Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Under Fire For Alleged Professional Breaches

AngelaCoreyI have previously stated that I believe that Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey over charged the case as second degree murder and in my view contributed heavily to the defeat in the case. What many people described as the evidence for conviction is actually evidence of manslaughter. Had the case been framed as manslaughter or negligent homicide, it might have turned out differently. However, that was in my view an error in prosecutorial discretion. More serious questions have arisen over Corey’s ethics and that of her office. These allegations include her conduct following the acquittal of George Zimmerman.

Corey’s office stands accused of serious allegations of withholding evidence from the defense. I have previously said that I view those allegations as highly credible and worthy of sanctions. She is also facing a whistleblower lawsuit after she fired an IT specialist who revealed that her office was withholding evidence in the Zimmerman case.

However, Corey herself is facing allegations of unethical and unprofessional conduct. Prosecutors are supposed to be highly circumspect in their public comments. They are not supposed to attack acquitted defendants. Most refuse to do so and leave such matters to the public debate rather than join the public outcry. Corey surprised many by going on television and calling Zimmerman a “murderer” after his acquittal. Her trial counsel was slightly more circumspect and called him “lucky.” She also referred to Martin as Zimmerman’s “prey.” Clearly there are many who share these views, but it is a different matter when spoken by a prosecutor following an acquittal.

The model ABA rules state that prosecutors should:

except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

These rules are designed primarily to protect a fair trial but prosecutors continue to be bound by ethical rules following a conviction. I view such comments after an acquittal to be highly unprofessional and inimical to the legal system. It tells the public that the government considers a person to be guilty regardless of an acquittal. As an out of court statement, Corey could be sued by Zimmerman for per se defamation since she said he is a murderer. While he would likely be viewed as a public figure, the statement could be viewed as violating even the New York Times v. Sullivan standard of actual malice. It is her opinion but she is speaking as the lead prosecutor.

AlanDershowitz2She is also accused of threatening legal action against one of her critics. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz has gone public with an extraordinary account that Corey personally called the Harvard Dean’s office to complain about his criticism of her work in the case. He says that she ended up being transferred to an employee of the Office of Communications and threatened to sue Harvard, seek Dershowitz’s disbarment, and sue him for defamation — all frivolous claims. I have not seen any denial or explanation from Corey about her call to Dershowitz.

At a minimum, Corey’s actions and comments strike me as highly unprofessional. If prosecutors lose cases and then take to the air to demonize defendants, it would allow for tremendous abuse. Nothing protects Zimmerman from criticism of course for his actions. However, prosecutors are given the unique power to seek imprisonment of defendants. They have an obligation to reinforce the legal system by publicly accepted verdict. Most prosecutors state they have believed in their case and disagreed with the decision. They refrain from calling acquitted individuals “murderers.” That type of pandering to the public can be dangerous in highly divisive case like Zimmerman’s or other controversial cases. It reminds some of us uncomfortably of the approach of disbarred former District Attorney Mike Nifong. After being widely criticized by experts for over-charging the case, it was a particularly unwise decision of Corey to take to the press and call Zimmerman a murderer. It was also unnecessary with a chorus of such comments already being made across the media front.

Do you feel prosecutors should participate in this type of public condemnation after a verdict?

83 thoughts on “Zimmerman Prosecutor Angela Corey Under Fire For Alleged Professional Breaches

  1. I agree with your observation. The prosecutor in my opinion has added fuel to the proverbial fire. By her acts, she has put Mr. Zimmerman in a more precarious situation as far as safety and a hope for a normal life. It is she, who should be disbarred. I suppose calling Mr. Zimmerman names was an ill attempt to take the focus away from her unprofessional, unethical and appalling lack of a moral compass.

  2. This is unbelievable. I am not a lawyer and never played one on TV, but have been heavily involved with ethical issues for decades, in my own profession as well as consulting on cases of alleged attorney misconduct. In forty years of practice, I have seen both prosecutors and defense attorneys say strange things and dumb things, but this transcends anything I ever heard before.

  3. One wonders how some people come to occupy the position of State Attorney General. Corey appears to be remarkably incompetent on many fronts, and of poor character to boot. No wonder her IT specialist was reluctant to approach her about his concerns over withholding of evidence.

  4. I wonder if she’s friends with Katherine Harris.

    I’m sure Alan Dershowitz is shaking in his boots.

    I know many of our posters reside in Florida and they all appear from their written words to be perfectly sane people, well … maybe not pete ;) , but guys/gals … what in the he!! is going on down there?

