Andrew Branca | Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion - Part 32
Accessibility by WAH
Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: Andrew Branca

Profile photo

Andrew Branca

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the "Law of Self Defense" in 1997, and is currently in the process of completing the fully revised and updated second edition, which you can preorder now at lawofselfdefense.com. He began his competitive shooting activities as a youth in smallbore rifle, and today is a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a Life Member and Master-class competitor in multiple classifications in the International Defensive Pistol Association (IDPA). Andrew has for many years been an NRA-certified firearms instructor in pistol, rifle, and personal protection, and has previously served as an Adjunct Instructor on the Law of Self Defense at the SigSauer Academy in Epping, NH. He holds or has held concealed carry permits for Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Virginia, and other states.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 28, 2014 75 Comments
Yesterday I promised an update on the key self-defense trials coming our way over the course of this summer, and so here I am to keep that promise. Before I get into that, however, I'd like to share a couple of items that have been brought to my attention in the last 24 hours.

"Law of Self Defense" Ranked #1 by Amazon in Sports Shooting Category

"The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition," has been ranked by Amazon.com as it's #1 seller in the Sports Shooting category. Law of Self Defense #1 in Amazon Sport Shooting Category Now, I'm not sure how self-defense has much to do with sports shooting, but you take the #1's where you find them. Two critical keys to achieving this #1 status have certainly been the Twitter campaign launched against me by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the uproarious kerfuffle generated by the antics of CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin. So, before proceeding to substantive matters, I'd like to thank @CSGV, @SunnyHostin, and the UC Berkeley School of Law--I couldn't have done it without you guys.

CNN Legal Analyst Sunny Hostin has Wikipedia Page Updated to Reflect Reality

Last night somebody brought to my attention that the Wikipedia page for CNN Legal Analyst Sunny Hostin had been updated to reflect her losing debate performance as well as her welshing on our wager. I feel obliged to note that I had nothing whatever to do with this entry, but also that it is entirely factually correct. Sunny Hostin Wiki with debate welch OK, now onto the self-defense cases coming up in 2014.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 27, 2014 19 Comments
The past several days I've been attending the National Rifle Associations's Annual Meeting in Indianapolis, having been invited to speak at the NRA's 17th Annual Firearms Law Symposium as part of the larger gathering. The Annual Meeting is a massive event, with something on the order of 70,000 people attending, hundreds of exhibiting vendors covering more than 9 acres of exhibit space, and talks by pro-2nd Amendment Senators, Governors, and television/radio personalities. Given that context, my own little talk on Stand-Your-Ground ranks perhaps among the most modest of the Annual Meeting's constituent components. Even taken just within the context of the other Firearms Law Symposium--which included such well-known civil rights scholars as Stephen Halbrook and David Kopel, as well as Indiana Supreme Court Justice Stephen David (whose talk was particularly outstanding)--I was a small fish, indeed. Nevertheless, I've received repeated requests for video of my small talk, and I aim to please. Much of the substantive content of the talk--and, really, I talk substantively only for about 25 minutes--will be familiar to those who have previously seen my Stand-Your-Ground commentary from the pro-SYG victory at the UC Berkeley debate, from my posts here and elsewhere, or from my book and seminars. In the interests of avoiding a straight-forward droning delivery of the law, I've interlaced what humor I could into the talk, and in particular the last four minutes or so consists of the "Downfall" parody that was prepared following CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin's refusal to honor her "Zimmerman wager" with me following the Berkeley debate, as covered at length here: CNN analyst welches on bet after Andrew Branca wins “Stand-Your-Ground” Debate.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 26, 2014 76 Comments
This past Tuesday, April 22, I participated in a debate on Stand-Your-Ground hosted by UC Berkeley Law School. As you might expect, hilarity ensued. It turned out there were actually three sides to the debate. The two lawyers on the anti-SYG side of the issue were opposed to the debate proposition that "Florida state law may be flawed, but Stand Your Ground is a fundamentally sound policy that protects the innocent." I, of course, was on the pro-SYG side. My debate partner, a lovely woman and law professor, Andrea Roth, was nominally on my side, but in fact did not take a pro-SYG position. Her position would more accurately be described as "undecided on SYG." The way the debate was structured was we each had a 6 minute slot for opening statements. I spoke first (awesome). You can see my opening statements here (the full-length video of debate is at bottom of post):
The way the debate winner was determined was by greatest change in audience opinion. The audience voted prior to the start of the debate, and again at the conclusion. The starting vote had me at 18, the anti-SYG side at 53, and the rest undecided.

