I’ve never disagreed with anything Dershowitz has said concerning the law.
As for Corey’s threats, she truly believes she should be allowed to deny anyone’s right to free speech. She was appointed by a republican. He should “dis-appoint” her by firing her butt. This is why I’m just as afraid of the republicans taking away our rights as I am the democrats.
She is also a Republican. Google her.
FWIW, he's technically wrong that the affidavit in support of the murder rap must include or refer to the presence of exculpatory evidence.
Not that he's wrong as far as the prosecution being obliged to account for the self defense claim, it does have to account for it both as a matter of ethical prosecution, and also as a matter of not crapping on Florida's self-defense statute, 776.032.
By bringing the case, Corey is asserting that she has reviewed the evidence, all of it, and has concluded that Zimmerman will lose a motion for immunity on 776.032 grounds. By bringing the case, she is saying he's not entitled to immunity. She came to the opposite conclusion that SPD did.
>’ve never disagreed with anything Dershowitz has said concerning the law...
Really? After the SCOTUS ruled against Al Gore & the endless recount, he literally exploded on TV, ranting that all Americans and government offices should now ignore SCOTUS rulings, as it was now clearly issuing unlawful rulings.
Even the liberal interviewer was taken aback & provided an opportunity for him to walk it back, but he doubled down on his rant.
A strange fellow at times, to be sure.
re: I’ve never disagreed with anything Dershowitz has said concerning the law.
Not even when he said the Clinton impeachment was a legal coup?
Had Clinton been convicted in the Senate, Algore, fellow Dem, would have become president. That was not a coup.