  5. Anyone from her office call Prof. Turley or any of the bloggers here?

    I feel slighted. She has not yet called me. I have a number of things I am willing to call her.

  6. In re Florida and official malfeasance: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

  7. Like our effusive Prosecutor Corey I firmly believe the jury got it wrong for reasons I’ll explore this weekend and which only tangentially involve the evidence. Even with that attitude, I see no reason to vilify Zimmerman. The public words of one member of the jury along with Zimmerman’s undisputed actions more than suffice in that regard.

    The court that meets every day in the public square will ultimately decide this case as it did in the OJ Simpson fiasco. Ms. Corey should just let that “jury” deliberate and then render its more considered verdict than the one that was rendered by the Gang of Six.

    I suspect Zimmerman will end up like OJ — incarcerated and a broken man. The Jury of the Public Square always gets its man.

  8. “… I firmly believe the jury got it wrong for reasons I’ll explore this weekend … ” (mespo)

    That is a teaser right up there with “Who Shot J.R?” I’m going to come early and get a front row seat!

  9. Blouise:

    And for the real tease: And like every good story, it’s more about the people than the law they tried to follow.

  10. Calling Zimmerman a murderer seems the least important thing to me, though I do think she should probably be disbarred for the affidavit and, if blame is found, discovery violations. I think she’s probably lying if she says she thinks Zimmerman is a murderer, but it should be OK for a sincere prosecutor to complain if he thinks there has been a miscarriage of justice and the community should be outraged at what the jury has done. Imagine, for example, the case of a prosecutor in a southern race case in 1930 who lost because of jury nullification.

  11. What we are all victims of is overexposure. Personally I would love to never hear Zimmermans name or yet one more account or opinion about the trial or the crime. The entire affair has been blown completely out of proportion, and when the malevolent media and those who are “outraged” over a trial by jury that he was found innocent become equally rancorous over black-on-black crime, only then will their voice have any meaning. Zimmerman became big solely and only because the left wanted a platform to spew their typical racist hatred message for which I recognized and lost interest in long ago. Enough already!

  12. I agree with her, but I agree she should have zipped her lip. Very unbecoming. Seriously unprofessional.

  13. Blouise:

    “I’m hooked … I’d even pay for a ticket.”

    **********************

    The best things in life are free.

  14. Corey should’ve left the comments of the case to the states counsel. Their comments didn’t represent her apparent lunacy. Then Corey could have left it at that.

  15. Platos, I read about that woman doing 20 years and saw her attorney on tv. Corey is a disgrace to all attorneys and has been for awhile, well before the Zimmerman trial. She is a bully and has many people intimidated. Hopefully this sunshine will lead to her removal.

  16. Many district attorneys embody the noblest ideals of what it is means to be a good citizen.

    With that out of the way, let us continue.

    Among ANY group of professionals, I would think you have some who commit felonies and should be jailed or commit errors that should cost them their license.

    CPAs might embezzle. Engineers may willfully ignore building codes. Doctors may engage in conduct so negligent as to be manslaughter. Thankfully, at least they know that if they are caught for these kinds of things, there are severe penalties.

    Imagine if a group of professionals, such as CPAs, understood that once every 10 years, maybe twice, one or two of them might be disciplined. And that they if they were, the most they would get would be 1 day in jail — which is what Nifong got.

    Wouldn’t even the most virtuous people in this group succumb to rationalize that aggressive accounting practices were fine?

    The group of professionals known as district attorneys aren’t better than any other group of professionals. And virtuous people need accountability.

    Mr. Turley makes a good argument that these district attorneys should be held accountable. I won’t hold my breath.

  17. mespo, I don’t see Zimmerman following the OJ route. Firstly, OJ was a celebrity prior to the trial. He had substantial assets and he became a pariah in Hollywood. If Zimmerman is smart enough to lay low, he should come out of this ok, IMO.

  18. >Like our effusive Prosecutor Corey I firmly believe the jury got it wrong for reasons I’ll explore this weekend and which only tangentially involve the evidence. <

    Wow.

    So you feel the jury was wrong in their finding that it was self-defense. However your "feelings" about Zimmernan's guilt has nothing to do with anything so silly and meaningless like the evidence.

    All I'll say is thank you for the jury system and the rule of law.

  19. Mespo,
    Nice plug for the weekend!!
    This prosecutor should be looking for work outside of the legal field.

  20. I would call her an ichBay but our fellow dogpac dog with a similar name would give me hell for it. But take her ugly photo off the blog it is too scary at night when the lights are out and the screen comes on.

  21. My belief is that prosecutors should say nothing after a verdict-period. Ms. Corey’s conduct is highly unprofessional.

