Posted on 07/16/2013 11:31:53 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
Read the above case and you can see that as the complaining witness in the prosecution, and with all her lies and deception, Angela Corey will not be able to claim prosecutorial immunity.
This is why ALL smart prosecutors avoid composing affidavits for prosecutions, because writing them makes them the complaint witness, and thus liable to civil action.
(Excerpt) Read more at scholar.google.com ...
Also, as you know, it can never be an official duty of a public official to commit a crime, so a prosecutor suborning perjury would be criminally an civilly liable.
“So are you saying she can be prosecuted?” To answer this narrowly, this case proves anyone can be prosecuted for anything. But being prosecuted successfully? That’s different.
Criminal prosecution is different than a civil lawsuit. Don’t confuse the two. Kalina v. Fletcher was a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. The standards and types of proof are quite different. But both a civil suit and a criminal prosecution would be very difficult to prove in this case.
A prosecutor pretty much has immunity for what they say and do in the Courtroom. That’s why I never spoke to the press, or just gave them bland NFL coaches post-game press conference type answers. But in the Courtroom I could say and do practically anything as long as it was supported by evidence. You wouldn’t believe the things I got to say about criminal defendants.
Criminal prosecution would require you to prove that the prosecutor knew in advance that the witness was lying, and that the prosecutor did more than put them on the stand to tell the lie. It would require proof that the prosecutor had some sort of personal animosity toward the defendant and assisted somehow in perpetuating the lie. Maybe this isn’t a legal standard, but what I would consider a practical one. Witnesses lie all the time and lawyers can always claim “plausible deniability” in that they are advocates. It’s not for them to decide who is lying. That’s for the jury. But if a prosecutor knew it was a lie, believed it to be a lie, and still intentionally portrayed it as the truth to convict an innocent person, that’s a start. You would probably have to add to it that the prosecutor also deliberately concealed truthful exculpatory information. If yes to all of that, they could be prosecuted successfully.
It has to rise to the level of a Nifong to get there. This case probably falls short of that standard.
No knock knock here
Serious legal discussion
If Corey actually signed the PC affidavit, she’s dumber than I thought. No way would I EVER have done that.
No defendant was ever worth my license to practice law, and no client is now.
I really appreciate your time in answering. Thank you very much.
Mark
“As you know, she was not the advocate in this case. If she did sign the affidavit, she could be held civilly liable. You certainly would not disagree with that, would you.”
That’s what I said, and that’s what Kalina v. Fletcher holds. Your intro on this post says that a prosecutor can be held liable if they “draft” the PC. Drafting is different than signing. Drafting is covered by immunity. Signing is not. That’s the holding of Kalina.
No problem.
Can she be held criminally accountable for holding back evidence or tampering with the cell phone ?
We are in agreement.
Withholding evidence is more likely to be subject of a civil lawsuit. Lower standard of proof (preponderance of evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt).
If she was actually the one who tampered with the cell phone, then she could be prosecuted for that. I would look at evidence but I would never personally touch it. That’s for the cops and forensics people.
If she actually “played with” evidence outside the courtroom, she is, again, dumber than I thought.
The Courtroom was my playground, trials were play time, and the evidence was my toys. That was when you get to take out the toys and play with them. And you do it out in the open where everyone can see. That’s the whole point of playing.
O’Steen and Galbreth (sp) signed the Affidavit of Probable Cause. BDLR signed the Issue Capius. http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/88953520
To be clear, Corey has a big problem with hiding evidence regardless of whether she signed the affidavit.
You are correct.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/12/us/13shooter-document.html?_r=0
Looks like Corey is clear on this aspect.
Obstruction of justice is another matter for the Brady violations.
"State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin."
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-technology-director-who
And
"O'MARA: I thought it was going to slow down, particularly when the evidence started coming out. Because you first and then me second said, look, guys, let's just wait. Sit back. You don't know the evidence yet because I don't know it yet. Let's wait until we have all the evidence. And I thought that would sort to tend to throw a tithe to bring it back. But it never did. And part of that was of course the way the prosecutors were hiding some of the evidence and the discovery and they just kept it at this fever pitch way too long."
-snip-
HANNITY: Let's go over the irregularities in the case. Don, for example, the withholding of evidence which your partner mentioned. Explain that.
WEST: A moment ago, I said what's the most important thing, evidence as opposed to an appeal to emotion. Let's look at the real evidence and it was like pulling teeth to get the real evidence. The exculpatory evidence, the information that is the foundation of the way the criminal justice system is supposed to work says that the defense is entitled to all exculpatory evidence. And we fought month after month after month just to get what should have been given without the hundreds of hours that it took. So, that's the way this started and unfortunately it continued until the very day the trial started."
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2013/07/16/zimmermans-defense-team-breaks-down-trial-verdict
Thanks. Fr mail
This will get her named as a defendant in a Section 1983 Civil Rights lawsuit. Disciplinary action will be up to the whatever Florida agency is responsible, probably some arm of the State Supreme Court.
This smells bad, but I don’t think we have a criminal case here yet.
This smells bad, but I don’t think we have a criminal case here yet.b
not that would be great to indict her as imo there is more evidence of criminal action by her than was by Zimmerman..
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.