By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Angela Corey has become a minor legal celebrity for her tough-minded prosecution of the Trayvon Martin murder case. Her toughness has also drawn the ire of U.S. House member Corrine Brown in a racially charged case in Jacksonville. The case involves Marissa Alexander who was charged under Florida’s “10-20-life” law which mandates progressively tough penalties for violent felonies when firearms are involved.
Saying he had no choice, Judge James Daniel sentenced the mother of an 11-year-old to 20 years in prison after a jury convicted her of aggravated assault for firing a warning shot to discourage her estranged husband from choking her. In a cruel irony another judge had rejected Alexander’s invocation of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, ruling she wasn’t in fear for her safety when she returned to her house to get the car keys she had forgotten after she ran into her garage in an attempt to escape.
The prosecutor was singled out for failing to exercise discretion in the case. “There is no justification for 20 years,” Brown told Corey, “All the community was asking for was mercy and justice.”
Corey had offered Alexander a plea deal which carried a three year sentence. Alexander bet on the good sense of the jury, and crapped out. Judge Daniel seemed frustrated by the case:
“Under the state’s 10-20-life law, a conviction for aggravated assault where a firearm has been discharged carries a minimum and maximum sentence of 20 years without regarding to any extenuating or mitigating circumstances that may be present, such as those in this case.”
Rep. Brown was not so diplomatic saying, “She was overcharged by the prosecutor. Period. She never should have been charged.” Brown, the Jacksonville congresswoman, told reporters that the case was a product of “institutional racism.” Corey said the case deserved to be prosecuted because Alexander fired in the direction of a room where two children were standing.
Mandatory minimum sentences ignore mitigating factors and punish under a “bright-line” test. They are the darling of the “law and order” crowd who see the world in stark shades of black and white and who eschew any discretion for “lily-livered” judges who have the disturbing habit of mixing compassion and justice in sentencing decisions.
Proponents of the 1999 “10-20-life” law point to the fact that violent gun crime rates have dropped 30 percent statewide since the law was enacted. Is 20 years fair for a woman trying to defend herself? Should the prosecutor have heeded Rep. Brown’s suggestion and backed off the charges altogether? Can a law be just in the face of a result that flies in the face of “natural justice”?
Source: CNN
`Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Shano: “Sling Trebuchet: if she did not have the gun he would have put her in the hospital again if not killed her.
………..
she fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop him from advancing on her. It worked, he left, no one was harmed in the least.”
If she was in fear of her life and the garage door malfunctioned, and there was absolutely no other way out other than past the guy… she still had another option.
She could get in the car and ram the door.
Did she have a mobile? Could she call the cops and barricade herself in? If no phone, could she have fired a shot in the garage to attract that kind of attention?
The alternative was to go into the house with intent to threaten and if needs be shoot perhaps in the course of a struggle – with children around.
As to the shot, does anyone have a transcript of the evidence presented in court?
This video had the Corey saying “This woman did not fire a shot into the ceiling as she was being choked….Internet full of ‘shot in the ceiling’…the facts come out with photographs…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXqNengE778
Where did the bullet(s) actually end up? That video clip is not definitive on this. It only speaks of the circumstances of the shot being fired. Does anyone here know?
This article has “Authorities said Alexander shot in the direction of 36-year-old Rico Gray”
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-05-03/story/judge-denies-jacksonville-woman-new-trial-despite-stand-your-ground
That does not mean the bullet did not go in the ceiling. It tells us nothing about where they were in relation to one another.
I still believe, as I said above, that 20 years seemed OTT from the little I read, and that mandatory 10-20-life is insane.
If there was a charge that better fitted the circumstances, then that should have been brought.
Going in with an intention not to use a gun unless he attacked her does actually imply an intention to use it if he did.
Given that the upshot (no pun intended – ish) could have been his death, was going back in with the gun just way too easy an option?
I hope the Martin family sues their asses for something, in some state where they sold that shit. I can’t see where there’s a criminal charge available (unless there is a federal hate crime statute that might work, but I have no idea at all) but clearly, if they sold over state lines into other states, there can be some federal suits going on somewhere by someone.
See, those folks in Virginia, they don’t shame easy.
@shano,
“anon: the garage door malfunctioned. She was trying to drive away but could not get out. Her gun was in the car, she has the correct permits, etc.”
Yes, but did she have a working cell phone? Maybe she should have just stayed in the garage and called the cops.