  22. mespo727272
    1, July 18, 2013 at 4:28 pm
    Blouise:

    “I’m hooked … I’d even pay for a ticket.”

    **********************

    The best things in life are free.

    ————————————————————–

    I’ll remember that should I ever need legal representation.

  23. I think she is liable for defamation.

    To call someone a murderer after they were acquitted, amounts to slander.

    I would sue her for slander.

  24. Her comments are unprofessional and potentially unethical as a public prosecutor. Our ethical rules in KY are set out in the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules which are similar to the ABA standards:

    § SCR 3.130(3.8). Special responsibilities of a prosecutor.
    Kentucky Rules

    RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT
    III. PRACTICE OF LAW

    As amended through April 19, 2013

    § SCR 3.130(3.8). Special responsibilities of a prosecutor

    III PRACTICE OF LAW – ADVOCATE

    The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

    (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

    (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

    (c) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

    (d) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

    (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

    (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

    (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

    (e) refrain, except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons under the supervision of the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

    Comment

    (1) A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution Function, which in turn are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced in both criminal prosecution and defense. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

    (2) The exception in paragraph (c) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest.

    (3) Paragraph (d) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the client-lawyer relationship.

    (4) Paragraph (e) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor’s extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).

    (5) Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer’s office. Paragraph (e) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (e) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons under the supervision of the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.

    History. Adopted by Order 89-1, eff. 1-1-90; amended by Order 2009-5, eff. 7-15-09

  25. Just trying to generate some interest in her book that must be coming out soon before she becomes what she was in the beginning, no one.

  26. I can’t believe what has transposed since the acquittal….. I said early on it was a case for the prosecutor to lose…. Now…. She presents flames already to a highly incendiary situation….. I’m wondering how she can keep her position as well as her license….. Now, she is acting outside the scope of her office and is subjecting her, the state and other entities…. To civil liability…. I think her immunity is waning…..

  27. Agreed, she needs to be censured, her comment was entirely unprofessional but it speaks to a growing attitude that no law enforcement process is ever over, the trial is just the beginning step in the new three part process: local, federal and civil.

    I have an unsophisticated view of the law but I am not a fan of the tendency to hold serial investigations and trials. That the Justice Department is now investigating Zimmerman is just another example of what I consider an abuse of the double jeopardy prohibition. No case is ever over until as many law enforcement jurisdictions (including civil) that want a bite of the apple gets it. I suspect that Ms. Corey’s behavior is the leading edge of a new trend.

  28. Absolutely not. They are raised to a higher standard and should always act professional. I work as. Court clerk and while Prosecutors lose cases they have always been professional in how they react after a verdict is given. She should be disbarred as an attorney, a disgraced attorney. Withholding evidence from the defense??? Despicable! She damn well knows the RULES of evidence and discovery. Shame on her. She should get fired and write a book just like that female Prosecutor in the OJ Simpson case. Only in America could you mess up so bad and get fame, not to mention becoming a millionaire. Messed up society.

  29. re to: Justin F

    Corey is fortunately not the “state attorney general” but rather is a “State’s Attorney”.Here in Florida that is equivalent to a District Attorney in many other jurisdictions. So she is far more vulnerable to relevant sanctions et al we can hope.

  30. Nick and Mespo: I see GZ going the minor celeb route like the Octomom and Wayne Bobbet. In three or four years, he’ll be doing porn.

  31. Lottakatz:

    I agree with you about the double jeopardy issue with putting a person in federal court because the federal government is not satisfied with a state court jury verdict. But, unfortunatelly a lot this stems from the Dual Sovereignty interpretation.

    I wonder if our founding fathers when crafting the fifth amendment had instead of writing:

    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..”

    wrote:

    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same act to be twice put in jeopardy..”

    Maybe some of our lawyer friends here could answer this for us.

  32. Darren/LK,

    It’s not just a matter of different jurisdictions in this case, but different charges. There is no Federal murder statute that applies here. 18 USC § 1111 would only apply if the Federal government had original jurisdiction such as an interstate crime where diversity makes it a Federal matter, special circumstances like kidnapping, treason or espionage were involved or they have original jurisdiction as an operation of law like maritime jurisdiction. The DOJ is considering a civil rights violation case against Florida to determine if race was a factor in the proceedings and (maybe) directly against Zimmerman under the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (a.k.a. the Matthew Shepard Act). And I say maybe because under the MSA, the DOJ would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that race was the motive for Martin’s shooting. It would not, however, be a murder charge under 18 USC § 1111 so double jeopardy wouldn’t apply. That’s not only within their jurisdiction, it’s a totally different charge.

