Posted on 06/19/2012 10:23:25 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz recently claimed that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, threatened to sue Dershowitz for libel and slander and to have him disbarred.
According to Dershowitz, Corey went into a tirade against him after he strongly criticized her. He said Corey was being unethical for not disclosing material facts to the court in the probable cause affidavit she had filed against Zimmerman and had erred by bringing a second-degree murder charge against him, when the evidence didn't support such a charge.
In an article, Dershowitz maintained that Corey called Harvard's law school dean and was transferred to a communications office staff member.
According to this account, she went into a "40-minute rant" about how she could sue Harvard for his comments. She apparently was reminded that Dershowitz had a right to his opinion and that his comments were a matter of academic freedom. I hope that she was also sent a copy of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Dershowitz claims that Corey was required to include in her probable cause affidavit any information that would tend to exculpate Zimmerman of the charges against him. He's incorrect, unfortunately....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
This whole thing is like the “missile fired off the CA coast” back in December of 2010. I was one of those at first that thought it was a missile launch, but as the evidence came out and was scrutinized, it became more and more clear that it was an aircraft contrail, although a relatively rare kind, hence the mis-identification.
But some even here on Freerepublic refused to change their mind. It was funny at first but then became sad. Some just absolutely MUST be right and pick the wrong battles to defent it.
This Zimmerman case is doing that on the liberal sites I frequent. Many of the liberals are coming around, but some of them simply refuse to acknowledge any evidence that does not support Zimmerman hunting down and killing Martin in cold blood. It was comical at first, but now it’s just kinda sad.
You may notice that they shopped out his right ear, by accident.
And, although his complexion got lighter, his hair got darker., and less of his scalp is visible through his hair.
“Did politics drive prosecution ...?”
Politics? Maybe it was just “Feelings, Oh Oh Oh Feelings ...”
I hope everyone actually reads the article. NeJame first gives Corey a smidgen of back-handed support by saying that Florida prosecutors actually don’t have any obligation to tell the whole truth in charge affadavits. The rest is a shin-kicking smack-down. Does the presense of this on CNN’s website signal some sort of retreat on the Z case, or is any chance to attack a Republican just irresistable?
Politics? Like, uh, duuuuuh!
This Zimmerman case is doing that on the liberal sites I frequent. Many of the liberals are coming around, but some of them simply refuse to acknowledge any evidence that does not support Zimmerman hunting down and killing Martin in cold blood. It was comical at first, but now it’s just kinda sad.
They did something wierd with is ear ring in the whitey photoshop, too.
There is no mention of self defense in Florida's murder statute, but there is mention of self defense in the manslaughter statute. If Corey had charged manslaughter, she would have had to "negative" Zimmerman's self defense claim. That difference between the murder and manslaughter statutes is, in part, why she didn't charge manslaughter.
The prosecutor’s office is backed up by the law and has been every step of the way.
No, it hasn't. Plus, the facts get in the way. But, for the narrow point that Dershowitz mounts criticism, the contents of the arrest/charge affidavit being deficient for want of including exculpatory evidence, Dershowitz is wrong, and the prosecutor is in the right.
The state did not argue and the judge did not apply the correct legal basis for denial of bail. The Arthur and Paul (or Blair) cases set out the application of the Florida constitutional and statutory provisions that pertain to detention pending trial.
State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980)
Legal standard for absence of right to bail.
State v. Paul, 783 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2001)
State v. Blair, 39 So.3d 1190 (Fla. 2010)
Legal standard for justification of denial of bail.
There are other errors of law as well. I don't believe the affidavit makes a prima facie case for second degree murder.
I do ...but it is neither here nor there what you and I believe. That lies with law enforcement and the prosecutor’s office.
I don't disagree with that. I was just stating my strenuous disagreement with your point of view in slightly more particular terms than "the law is on the prosecutor's side" and "That lies with law enforcement and the prosecutor's office."
IOW, I was defending my opinion with the relevant legal standards. I have no desire to engage in a discussion to attempt to dissuade you from your point of view, you're welcome to it.
And I thank you kindly. I know you believe in your opinion and I do respect that.
Thanks for that info. That sounds devious enough, and smells of misconduct, but explains the overcharge, when nothing else really does. Is there ever an opportunity for the defense to question the prosecutor under oath about the charging process?
The prosecutor makes certain assertions under oath, automatically. That it has particular evidence, that the evidence is has support the charge, as a matter of law, and that the prosecution is brought in good faith. You can read that boilerplate oath in the information/indictment and associated affidavit in support.
The defense can move for dismissal of the charge, if the evidence (not proven, just as asserted) is insufficient to make the case. The defense can also, and has, asked the prosecution to prepare a "statement of particulars," whereby the prosecution has to connect the pieces of evidence into a theory of the case, showing/asserting how the evidence establishes each element of the charge.
The prosecution's allegation of "depraved mind," an element of 2nd degree murder, is particularly weak - IMO, deficient as a matter of law.
If the judge finds that the evidence does not support the charge, the prosecution can bring an alternative charge. Conventional wisdom is that just dropping to manslaughter is "easy," but in light of the need to negative the self defense claim as part of the charging exercise, I don't think the downshift would be easy for the prosecution.
I would bet money that the liberals are are now sympathic to the reality are white and the ones who think Martin was a hunded down race victim are Black posters. Zealous Blacks are over-represented on liberal web sites on some subjects.
Fascinating that you brought that up because I forgot about that little tidbit. The same thing crossed my mind about three weeks ago and I started calling them on it, admitting at the time I was going to be pegged a racist.
And you are right. They were. I believe every single one was, but I’m not positive.
Very perceptive. :-)
Thanks for your clear and helpful commentss.
Obviously, the criminal case will afford no such opportunity, but in a civil suit for wrongful prosecution, could the plaintiff examine the defendant/prosecutor under oath (specifically, about political pressure to charge, why no grand jury, and the idea you have put forth — whether he/she eschewed a manslaughter charge to avoid the self-defense evidence)? I am sure this is a fantasy. I can’t get beyond a naive fixation on truth and justice, making it hard to stay within the realities of “the law.”
"In order to prove a cause of action for malicious prosecution a plaintiff must prove six elements: '1) the commencement of a judicial proceeding; 2) its legal causation by the present defendant against the plaintiff; 3) its bona fide termination in favor of the plaintiff; 4) the absence of probable cause for the prosecution; 5) malice; [and] 6) damages'."
But, as far as eliciting testimony under oath, yes, he can do that.
Gov. Scott proving to the public once again he's either incompetent or an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.