The first court case in Iowa where a person claims a "stand your ground" defense is being oddly treated by an Iowa judge, IMHO.
To me it seems crazy for the judge to decide that the defendant must go through a jury trial, and then afterwards the judge will decide whether the self-defense claim has merit. In other States, the self-defense claim is first adjudicated, and then if denied the person goes to trial; and where the self-defense claim is upheld, there is no trial.The man accused of shooting three people in downtown Iowa City in August is going to trial Monday. Lamar Wilson is charged with the murder of one man and the attempted murder of two others in Iowa City’s Pedestrian Mall, which was crowded with bar patrons at the time of the shooting.
The high-profile case will also be the state’s first trial involving a self-defense claim under Iowa’s new "stand your ground" law.
The new "stand your ground" provision means if a person is in a place they have a lawful right to be present, they have no duty to retreat before using deadly force for self-defense. It went into effect in Iowa July 1, 2017, but lawmakers did not specify a legal process for using the defense.
In October, lawyers for Wilson said he should be immune from prosecution under the "stand your ground" law. Sixth Judicial District Judge Paul Miller decided Wilson must go to trial, and Miller will rule on the immunity claim after the jury returns a verdict.
Why have self-defense mechanisms in the law, if a judge can toss it aside (temporarily) and take a person to trial. Plus, this Iowa aberration wastes money and resources that the State is spending for trials where the person has a legitimate self-defense claim. Also, the defendant with a valid self-defense claim has to spend considerable time and money for an unneeded trial.