CA: Burglary suspect sues homeowner who defended himself

[seamusTX]

He'll probably sue them for calling him a jerk, and then sue the websites for allowing the postings.

He'd probably like to, but there is no basis for such suits. It's a settled point of law. For one thing, he would have to prove that a statement was false, i.e., that he is not a jerk. No jury would agree with that.

- Jim

[JALLEN]

California, and most states, allow considerable latitude in filing suits, on the grounds that society wants disputes resolved in courts peaceably rather than in the streets, etc. In that interest, the initial burden to file a suit is rather low.

The right to bring grievances to the courts, in good faith, is protected by state and federal constitutions in a variety of ways. In most states, the right to trial by jury in civil cases is recognized. The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to our judicial system. Moreover, the first amendment protects the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The “right to petition extends to all departments of the Government. The right of access to the courts is indeed but one aspect of the right of petition.” Because “the right to petition is ‘among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,’ ... the right of access to the courts shares this ‘preferred place’ in our hierarchy of constitutional freedoms and values.

That said, it is not merely open season on filing whatever nonsense comes to mind. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 provides that when an attorney or unrepresented party file a paper with the court, he or she is representing that (a) The paper is not presented primarily for an improper purpose, such as harassment or delay, (b) legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by non-frivolous arguments for modifications of existing law, and (c) factual allegations or denials are warranted by evidence or likely to have evidentiary support after investigation or reasonably based on information or belief. Sanctions can be awarded in the discretion of the court after a defined procedure. I have used such motions now and then when the circumstances were appropriate, like when my client was named in a construction defect lawsuit on homes the client had no connection with whatsoever. Attorneys are supposed to have engaged in a modicum of investigation prior to filing, but sometimes matters go awry, and a motion like this sobers them up fairly well. The courts make the attorneys pay for their carelessness.

Beyond that, controversies often have facts that, when forced through the crucible of evidentiary rules and pressures of courtroom presentation, come out differently than how matters were presented in the media. "Trying the case in the newspaper" is fraught with perils.

I suspect that if the criminal case goes as presented in the media, this case will not go forward. I don't understand why it was necessary or helpful to have filed the civil suit before that, but perhaps there is some strategery involved.

[Geaux Tigers]

What we need is reciprocity in civil standing. If the father has standing to sue the homeowner because of injuries to his son during the alleged burglary, then the homeowner should have standing to sue the father for actual and punitive damages arising from the alleged burglary.

[seamusTX]

I don't understand what legal basis exists for the father being a party to the lawsuit. (Lawsuits by survivors of deceased people are a different matter.)

I don't think the world would be a better place if lawsuits could be filed against relatives of adults. That's kind of an archaic blood revenge concept - which by the way is how the mafiosi and cosa nostra still behave.

- Jim

[WildBill]

I don't understand what legal basis exists for the father being a party to the lawsuit. (Lawsuits by survivors of deceased people are a different matter.)- Jim

Maybe he was embarrassed or got his feelings hurt when people called his kid dumb.

[57Coastie]

In Greenbrae, California (Marin County), in January, a burglary suspect allegedly broke into the home of a 90-year-old man, tied him up, and started ransacking the house.

The homeowner freed himself and retrieved a handgun. The suspect allegedly shot the homeowner in the jaw. The homeowner shot the suspect twice, after which the suspect fled and was arrested.

Now the jailed suspect, whose trial has not concluded, has filed a lawsuit against the homeowner.

The case was actually filed by the defendant's attorney with the defendant's father as a plaintiff.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_21 ... 0-year-old" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think this will fly even in California. Aren't lawyers prohibited by so-called legal ethics from filing meritless lawsuits?

- Jim

I would suggest that you have asked a question which may not have fairly arisen yet, Jim, and we are seldom that far apart on issues like this. Where do you see that the defendant's father was plaintiff? I do not see that in the link you give following your statement highlighted above, nor anywhere else in several articles about this case I have seen. It was, and is, my impression that the criminal defendant was plaintiff in the civil action. As I read the earlier comments, one even suggests that the 90 year old plaintiff's father brought the lawsuit? What have I missed? The last thing I would say is that I did not miss something.

In any case, as usual here on this forum, and I credit you for most often being one of the exceptions, Jim, almost all the the commentators tend, as a unified group, to believe the facts as given by the prosecution are the true facts. Mr. Allen notes quite correctly, and dramatically, that surprising things are often learned in a courtroom and discovery proceedings, even by lawyers who thought they knew what had happened. I have been embarrassed when that happened to me.

