Originally Posted by PEC-Memphis
Many (most?) lawyers will agree that castle laws which give immunity to a civil suit for failure to prosecute, or a criminal finding of "not guilty", will eventually be overturned on constitutional grounds. This is because the burden of proof is very different for criminal (reasonable doubt) vs. civil (preponderance of evidence) cases. And the government cannot grant immunity to a person from being sued by another as this would be violating the rights of the person (possibly) wronged. There just hasn't been a good case to "come along" to challenge the law.
Not sure you're right... you are referring to the Seventh obviously.. but here are some highlights:
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution,
which is part of the Bill of Rights, codifies the right to a jury
trial in certain
civil cases. Unlike most of the Bill of Rights,
the Supreme Court has not incorporated the amendment's requirements to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-Now I think the legal key here is that the amendment states that a person is entitled to a jury trial in civil cases (this assumes the case is "brought"), I believe in the case of the Castle Doctrine, the "case" cannot be brought through immunization, therefore there is no trial and no jury.
Its hair splitting but apparently it holds...As far as not having a good case come along?
I recently read an article (and had a conversation with the author) who had reported that there have been almost 100 Castle Doctine aqcuitals in Florida since the law went on the books. Id say if it hasnt happened already, it probably holds water...