TexasCHLforum.com

If the family really does sue, the Castle Doctrine should make it possible for Joe Horn to win a summary judgment early in the process. If he does win a summary judgment, the court may or may not award attorney fees and costs. The original version of the Castle Doctrine Bill made an award of attorney fees and costs mandatory, but that provision was stripped from the bill in the House Jurisprudence Committee.

The Grand Jury "no-bill" is not a finding of innocence or an acquittal, but it is evidence that there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. This will be a basis for a summary judgment.

Chas.

If we go to the neighborhood and protest, Time/CNN will report we are all overflow audience from the Jerry Springer show.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If the family really does sue, the Castle Doctrine should make it possible for Joe Horn to win a summary judgment early in the process. If he does win a summary judgment, the court may or may not award attorney fees and costs. The original version of the Castle Doctrine Bill made an award of attorney fees and costs mandatory, but that provision was stripped from the bill in the House Jurisprudence Committee.

The Grand Jury "no-bill" is not a finding of innocence or an acquittal, but it is evidence that there was insufficient evidence to bring the case to trial. This will be a basis for a summary judgment.

Chas.

AH!

Thanks for clearing that up. I should have known it wouldn't be THAT simple.

AFAIK, if a person was committing a Felony when they were killed, it's not a basis for a Wrongful Death suit. There is alot of legalese that talks about "while committing a crime", so I'm sure that somewhere that is covered under Wrongful Death as well. I'm sure they'll try to downplay the "victims' " criminal acts as much as possible, but I don't think any judge or jury would feel sympathy for two criminals shot in the act of committing the crime.

I don't know... there's a rape trial going on somewhere that the judge won't let the accuser use the word rape. Probably not in Texas, but there are some pretty odd judges out there.

you will be utterly surprised.

BigDan wrote:AFAIK, if a person was committing a Felony when they were killed, it's not a basis for a Wrongful Death suit. There is alot of legalese that talks about "while committing a crime", so I'm sure that somewhere that is covered under Wrongful Death as well. I'm sure they'll try to downplay the "victims' " criminal acts as much as possible, but I don't think any judge or jury would feel sympathy for two criminals shot in the act of committing the crime.

Any update on this?

You all may have it backwards...

I doubt the family had much (if anything) to do with filing a lawsuit. However, you can bet every scum-sucking lawyer in the area was crawling out from underneath their rocks to try to put their name in lights for a minute. Don't get me wrong, there a lot of fine Lawyers in Texas, but we also have our fair share of cockroaches too.

billfromtx wrote:If the family of the deceased 2 piles of garbage can sue Mr. Horn for stopping them from commiting a Felony and protecting his life, The State of Texas should be able to Sue their parents for raising felonious trash, commiting major crimes in our beloved state...fairs fair.Give me a break!
Getting dead is an occupational Hazrd of being a criminal!

Amen!

thankGod wrote:I think Joe Horn is in for the long haul. I think he will go to civil court, and then we will see how the Castle Doctrine plays out.

Unfortunately I think that's what will happen.

SCone wrote:Remember, OJ was found innocent and still lost his civil suit

But OJ wasn't no-billed. He was actually tried and found innocent. The trial was a sham because of incompetent prosecution, a judge with his head in the clouds (who was a member of my former church), and the defense's use of the race card. Even after it was over, there remained a lot of compelling evidence to support a conclusion of guilt. The threshold of proof in California for a civil trial to obtain a guilty verdict is lower than for a criminal trial.

Joe Horn was no-billed, meaning that the prosecution did not think they could charge him and make it stick. Since it he was never tried and either acquitted or convicted, it would be fairly difficult for plaintiffs to prove guilt. ...at least that's how it seems to me.

BTW, it is my personal opinion that Horn made a terrible mistake by going outside that day.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

SCone wrote:Remember, OJ was found innocent and still lost his civil suit

But OJ wasn't no-billed. He was actually tried and found innocent. The trial was a sham because of incompetent prosecution, a judge with his head in the clouds (who was a member of my former church), and the defense's use of the race card. Even after it was over, there remained a lot of compelling evidence to support a conclusion of guilt. The threshold of proof in California for a civil trial to obtain a guilty verdict is lower than for a criminal trial.

Joe Horn was no-billed, meaning that the prosecution did not think they could charge him and make it stick. Since it he was never tried and either acquitted or convicted, it would be fairly difficult for plaintiffs to prove guilt. ...at least that's how it seems to me.

BTW, it is my personal opinion that Horn made a terrible mistake by going outside that day.

I hate to kick dead horse but OJ was found "not guilty" which is very different from "innocent." I can't remember the last time a jury found someone "innocent" in a criminal case. Innocent implies there is no way the accused could have committed or otherwise been responsible for the criminal act in question. “Not guilty” is nothing more than a declaration the case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Having said all that, I respect your opinion and I agree there was strong evidence to suggest guilt in the OJ case but, I don't think the trial was a sham…A shame and circus, definitely. I also think it’s fair to say the trial was mishandled by the judge and prosecutors. I wouldn’t call it a sham but, I’m not going to hijack this thread by arguing this issue further.

With respect to Joe Horn, there is no question that two homicides were committed by Horn. That fact has never been disputed. Being no billed is not an indicator of whether or not the DA’s office felt they could make a charge “stick.” The DA’s office turned the facts of the case over to a grand jury and it was the grand jury who decided the facts of the case did not rise to the level of a criminal act and that Horn’s actions were justified under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.

The families of the burglars in this case are likely attempting to sue for “wrongful death.” Guilt or innocence with respect to actually causing the deaths of the burglars is not an issue. The question would be whether or not the majority of the jury believes Horn’s actions were unjustified and whether he should compensate the families for the deaths of the burglars. You are correct in that the burden of proof for civil torts is lower than in a criminal trial.

As Charles mentioned, the Castle Doctrine should protect Horn in this case. The reason goes back to the fact Horn’s actions were basically ruled as justified by the grand jury. Specifically, the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 83 states, “A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendants use of force or deadly force, as applicable.” I don’t know of the statute prevents the decedents families from filing suit but, it pretty much guarantees they’ll lose.

tboesche wrote:

billfromtx wrote:If the family of the deceased 2 piles of garbage can sue Mr. Horn for stopping them from commiting a Felony and protecting his life, The State of Texas should be able to Sue their parents for raising felonious trash, commiting major crimes in our beloved state...fairs fair.
Give me a break!
Getting dead is an occupational Hazrd of being a criminal!

+2 I agree, also. This is ridiculous.

bryang wrote: +2 I agree, also. This is ridiculous.

Ridiculous and probably unlikely this will ever go to court, Joe Horn doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of money. He is retired. He is collecting a pension, and its likely his main assets are his home and his car. Neither his pension, his car nor, his home can be taken away from as the result of a suit. Then again there is the Castle doctrine that was passed last year.
It's been months anbd there hasn't been anything filed in court. No lawyer is gonna get rich off of this one, and no lawyer wants to make a reputation off of a losing case.

Its just not gonna happen!

Ya know, G.C., I knew there were more than just three reasons we valued having you around these parts.