Posted on 06/13/2012 7:25:24 PM PDT by roses of sharon
Florida prosecutor Angela Corey has come under withering criticism from Alan Dershowitz for overcharging and leaving out important details in the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in connection with the charge of Second Degree Murder lodged against George Zimmerman.
Corey allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard. This appears to be part of a pattern when she is criticized.
Now Corey has brought a charge of felony perjury against Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie, based on testimony during George’s bond hearing with regard to their financial resources. (Criminal Information and Affidavit of Probable Cause embedded at bottom of post.)
There certainly is a case which can be made that the Court was not fully informed of the financial situation, and that is part of the reason the Judge revoked bond under the standards applicable to release pending trial.
But that bond standard is very different from a criminal charge of perjury, which requires proof of a specific material false statement which the person believes not to be true at the time of testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
But nowhere in the criminal Information or Affidavit of Probable Cause is a specific sentence or set of words identified as false with an explanation of why it was false.
I think there is a reason for this. Many of the answers of Shellie were non-committal. Since the prosecution does not specify which statements were false, here are some possibilities taken from the testimony quoted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause:
Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond? A. None that I know of.
What are “major assets”? Isn’t that a matter of opinion? Similarly, what does “reasonably” mean? Isn’t that also a matter of judgment, not a fact? The same lack of clarity accrues to “liquidate.” If the alleged funds already were liquid, the funds could not be liquidated again.
Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not? A. Yes, you have. Q. And is – - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs? A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of.
This question by defense counsel brings into play another conversation — not recited in the Information — as to what was in the pending motion and the discussions outside of court. What was her understanding of who owned the funds, what they could be used for, and whether they were her funds (“are you of any financial means”). If the funds belonged to George or to his defense fund, they were not Shellie’s financial means.
Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond? A: We have discussed that— Q: Okay A: —-trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.
It’s not clear at all what could be false about this, unless Shellie did not actually have discussions with family members. Again, possible deception, but not a false statement.
Here is the entire segment quoted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause from the prosecution’s examination of Shellie (emphasis mine):
Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct? A. To my knowledge, that is correct. Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created? A: I’m aware of that website. Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was — A: Currently, I do not know. Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected? A: I do not.
Notice the specific wording of the questions and answers. I think the best case for perjury was the response to the question whether “you all had no money.” (added) The way the question was structured, however, the question was whether Shellie previously said that there was “no money,” not that at the time of the question there was no money.
But in the very next question the issue of the website fundraising was raised, and she said she doesn’t “currently” know how much is “in that website right now” or how much was raised “as a result.” The word “currently” suggest that at the moment she was testifying she didn’t know, which may have been correct. Similarly the denial that she had “an estimate” would only be false if at the time of testifying Shellie had an estimate. [see Update below]
It may sound like I’m nitpicking the questions and answers, but that’s what’s at issue in a perjury prosecution.
This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.
Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008)(citations omitted).
Instead of specifying the words which constituted empirical statements of fact that knowingly were false and why, the prosecution presents testimony and then evidence, and only generally and vaguely states that a false statement was made.
I am not excusing the conduct of the Zimmermans as to the bond hearing. I understand why the Judge feels he was deceived.
I am questioning the bringing of a felony perjury charge without greater specificity of the false statements, particularly while the alleged perjurer’s husband is awaiting trial in a highly publicized case.
Just more questions as to how this prosecution is being handled.
Update: Per a commenter, it appears that the above testimony was selectively edited by the prosecution to leave out the following exchange (deleted testimony in bold):
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Who would know that?
A: That would be my brother-in-law.
Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
A: No, he is not, sir.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.
The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.” She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.
Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.
This is as bad if not worse than the Duke LAX case. This woman needs to be taken down the same way Nifong was.
Let me guess, Ms. Corey has further political ambition? She may be seeking a higher office?
unbelievable!!! She wanted to get an answer....
A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
The higher office should be a jail cell!
The Nazi stuck on stupid obsession on destroying the Jews of Warsaw is a similar case study. It’s like a rapist fearing retaliation or something, intent on murdering all witnesses and perceptions to the actions taken.
This prosecutor is obviously out of control and making more a case of herself.
I bet I know the words that were said to her:
Obama: “I can make you assistant attorney general or even suggest you for a supreme court seat if you can win this one case...”
I feel that they are going to lose the case and trying everything possible to punish them using the bureaucracy. They should have held the probable cause hearing before the judge and ended this months ago.
Sure seems like the Pros. is putting pressure on for a plea, maybe they do not want to go to trial?
Sorry but the Feds are out of it because we don’t have a Dept. of Justice .... we only gots Eric the Corrupt!
This prosecutor is clearly dirty and she needs to be immediately removed from this case and become the subject of an investigation.
Florida prosecutor Angela Corey has come under withering criticism from Alan Dershowitz for overcharging and leaving out important details in the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in connection with the charge of Second Degree Murder lodged against George Zimmerman. Corey allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard.
She may have been dishonest, but it is very odd that everyone knew of the website collections and she told them to ask the brother in law on the amount. Did anyone ask him?
Corey is up for re-election and may well have ambitions for higher office, and is apparently, willing to suborn perjury to get there.
Angela Corey, meet Mike Nifong.
Corey is up for re-election and may well have ambitions for higher office, and is apparently, willing to suborn perjury to get there.
Angela Corey, meet Mike Nifong.
“Corey allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard. “
I want the popcorn concession.
Who in the world would believe that promise from Barack the Honest, so close to elections?
On the other hand, never mind. You are right; every Obama voter would believe that and more.
Plus, Obama could always guarantee her a future Presidential Pardon, no matter how illegal her tactics.
For these people, the end justifies any means ....
Unfortunately, Corey is running unopposed this election cycle
However, Corey had an opponent in 2008, and Corey seemed to have quite a problem with the filing of her assets to the state election board. Oh the irony
Someone did an extensive investigation on Corey..I will have to find the article
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.