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 21, 2014 29 Comments
On Thursday, March 20, 2104, the Florida House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly (93-24) in approval of HB-89 (the so-called "warning shot" bill), and HB-7029 (the so-called "Pop-Tart" bill). These developments are reported in the Bradenton Herald, and other news sources (h/t to commenter pjm--thanks!). The Florida Senate has not yet taken a full vote on its parallel "warning shot" version of the House bill (SB-448), but their bill has easily passed their Criminal Justice committee (5-0), Judiciary committee (9-0), and Rules committee (12-1, and which made some modest changes to conform with the House bill).  The full state senate is scheduled to vote on SB-448 next Wednesday. We have previously covered this "warning shot" bill in some detail here Florida “Warning Shot” Bill Advances, as well as exploring how a "warning shot" had nothing whatever to do with the Marissa Alexander case (Angela Corey Reminds FL Legislators of Facts of Marissa Alexander Case and The Myth of Marissa Alexander’s “Warning Shot”) and fisking a hilariously error-filled post on the bill by Adam Weinstein over at Gawker (Gawker analyzes Florida’s “Warning Shot” bill, implosion follows). This local news story is a good example of how the media misunderstands and misreports the nature of the "warning shot" bill:

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 18, 2014 299 Comments
Back on February 26 we reported that defense counsel for Joseph Walker--the New Jersey cop who shot and killed Joseph Harvey Jr. in an apparent "road rage" incident in Maryland--had filed a motion to dismiss the first degree murder indictment against him on the grounds that the Grand Jury had been given "materially false and misleading testimony."  You can see that story here:

Off-duty “Road Rage” Cop lawyer: Grand Jury given “materially false and misleading testimony”

Shortly thereafter I received a call from Walker's lawyers offering to share with me their motion and the accompanying exhibits.  These are not confidential documents, but rather are public documents having been submitted to the trial court. Nevertheless, having them provided directly by counsel was a great convenience in accessing them. Over the last few days I have been going through the attached exhibits, which consist mostly of transcripts of witness statements to police, as well as a brief report generated by the MD State Police themselves and a sketch of the shooting scene with the locations of the vehicles and other items. Today I wrap up this series of "exposés" with the actual motion itself, as well as the transcript of the actual MD State Trooper testimony presented to the Grand Jury.

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 14, 2014 16 Comments
At Michael Dunn's recent "loud music" murder trial the jury found him guilty of three counts of attempted murder and one count of hurling missiles at an occupied vehicle--convictions sufficient for up to 75 years in prison. (Hat-tip to ‏@TCinOP for pointing out the News4Jax piece on this story.) The jury hung, however, on the charge of first degree murder (or any of its lesser included offenses, such as second degree murder and manslaughter) in the shooting death of Jordan Davis, apparently because at least three jurors they felt that the State prosecutors had failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (the legal standard for a legal defense of self-defense in all American states except for Ohio). Florida State Prosecutor Angela Corey, who led the first Dunn prosecution, had consistently stated that she intends to re-try Dunn on the hung murder charge--and now a date for that re-trial has been set.  And it's not far off:  May 5. Simultaneously with setting the re-trial date, the judge also ruled that Dunn's sentencing his existing convictions will be deferred until after a verdict has been reached on the murder charge.  Given the complexity of sentencing generally--typically a pre-sentencing report taking several weeks to prepare is required--and the probable likelihood that a verdict on the murder charges will be in hand in less than 8 weeks, it makes sense to simply have one sentencing process after the second trial. In addition, there is some uncertainty under Florida law whether convictions involving the state's "10-20-Life" statute must be run consecutively or whether they may be run concurrently.  The difference for Dunn on even just his existing convictions would be between a sentence of as long as 75 years if run consecutively (effectively a life sentence) and as "few" as 20 years if run concurrently.  

Posted by Andrew Branca on March 12, 2014 29 Comments
Robert Zimmerman Sr. and Gladys Zimmerman have filed suit against comedienne Roseanne Barr, nearly two years after Barr published their home address on Twitter in the aftermath of their son George Zimmerman Jr.'s killing of Trayvon Martin in self-defense.   (Zimmerman successfully argued at trial that he shot Martin in necessary self-defense,  and he was acquitted by a unanimous jury.) The Orlando Sentinel reports that the suit, filed in a Florida circuit court, accuses Barr of attempting to incite "a lynch mob to descend" on their home and carry out "vigilante justice." Zimmerman's parents say that Barr's tweet of their home address compelled them to flee their home in the middle of the night, and they remain unable to return and in hiding for fear of violence. They also point out that their son George did not live with them, and they had nothing whatever to do with his shooting of Trayvon Martin in self-defense.