And it’s been a long time since I had an automatic garage door, but when I did, it had an emergency pull down release in case the power was out or the motor had jammed. The release would work in almost any case as it disconnected the door itself from the motor and track mechanism.
Why didn’t she use the emergency release?
“Anon: “Yeah, what’s the purpose of having a gun for self-defense if you only bring it to places where it’s never going to be needed at all?
I’ve never had it adequately explained to me why …”
There you have it.
Was the gun the only way out?
If she didn’t have the gun, would she have found another way?
Is the gun for self-defence in any and all circumstances or only for when there is absolutely no other way?”
A standard that says that guns can only be used in self-defense when there is absolutely, positively, no other way, OR else you will be charged with a crime is a stupid, ignorant, zero tolerance way of banning gun usage altogether.
The garage door malfunctioned here. Maybe the cop who investigates knows about and pulls the emergency release and it opens. Maybe a jury decides she should have gotten in her car and driven through the garage.
Maybe she should have just stayed in the garage and called 911 on her phone.
Outlawing everything EXCEPT the PROVABLY no other solution, is just a dangerous fraudulent way to outlaw it altogether.,
That is not the way laws should work.
Did you see this story?
Website Offered Gun Owners Shooting Range Targets Of Trayvon Martin
By Adam Peck on May 11, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/11/482808/website-offered-gun-owners-shooting-range-targets-of-trayvon-marin/
Excerpt;
An unidentified individual from Virginia is hoping to cash in on the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by selling gun range targets meant to resemble him.
While the targets don’t feature a photo of Martin, they do depict a silhouette of a hoodie clutching a can of iced tea and a pack of Skittles hanging out of the pocket, details pulled directly from the descriptions of Trayvon Martin on the night of February 26, when he was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.
According to a local news station in Orlando, the seller of the targets readily admits he’s hoping to make a profit over the tragic shooting of a teenager:
In an email exchange with reporter Mike DeForest, the seller wrote, “My main motivation was to make money off the controversy.”
The seller would not disclose how many paper targets had been made, but said in an email, “The response is overwhelming. I sold out in 2 days.”
Some of those targets were sold to two Florida gun dealers, according to the seller.
Well done laying it out there Malisha. Very good synopsis of what I think will happen too. Obviously this department needs some fresh air -maybe a visit from Eric Holder. After all, Joe Arpaio is getting a thorough scrubbing by the Feds these days, why not all the other court houses of corruption?
Top Shot, you’re way off with the presumptions you’re making. You said:
“You can’t honestly think that after getting the shit beat out of him, ,after a fight for his life, fighting to keep control of his gun, that he had the diabolical mind to make up a story and break his own nose. all this in the short amount of timehe had before the cops go tther. does this sound reasonable at all, to anyone?”
Well, what you say I can’t “honestly think” is NOT in fact what I honestly think. Here, Top Shot, is what I honestly think:
1. I think George Zimmerman did not get the shit beat out of him.
2. I think George Zimmerman did not have a fight for his life.
3. I think George Zimmerman did NOT have to fight to keep control of his gun.
4. I do think George Zimmerman had a diabolical mind
5. I do think George Zimmerman made up a story
6. I do not think George Zimmerman broke his own nose, at least not on 2/26/2012 between 7:00 and 7:30 pm
OK?
Here’s what I think.
1. I think George Zimmerman (Z) left his house at around 7 pm that night in a state of some frustration with something. He took his loaded gun although he alleged that he was only on his way to the grocery store, but OK, so what.
2. I think he saw Trayvon Martin and either because he meant to patrol that night or because he now had seen a young Black man he didn’t know, he began to get suspicious and even somewhat “riled up” about all the break-ins about which he was “fed up.”
3. I think when he called the police he wanted an instantaneous and very eager, hypertuned response from them, but he didn’t get as much bank for his buck as he wanted or needed.
4. I think when Martin noticed Z looking at him, and started “running” toward the back entrance to the community, Z began to get more “riled up” and his adrenaline started pumping.
5. I think Z was really riled up by the time he said, “These assholes always get away” and I think he formed the intent to NOT LET THIS ONE GET AWAY.
6. I think by the time he came upon Martin, he was really riled up, really pumped up, indignant (the police had not responded well enough and now this punk was not responding well enough) and out of control.