    I hope that answers your questions.

  33. Ok, let’s go over these preliminary facts…

    First of all, after their investigation, the Police Department decided not to bring charge against GZ due to insufficient evidence that may have proved that GZ committed 2nd degree murder.

    Then it was the Grand Jury who also decided not to bring charge against GZ for same reason above.

    Because of TM’s parents’ constant pushing and involving other famous celebrities who are also famous for drawing their race cards, the media also started to pick up on that perhaps GZ did probably pursue and kill TM on basis of racism (re: hate crime).

    After the court, it was plainly obvious to everyone that it was TM who first instigated physical provocation against GZ, we still have people constantly drawing their race cards and crying of “there is no justice in good old USA”, we have district attorney on warpath against GZ’s innocence, doing everything possible to try to put him in slammer.

    Now… I have a question for you guys. Do you seriously think he should be charged with manslaughter? Negligent homicide?

    I’m confused. I thought that if you use gun or any weapon for self defense to protect your life or others’ from danger, it was your 100% intention to kill a person to stop the threat? How can it be otherwise? Can your intention to kill for self defense NOT be second degree murder if there was no basis for self defense? Lowering it to manslaughter make it sounds like GZ didn’t mean to kill TM but he did anyways… or negligent homicide because he forgot to put his gun on safety? Give me a freaking break.

    Police did their job, they didn’t charge a wrong person. Grand Jury did their job, they didn’t charge a wrong person.

    Then because of an over-zealous district attorney who wanted to win popularity vote with people with emotional knee-jerk reactions, she decided to not to go along with common sense and charge GZ with murder.

    And because of Police investigation and Grand Jury who foresaw insufficient evidences, do you honestly think that the prosecutors had a chance in hell as a snowball to convict GZ of murder? You saw how they deliberately tried almost everything to win the court but they failed, despite with help from the Judge who was always in favor for their request, rebuttal, etc and totally not helping defense at all with theirs.

    Of course, GZ got acquitted. It was purely self-defense, and a slam-dunk victory for Defense because the jury deliberation only took two days. Definitely a no-brainer.

    You guys should be going after the district attorney for abuse of her power, making wrong decisions that would not benefit the people of her state, and wasting resources of needless court, not for what she was saying about GZ.

  34. Darren, I’d like to think that the founders actually had your crafting in mind. I find the multiple jurisdictions and the use of, as Gene elaborates, multiple charges a work-around and not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the prohibition. Thanks guys for the feedback and the elaboration.

  35. ChaZ,

    Your “preliminary facts” are not facts, in several instances. You have a unique perception of reality. That’s probably why you’re confused.

    I agree that Zimmerman’s acquittal was a “no-brainer.” Zimmerman got away with stalking and murdering an unarmed man. Several “no-brainers,” including Zimmerman, had to converge to make this happen. It worked.

    You could look up the circumstances for convictions of manslaughter and second-degree murder, if you’re curious. It’s nowhere near as simplistic as you state it.

  36. @ CHAZ AND WHERE EXACTLY DID YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE PICK UP ON TM INSTIGATED THE PHYSICAL ACTION? oh wait because thats what gz said. ok i understand…. a young black man is walking home from the store being followed by a unknown white man. for no reason other then the black guy is wearing a hoodie in the rain. and instead of going straight home like any good little black boy should have done he ducked around and came back. at this time gz who has already made his 51st call profiling black men. and states and i quote from his own words. ” these fing aholes they always get away. gz is then asked if he is following the black guy and responds yes and is told stop we dont need you to do that but continues on anyway… so now he loses sight of tm and then he sees him again. gz gets out of his car. and tm asks him why is he (gz) following him. then next thing is some scuffling then shouts for help. meanwhile the scared gz has a gun on him, during this scuffle. and tm ends up dead but i get it i really get it. i mean come on…

    LONE BLACK BOY WALKING THE BLOCKS OF A GATED COMMUNITY. BEING FOLLOWED AND HE SHOULD HAVE JUST GONE STRAIGHT HOME SHOWING THIS UNKNOWN WHITE MAN WHERE HIS FAMILY LIVES.

    its amazing how some like you have managed to turn things around and make gz the right one ON HIS WORD ALONE. the word of someone who is known for attacking a police officer, domestic violence, beating of patrons as a bouncer, among other things. there is no way in neversworry that a 9mm would have given a scared white man the gall to throw the first punch is there..? and then this said same scared white man with the 9mm at his side is the one yelling for help. this same white man who when the story first hit and we all saw him had no bruises i remember the picture of the officers walking him out of the station looking directly at the unblemished back of the head of gz but those pics disappeared and my pc crashed or i would be able to show said pics. but hey no matter one more young black man is killed and the white man is righteous in the killing. says not 12 but 6 jurors of his gz peers… and if my post sounds racist. ok. im posting it how i see it and how i well remember when the story first hit and how they crossed up a trayvon from georgia with the one from florida and how no one has bothered to correct those misconceptions yet. BUT HEY GZ IS RIGHT AS ALWAYS..