I would submit that it is a bit early to decide that the civil action is a meritless lawsuit. It was my understanding that final arguments in the criminal case were to be today, but I have found no report yet. One apparently unrebutted fact in this case has troubled me from the very beginning. How many of you gun owners and shooters here in this forum keep five guns handy in your bathroom?

Likewise, we mustn't forget the difference in the burden of proof in these two cases. Similarly, who knows what surprises may come out of a deposition of the civil defendant.

It has been suggested on this thread that it is possibly incorrect for attorneys to be conscious of the existence of insurance and for that to govern their litigation strategy. The insurance company which wrote the homeowner's policy of the civil defendant chose to do that, and if it develops that they goofed in doing so -- well, that is what insurance is all about. That policy may be the only assets with which the civil defendant can respond to a legitimate claim. I would have to chuckle should in the civil action that insurance company plead no coverage for intentional acts.

Thanks to WildBill I think we can see that Mr. Troy appears to know his way around the courtroom. We shall see. I of course am not saying that he will be the winner here, but I do think that we may see the battle lines change a bit. I will go so far as to say that in my never humble opinion I have seen words in the news and elsewhere which could, in the final analysis, amount to defamation.

Jim

[seamusTX]

Jim, I concluded that the defendant's father was a plaintiff because of this statement in the original story:

The negligence lawsuit was filed on his [the defendant's] behalf by his father and his criminal defense attorney.

I don't see how the father is a party.

These stories are usually difficult to understand because they are necessarily abbreviated, and the reporter may not be very knowledgeable about the law and may be under a deadline.

If I jumped to a conclusion, at least I was the first in this forum to do so.

- Jim

[WildBill]

If I jumped to a conclusion, at least I was the first in this forum to do so. - Jim

Re-reading the story, I don't think that any lawsuit has actually been filed yet.

[57Coastie]

If I jumped to a conclusion, at least I was the first in this forum to do so.

- Jim

In the fog of war, including judicial war, a true leader leads from the front, Jim.

Jim2

[Birdie]

In answer to 57coastie's question, " How many of you gun owners and shooters here in this forum keep five guns handy in your bathroom? "

I do. Two master closets are in the master bath. So the majority of our guns are in the bathroom.

[WildBill]

In answer to 57coastie's question, " How many of you gun owners and shooters here in this forum keep five guns handy in your bathroom? "

I do. Two master closets are in the master bath. So the majority of our guns are in the bathroom.

But are they all within lunging distance?

[bizarrenormality]

The number of guns in his bathroom is as meaningful as the clothing a rape victim was wearing.

It's not illegal to keep five guns in your bathroom but it is illegal to commit burglary. None of the 10 commandments prohibit guns in bathrooms, or anywhere else, but one does say "Thou Shalt Not Steal." I know where I stand and I know where I'm going when I die.

[seamusTX]

The case went to the jury yesterday:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... ense-takes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I only want to point out that when a defendant goes to trial for a felony, the case has passed numerous hurdles:

• The police investigated it. A crime of this serious and complicated nature would be investigated pretty thoroughly.
• The DA decided to prefer charges.
• The grand jury agreed that probable cause existed.
• At any number of procedural steps the judge could have dismissed a charge or the entire case.

Can this system go wrong because of incompetence or malice, sure. That's why the jury is the final finder of fact. The jury can find not guilty just because the prosecution's arguments or the evidence don't pass the sniff test.

- Jim

[OldCurlyWolf]

The case went to the jury yesterday:

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts ... ense-takes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I only want to point out that when a defendant goes to trial for a felony, the case has passed numerous hurdles:

• The police investigated it. A crime of this serious and complicated nature would be investigated pretty thoroughly.
• The DA decided to prefer charges.
• The grand jury agreed that probable cause existed.
• At any number of procedural steps the judge could have dismissed a charge or the entire case.

Can this system go wrong because of incompetence or malice, sure. That's why the jury is the final finder of fact. The jury can find not guilty just because the prosecution's arguments or the evidence don't pass the sniff test.

- Jim

You forgot jury nullification.

They can say not guilty just because they don't like the law.

[seamusTX]

Jury nullification is extremely rare; and I hope no jury thinks that laws against murder, burglary, and robbery are invalid.

UPDATE: The defendant was found guilty on all counts today:

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-new ... ck-90-year" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So much for the lawsuit.

- Jim