Marissa Alexander denied ‘stand your ground’ hearing
Judge: ‘New evidence’ isn’t really new
July 21 2014
A motion for a second “stand your ground” hearing for Marissa Alexander has been denied, in a ruling made Friday by Judge James Daniel.
Alexander’s new defense lawyers argued they had new evidence to present, including a recanting of statements made by the son of Alexander’s estranged husband, the night she fired a shot into the wall next to where he was standing with both sons.
Daniel said the so-called new evidence brought forth by Alexander’s defense lawyers isn’t really new and that the material facts of the case haven’t changed since the first stand your ground hearing.
Daniel said while the stand your ground law has been changed by the Legislature with the “warning shot” amendment — which grants immunity to people with clean criminal records who fire a warning shot or threaten to use deadly force in self-defense — it cannot be applied retroactively.
Mainly, Daniel said while the appeals court granted Alexander, 33, a new trial because of faulty jury instructions, it upheld the denial of the first stand your ground petition.
Specifically to that point, Daniel notes the appeals court said the question whether Alexander is entitled to immunity from prosecution via stand your ground “is no longer open for debate because that issue was definitely resolved … after a full and fair evidentiary hearing in a ruling that has now been affirmed by this court.”
In his motion for a second stand your ground hearing, defense attorney Bruce Zimet said Alexander would be subject to “manifest injustice” should he not have the opportunity to present new evidence. Daniel said all of what he calls new evidence was presented at trial, including the recanting of statements by Rico Gray’s son, who said he was pressured to lie by his father.
Alexander remains on home detention, having posted $200,000 bond. Her trial is scheduled for Dec. 1.
I know what some of you will say when you see this pop up on your feed without my commentary. ”oh, well, it’s Florida, I’m not surprised.”
So, because this is something that is commonplace in Florida, it means we can totally ignore or be completely unfeeling towards our sister’s plight?
The implications of “oh, it’s just Florida” is many, and the main implication is that it does not provoke you anymore. And that shouldn’t be how it is. This should be something that we care about, not something we just completely skim over because “oh well it’s Florida it happens let me just go about my day”.
You know what else? This happens so often with black people. If an injustice happens to a black person somewhere where it would be “unsurprising”, people literally just brush it off. They stop caring, because it’s common place there. Only in “liberal” places do people care, but in places where it’s generally “conservative”? Nope. No big deal, it’s common, what can you do?
Marissa Alexander is my sister. Just because she lives in Florida does not mean you guys get to think, “Oh, well, it’s Florida!”
This is some ridiculous bullshit! The laws are never made to protect black and brown bodies, this judge wants to see her in jail, and that’s that. This is so wrong and something must be done