  37. Bob Kauten: “Zimmerman got away with stalking and murdering an unarmed man.”

    Where’s evidence of that? According to the court testimonies by experts and Police investigators, there was a period of four minutes between GZ losing sight of TM and altercation between them.

    Four long minutes. TM could have been home, telling the host that someone was following him and to call police. Instead, we have TM waiting outside in the dark, attacking GZ when GZ was returning to his vehicle.

    If GZ was stalking TM, the altercation would have happened near TM’s father fiancee’s house not near GZ’s vehicle. Four long minutes…

    Try walking for four minutes, you’d be amazed at how far you could go in those minutes.

    Mr. Kauten, you’re nothing but a shrill. Go parlay your presumptions and assumptions elsewhere.

  38. LK

    agreed. just calling the same act something else and retrying under different rules doesn’t seem fair.

  39. Self Defense

    You are on your back on the ground. There is a person straddling your torso, pummeling away at your head with his/her fists. You are starting to black out but you remember you have your trusty 9mm pistol in your belt holster and you’re able to use it to kill that person to protect your life.

    Does it matter if that person pummeling away at your face is 17 years old and armed? Does it matter if he/she is black/white/hispanic/green/plaid?

    Does it matter if he or she has been a good student? Honor student with Rhodes Scholarship? A devout Jehovah Witness? An Eagle Scout? Or a person with a history of assaults, robbery, carjacking?

    Does it matter if he’s from a broken house or a rich Hollywood family? Does it matter if he has no training in MMA or is an expert in Kung Fu?

    I’ll be honest with you. If it was a freaking Pope of Roman Catholic Church who happens to be pummeling my face with his fist, I would still pull the trigger. I don’t care if he happens to be white, black, or whatever. I don’t care if he was a very good person of good moral value with no bad mark in whatever monastery he’s from.

    I will still pull the freaking trigger to save my life. That’s all what matters. Taking action in my hand to save my life or to save others’ lives.

    I would still pull the trigger to save my life than to worry about being tried in the court. Or worry about what color his/her skin is. Or worry about his/her age and that he/she was unarmed to begin with.

    Self defense is for everyone. It is an inalienable human right. Heck, I don’t care who GZ is. A wanna-be cop? So what, he’s still entitled to his right to self defense. Heck, if it was Jeffrey Dahmer that was being pummeled to death by Reverend Billy Graham, I still say that Mr. Dahmer have every right to pull the trigger to save his life. It doesn’t matter who the victim is.

    Just because you guys decided to be armchair quarterback and argue about everyone’s bad past, possible racism, then throw in what ifs and buts about the scenario. I don’t care how this started or how it could have been avoided. Let’s leave that to GZ to ponder that. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for TM.

    There are no evidence that TM was assaulted by GZ except for a gunshot wound and a small scratch on left hand.

    There are evidence that support GZ’s testimony, physical evidences and DNA evidences, and gunshot wound experts’ testimonies that self defense occurred when TM was on top of GZ, and I have no reason to believe that it could not be self defense.

  40. This ONE WOMAN side show needs to be totally dis-barred from EVER practicing as a lawyer, let alone, State Attorney!

    Such a disservice to the American people and the laws of our land.

  41. ChaZ,

    “Shrill” is an adjective. I’m a shrill what?

    “Go parlay your presumptions and assumptions elsewhere.”

    Three-syllable words? Not bad, for someone who’s confused about the use of singular and plural verb forms.
    Sorry, I must have inadvertently given you the impression that I would take advice from a person of your intelligence.

    So…does that mean you don’t like me?

    Thanks for that. I must be doing something right.

    If you keep spewing long enough, you might actually convince yourself.

    That’d be a “no-brainer.”

  42. Mr. Kauten,

    So you’ve decided to resort to making mockery of other’s English and their use of words to win your argument?

    Nice try…

    I don’t like you? Nah, it would be a waste of my energy to actually try to push any negative thoughts toward your way.

    Spewing? *laughs*

    You know what, I don’t make fun of your English, I don’t make fun of your long lettered words. I don’t make fun of your education background. I don’t make fun of your culture/religion/birthplace/race/age. Do you know why? Because I don’t resort to those kind of tactic just to win my argument.

