Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism

State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions.

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand.

She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.

Her beef was that I criticized her for filing a misleading affidavit that willfully omitted all information about the injuries Zimmerman had sustained during the “struggle” it described. She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense.

She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence.

"I happened to be in FL when she made the speech charging Zimmerman."

I live in Winter Springs, about 10 minutes from Sanford in the same county (Seminole).
I knew when she didn't convene a Grand Jury she was putting herself up for something. A Grand Jury would never have brought an indictment. There might have been riots, and still might be. Al & Jessie were given large platforms to spew their racist venom and get most blacks and some whites stirred up. They couldn't and wouldn't wait for REAL evidence before their racist charges based on nothing.
The local TV stations here did the same thing.

-- I don't see why the fact that Zim was defending himself is not "an element of the charged crime." --

The charged crime is second degree murder. The following excerpt is not a complete list of all the possible ways to reach second degree murder in Florida, but it is the section Corey uses in making her charge against Zimmerman.

F.S. 782.04 Murder. --
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree ...

Quick sidetrack, I think the charging document does not recite facts to support the element of depraved mind. A person is required to infer too much, in order to conclude that.

Back to the charging document. Rule 3.140 in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure defines the requirements for the charging document, be it an information or indictment.

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.140 - Indictments, Informations
3.140(d)The Charge.
(1) Allegation of Facts; Citation of Law Violated. Each count of an indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried shall allege the essential facts constituting the offense charged. In addition, each count shall recite the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation, or other provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated.
(k) Form of Certain Allegations. Allegations concerning the following items may be alleged as indicated below:
(4) Exceptions; Excuses; Provisos. Statutory exceptions, excuses, or provisos relative to offenses created or defined by statute need not be negatived by allegation.

It's that last part, Rule 3.140(k)(4), that allows Corey to omit the exculpatory information. The information and affidavit have to cover all the elements of murder, 782.04; but the indictment does not have to "negative" or "disprove" Zimmerman's claim to self defense under a separate statute, 776.032. The statutory exception of self defense defined by Florida statute 776.032, need not be negatived by an allegation of murder under 782.04.

The right to self defense, and immunity from government harassment for justified use of force in self defense, are not elements of murder. The murder statute does not point back to Chapter 776, Justifiable Use of Force, with a recitation like "unless the killing was justified under chapter 776." Corey doesn't have to refer to Chapter 776 (which is where Zimmerman's defense lies) in an information alleging murder to 782.04.

All that said, Corey's charge is unethical. The fact that it conforms to the "form" of legal process in Florida does not save her bacon.

That is all lawyerly gobbledygook and “gamesmanship” as Dershowitz accurately points out.

If the charge can be successfully defended by use of the excluded evidence - then it is exculpatory, plainly enough for every ditch-digger to see. That someone is making a legal argument otherwise screams out one of the big problems with our legal system - much like questioning the meaning of “is”.

She brought an indictment that excluded clear evidence refuting the charge (I don't give a rat's, what number does or doesn't “point” to another number - if it was self defense, he rightly goes free; which in plain english means she hid evidence from the judge in her indictment.)

Which is the greater breach (as Dershowitz points out the hypocrisy) Z not telling how much was in the Pay Pal account, though his wife offered to get accurate information and was declined by the judge; or this #$%^*$ not presenting clear evidence that implies a different story than she was telling?

The statute’s statement that self defense need not be “negatived” is not the same as ignoring exculpatory evidence when bringing the charge. The state doesn’t have to say “and it wasn’t self defense, for the following reasons....” However, she knew of Zimmerman’s injuries, eyewitness accounts, etc., yet she brought the strongest charge possible.

Dershowitz’s argument is the charging affidavit explains to the judge why the charge is justified. Dershowitz really is saying the prosecutor overcharged and “covered up” significant evidence of that by leaving out Zimmerman’s injuries.

It’s very iffy to say the affidavit was unethical. More to the point, bringing the charge may have been unethical. I say may have, because she’s not the first prosecutor to over charge a crime.

The prosecutor is not a friend of either the defendant or ultimate truth. I do think this is a case of politically motivated charges by a prosecutor who surely realizes Z did not commit 2nd degree murder.

Dershowitz, otoh, is a self promoter who loves to claim other lawyers don’t know what they are doing. He’s also a defense attorney.

The key here will be Z’s allegedly contradictory statements to police. That’s her main evidence, and it wasn’t detailed in the affidavit, either.

Takeaway lessons are the police and prosecutor are not your friend, don’t talk to them and get a good lawyer.

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.