to file a complaint for copyright infringement (2011 WL 2038147) in the United States District Court for Missouri.  The suit has led to a novel legal question regarding the ability to copyright a tattoo.  On May, 24, 2011, Judge Catherine D. Perry denied Whitmill’s preliminary injunction in an oral opinion.  The denial notwithstanding, Judge Perry opined that Whitmill had a “strong likelihood for prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement.” 

Research Referneces:

Articles pertaining to this legal issue may be found on Westlaw in the ALLNEWS database using this Terms & Connectors query: “HANGOVER II” /P COPYRIGHT /P TATTOO

Topical slice databases make searching for facts much easier.  For example, try this simple query in Federal Intellectual Property – Copyright database (FIPC-CS): tattoo (29 results).

The Conspirator, a film directed by the venerated Robert Redford and released April 2011, treats the military tribunal conviction of Mary Surratt for conspiring in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.  For those unfamiliar with the story, Mrs. Surratt was proprietor of the boarding house frequented (and sometimes lived in) by John Wilkes Booth, and she was the mother of John Surratt, a Booth confederate and alleged conspirator.  Tried by a military tribunal with more lenient rules of evidence, no jury of peers, and no presumption of innocence, Mrs. Surratt’s case reached a conclusion fairly described as pre-determined.  She was convicted and hanged in 1865.  Mary Surratt holds the unenviable distinction of being the first woman executed by the United States government.

In the aftermath of Mary Surratt’s execution, questions were raised regarding military authority over civilians.  Ultimately, these questions would be answered by a case before the United States Supreme Court in 1866.  The case, Ex Parte Milligan (1866 WL 9434 subscription required), held that martial law was acceptable “on the theatre of active military operations” where civil courts do not function.  However, where civil courts remain in operation, civilians may not be tried by military tribunal; they must be allowed to avail themselves of the courts and of the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution, “a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace.”

Ex Parte Milligan is hailed as a landmark case for its protection of civil rights.  The story of Mary Surratt, once obscure, is gaining in popularity and spawning debate of her guilt or innocence.  Readers interested in reviewing the Milligan case may access it on Westlaw.  You may also find other cases and secondary sources pertaining to military topics in the MIL-TP (Military Texts and Periodicals) and MJ (Military Justice Cases)* databases.   And for you film buffs, take a minute to peruse Roger Ebert’s review of The Conspirator.

Other Sources / Research

*An interesting case NOT found in the MJ database (coverage begins in 1951), does provide some clues as to where to find documents related to the Surratt trial.  See 27 F.Cas. 1367:

 The trial of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt and others for the murder of Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States, was by military commission sitting in Washington, D. C., in May, 1865. The trial of John H. Surratt was by the criminal court of the District of Columbia, in June, 1867.

As decisions by the military courts and the courts of the District of Columbia after their reorganization under the act of March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. 764), are not included in this series, the reader is referred to the pamphlet reports of these trials, which can be found at many of the larger libraries. The trial of Mrs. Mary E. Surratt and others it sometimes denominated the ‘Conspiracy Trials.’

Westlaw Database: jlr

Query: mary /3 surratt

Results: 32

Also check out the official site’s resource center.