    I simply assert the facts. Just the facts. You don’t have any to back up your assertions that GZ stalked and shot TM. That’s where your assertions simply fall apart.

    Next time, try to focus on just the facts at hand. Ok?

  43. Gene

    Thanks for the info on the double jeopardy questions.

    As far as the Matthew Shepard act being applicable to George Zimmerman, I agree with you it is going to be difficult for the feds to prosecute. I read they just recently notified the evidence officer holding Zimmerman’s pistol they were going to take it into evidence for their federal investigation. (They would have to use it to prove interstate commerce on the firearm, so it would be “traced” to show it was manufactured or transported across state or national borders.)

    I might go a step further and say it is not only going to be difficult for them to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that GZ shot TM because of his race, I don’t believe there is even probable cause to support that contention. But, the feds are going to cast the biggest fishing net possible I suppose.

  44. “Zimmerman got away with stalking and murdering an unarmed man. Several “no-brainers,” including Zimmerman, had to converge to make this happen. It worked.”

    What a completely ignorant thing to say and think. This is precisely what has caused a self defense issue to turn into a race/civil rights issue. The only thing this man is guilty of is being an over zealous and perhaps bad judgment. The other premise that you spew was not even remotely shown in trial…ah, conspiracy theory, right?

  45. This one of four case that I’m aware of that Angela has been way off, she’s certainly bringing attention to herself and Florida laws. Hope she not planning to run again. Term 2009–2013 can we say one and out!

  46. Darren Smith wrote: “I wonder if our founding fathers when crafting the fifth amendment had instead of writing:

    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy..”

    wrote:

    “..nor shall any person be subject for the same act to be twice put in jeopardy..””

    Extremely enlightening, Darren. Thanks for this.

    Perhaps because of the huge size of the federal government, the Amendment needs to be amended. :-) The federal laws that exist now and could possibly be used to prosecute someone for the same action but with different charges did not exist at the time the Fifth Amendment was ratified.

    It would be interesting to research if there was debate about the wording of the Fifth Amendment and what that dialogue was and what the other drafts might have said. In all likelihood, their meaning of “offense” was act.

    You have given me some homework to do. Thanks.

  47. Deborah, here’s an interesting article with some of the dirt on Angela Corey:

    Angela Corey’s Checkered Past
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/353633/angela-coreys-checkered-past-ian-tuttle

    “When Corey came in, she cleaned house. Corey fired half of the office’s investigators, two-fifths of its victim advocates, a quarter of its 35 paralegals, and 48 other support staff — more than one-fifth of the office. Then she sent a letter to Florida’s senators demanding that they oppose Shorstein’s pending nomination as a U.S. attorney. “I told them he should not hold a position of authority in his community again, because of his penchant for using the grand jury for personal vendettas,” she wrote.”

    “Not many people are willing to cross Corey.”

    “Corey filed an affidavit that, according to Dershowitz, “willfully and deliberately omitted” crucial exculpatory evidence: namely, that Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman bloody at the time of the fatal gunshot. So Corey avoided a grand jury, where her case likely would not have held water, and then withheld evidence in her affidavit to the judge. ”

    “But will Corey ever be disciplined for prosecutorial abuses? It’s unlikely. State attorneys cannot be brought before the bar while they remain in office. Complaints can be filed against Corey, but they will be deferred until she is no longer state attorney. The governor can remove her from office, but otherwise her position — and her license — are safe.”

    “Angela Corey seems to be less interested in making crime pay than in making her critics pay.”

  48. GZ stalked TM, he caught TM and there was a fight, then GZ shot TM dead. GZ says that TM attacked him and was in the process of killing him so he drew his trusty Kel-tec 9mm and shot TM dead through the heart.

    According to GZ’s story TM attacked him and gave him a serious beating, TM cannot dispute this because he is DEAD. We might suspect that GZ’s story is made up largely of lies but we cannot prove that this is so beyond reasonable doubt and this leads inevitably and correctly to a not guilty verdict.

    However that does not mean that we cannot believe that more probably than not that GZ committed at least manslaughter and more probably murder, it may even have been murder 1.

    GZ’s story is that he was following TM and had lost track of him when suddenly TM jumped out and bashed him in the nose. Rachael Jeantel is of course a member of the N-word underclass and her previous lies and her infelicity with the English language means we cannot take her seriously, but she was an ear witness to the beginning of the fight. If she was telling the truth and I suspect that she was, then GZ’s story of how the fight started is bovine excrement.

    What RJ heard:-
    1/ TM “why are you following me”;
    2/ GZ “What are you doing here”;
    3/ TM “Get Off”;
    4/ Sound of phone falling and disconnecting signalling start of the fight.

    Note that this sounds more like GZ catching up to and surprising TM than TM jumping out at GZ. Also GZ does not mention any exchange of words before TM “punched him in the nose”. The “Get Off” by TM could indicate that GZ grabbed hold of him in an attempt to detain him. I ask some of the lawyers here whether this would constitute an assault and justify him “standing his ground”.

    There weren’t any good eye witnesses to the event since all were indoors ln the light looking out into the dark which leads to poor vision and in particular poor perception of colour so I treat their statements that TM was on top with skepticism. John Good initially said that the person on top was raining MMA blows on the underperson. Since only GM had MMA training this suggests GM on top. These eye witnesses all missed the start of the altercation and thus can give us no clu as to whether GZ or TM was the agressor.

    Finally there is the scream. We can safely discard the identifications by each set of parents of the screamer as their respective son. Parents hear their children screaming when they are young and their voices are high, they are unlikely to ever have heard a scream from an adult or late teenaged child. However that the scream ended with the gunshot
    indicates that TM was the screamer, a bullet through the heart being.very effective at stopping activity. This means that TM was aware of the gun for several seconds and was screaming because he knew that GZ was going to shoot him dead, perhaps “you are going to die homie” was said by GZ to TM and then GZ introduced it into his story as TM’s.

  49. These are all great story starters to build awareness. Agree? All the nation’s cases reopened due to massive oath violations and a lack impartiality and under a conspiracy. 

  50. Here’s a good info on what TM had on him prior to shooting, and what he didn’t have on him after the shooting. Another evidence that he backtracked to assault GZ after putting away his stuff at Green’s place.

  51. Rather than retry the Zimmerman trial, the focus should be on prosecutorial misconduct. Rather than claim all prosecutors (including D.A.s) are super-duper, with a scant few exceptions, the focus should be increasing awareness of the many who refuse to accept DNA that exonerates someone they wrongly prosecuted. And sent to prison for life, or for death. This occurs far too often.

    If Corey is not quickly removed from power, it is likely she will be responsible for many wrongful convictions (and, I suspect, probably has a few in her files right now). This is not intended as defense of Zimmerman but to emphasize that Angela Corey is one of too many. Unfortunately, juries and the public in general tend to trust prosecutors. They should not.

  52. “Corey could be sued by Zimmerman for per se defamation since she said he is a murderer. ”

    Well he did murder Martin, I thought that was one of the undisputed facts at trial. The murder was legal, but I don’t think there was any doubt he did it. The trial established that Zimmerman wasn’t guilty of one of the two offenses, not that he wasn’t guilty of shooting Martin.

  53. Murder and killing is not the same thing. A murder is an unlawful killing.

    Corey is wrong to call Zimmerman a murderer when a fair trial found him not guilty of murder and not guilty of manslaughter.

  54. Darren,

    Sure they are. The DOJ might get a dog that hunts in pursuing civil rights actions against the local PD and prosecution, but they really don’t stand a chance on an MSA based action against Z. If that evidence existed, the locals would have tried to get (or gotten back from the grand jury as the case was) a capital murder charge. There just is and always was insufficient evidence here for anything other than a manslaughter charge.

  55. Angela Cory’s behavior can better be described as prosecutorial misconduct rather than indescretion. At the very least she should resign or be disbared. Also, if anyone’s civil rigjts were violated, they were George Zimmerman’s. It eas criminal f or Corey to sanitize Trayvon Martin’s criminal behavior and unjustly deamonize George Zimmerman @ the same time.

  56. Murder vs. Homicide vs. ” Killing”:

    Murder : The killing of one human being by another human being.

    Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, individuals may, in a necessary act of Self-Defense, kill a person who threatens them with death or serious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surrounding a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.

    English courts developed the body of Common Law on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad categories: felonious and non-felonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non-felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was not considered a crime.

    Under the early common law, murder was a felony that was punishable by death. It was defined as the unlawful killing of a person with “malice aforethought,” which was generally defined as a premeditated intent to kill. As U.S. courts and jurisdictions adopted the English common law and modified the various circumstances that constituted criminal homicide, various degrees of criminal homicide developed. Modern statutes generally divide criminal homicide into two broad categories: murder and manslaughter. Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which typically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second degree, which typically does not involve a premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that resulted from a person’s criminal negligence or reckless disregard for human life.

    All homicides require the killing of a living person. In most states, the killing of a viable fetus is generally not considered a homicide unless the fetus is first born alive. In some states, however, this distinction is disregarded and the killing of an unborn viable fetus is classified as homicide. In other states, statutes separately classify the killing of a fetus as the crime of feticide.

    Generally, the law requires that the death of the person occur within a year and a day of the fatal injury. This requirement initially reflected a difficulty in determining whether an initial injury led to a person’s death, or whether other events or circumstances intervened to cause the person’s death. As Forensic Science has developed and the difficulty in determining cause of death has diminished, many states have modified or abrogated the year-and-a-day rule.

    Justifiable or Excusable Homicide

    A homicide may be justifiable or excusable by the surrounding circumstances. In such cases, the homicide will not be considered a criminal act. A justifiable homicide is a homicide that is commanded or authorized by law. For instance, soldiers in a time of war may be commanded to kill enemy soldiers. Generally, such killings are considered justifiable homicide unless other circumstances suggest that they were not necessary or that they were not within the scope of the soldiers’ duty. In addition, a public official is justified in carrying out a death sentence because the execution is commanded by state or federal law.

    A person is authorized to kill another person in self-defense or in the defense of others, but only if the person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent serious harm or death to himself or herself or to others. If the threatened harm can be avoided with reasonable safety, some states require the person to retreat before using Deadly Force. Most states do not require retreat if the individual is attacked or threatened in his or her home, place of employment, or place of business. In addition, some states do not require a person to retreat unless that person in some way provoked the threat of harm. Finally, police officers may use deadly force to stop or apprehend a fleeing felon, but only if the suspect is armed or has committed a crime that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious injury or death. A police officer may not use deadly force to apprehend or stop an individual who has committed, or is committing, a misdemeanor offense. Only certain felonies are considered in determining whether deadly force may be used to apprehend or stop a suspect. For instance, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the commission of Larceny unless other circumstances threaten him or other persons with imminent serious injury or death.

    Excusable homicide is sometimes distinguished from justifiable homicide on the basis that it involves some fault on the part of the person who ultimately uses deadly force. For instance, if a person provokes a fight and subsequently withdraws from it but, out of necessity and in self-defense, ultimately kills the other person, the homicide is sometimes classified as excusable, rather than justifiable. Generally, however, the distinction between justifiable homicide and excusable homicide has largely disappeared, and only the term justifiable homicide is widely used.

  57. Why haven’t they done something to her? She should not even be allowed to prosecute another trial! She’s biased, prejudiced & extremely racist! She shouldn’t even be allowed in a court room! I think possibly she won’t make her “extra money” since she lost. How dare her to help pick a jury then tell them the didn’t do it right? She’s crazy!

  58. Perhaps a creative judge, or legal panel, will give her a choice of punishments??? Either accept:

    a. A 5 year suspension of her attorney’s license; or

    b. something insignificant like getting her nose broken, knocked to the ground, and her head banged on some concrete by a complete stranger in the dark, and when not expected.

    To make it more fun, if she opts for “b”, she could be allowed to choose the race of the anonymous attacker!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  59. frankmascagniiii,

    Thank you. Part of the joy on this blog are the Esq.s willing to share the info they spent years (and a lot of money) learning. It helps the rest of us better understand the nuances involved.

  60. Just as Angela Corey is responsible for justice not being served in the Zimmerman-Martin case, Governor Scott is responsible for Angela Corey. He appointed her, knowing her past. There must be some accountability in our government. If Angela Corey had charged Zimmerman with manslaughter, (the only charge that can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt), then he would be punished, the act of carrying concealed weapons would be seen to carry a greater responsibility, and legally, Martin’s death would be avenged. How anyone could allow someone like her to proceed in such a self serving and cavalier manner can only reflect on them. Rick Scott should have intervened. It was his responsibility. Between the incompetence of Corey and that of Scott, we live in a more dangerous world and Zimmerman will be out patrolling, armed to the teeth with hollow point bullets, but now he will be truly nervous and looking over his shoulder. I would stay well away from him.

  61. This is one of those situations where someone(s) high up, elected, supposedly accomplished, is either, extremely stupid, corrupt, or both. Both Scott and Corey share the blame for allowing Zimmerman to walk free, armed with hollow point bullets, and probably afraid for his life. There must be accountability in our government and its officials. Corey should either resign or be sacked. Scott should acknowledge that the entire affair was mismanaged. Remember these bozos come election time.

  62. Zimmerman is guilty of first degree murder and the state covered it up. I provide evidence. The police KNEW Trayvon Martin was standing when shot and killed by Zimmerman.

Comments are closed.