7. I think Z was already feeling injured (disrespected) before any syllable was spoken between him and M.
8. I think a combination of Z’s state of hyperarousal and his challenged manhood, coupled with the readiness of the loaded gun, blew Z’s judgment (pitifully small as it always was) away with Trayvon Martin’s life.
9. I think as people came out to see what had happened, Z thought, “I had to do it; I had to do it; I had to do it.”
10. Yes, I think it is perfectly possible that within the next minute or two, Z came up with the story that he told. It did not match the physical evidence, which, you have admitted, Corey HAS and we, the public, DO NOT HAVE. It did not even match the evidence that has been posted on the web. It would not have stood up to rigorous examination by proper cops doing a good job of an investigation after a person was killed. It will not stand up to scrutiny if there ever is a trial. The “turned back to the truck after looking at the street sign” part is nonsense. The “jumped me from behind” is ridiculous. The “you got a problem with that homie” is too stupid for any rational defense lawyer to allow into testimony. The “you’re gonna die tonight” is from “Schlocky-XII, the Farce Returns.” The nose is not broken and the chain of evidence is not believable and the story itself would not have flown if anybody at that station house was intent on any result other than “let him go; what he did doesn’t matter.”
The clumsiness and stupidity of Z’s initial stories will be his downfall if his lawyer doesn’t work out a plea deal. And I for one have an additional “I think” to go along with this.
I THINK the evidence Corey actually has, she does not want to reveal either. I think the evidence might very well lead to a conclusion that what Z did that night was even worse than what we think, but Corey doesn’t want to risk a race war or the utter destruction of the police department. I think Corey is playing it very smart. I think O’Mara will also play it very smart. So we will never find out the angle of the bullet, whether it really WAS the only bullet, and the other things that any self-respecting TV prosecution/cop team would have learned before station break for “a message from our sponsors.”
.
As to Zimmerman being overcharged, I do not believe he WAS.
Mike,
Item #4 on your list is the primary reason for overcharging in attempts to force pleas. We really do not have enough judicial infrastructure to adequately address criminal charging in this country. This is due in large part to taking up valuable court time with non-violent drug offenses instead of leaving courts time free to handle the prosecution of violent crimes and the private prison and budgetary “bounty system” that encourages LEOs to arrest drug offenders instead of actually working to solve violent crimes which often require an investigation to resolve into a prosecution.
Sling Trebuchet: if she did not have the gun he would have put her in the hospital again if not killed her.
One of the children backs up her story, going against his father. The husband stated she pointed the gun directly at him. She states she never did, just held the gun at her side (she had training). The child backs up her story saying she never pointed the gun at any of them.
she fired a warning shot into the ceiling to stop him from advancing on her. It worked, he left, no one was harmed in the least.
Anon: “Very few of you were upset with over-charging Zimmerman. Most of you felt it was a logical tactic to take to force a plea.”
Was Zimmerman over-charged?
My feeling is that the charge matches what I know about the events.
My feeling is that manslaughter is the minimum, but that his following of Martin should make it more than manslaughter.
anon: why not this one? Because NO ONE DIED. She certainly did spare his life when he was threatening hers.
Anon: “Yeah, what’s the purpose of having a gun for self-defense if you only bring it to places where it’s never going to be needed at all?
I’ve never had it adequately explained to me why …”
There you have it.
Was the gun the only way out?
If she didn’t have the gun, would she have found another way?
Is the gun for self-defence in any and all circumstances or only for when there is absolutely no other way?
oh, to clarify, Marissa should have chased her husband and then shot him dead. She would be a free woman today.
anon: the garage door malfunctioned. She was trying to drive away but could not get out. Her gun was in the car, she has the correct permits, etc.
It is all a misunderstanding! The ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law should have been named the ‘Chase Them Down’ Law. Because the only two cases where it ‘helped’ anyone they chased and killed someone.
One guy who killed with the knife after chasing down a thief and George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin after chasing him down both claimed SYG and it protected them. I do noot understand why Marissa is not elegible……I guess she should have CHASED her husband, then she might have had a claim!
Top Shot; “it is not against the law to carry a gun so why should there be charges for that? “
The problems arise not in the carrying of the gun so much as in in the circumstances of using it.
Would you whip it out in the course of a family dispute for example? If a member of your family did that, would you consider the action reasonable?
You seem to have three generations in your family carrying a gun but who never had to use one in a confrontation.
What are the circumstances in which you would draw your gun?
What are the circumstances in which you would discharge it?
Do you always carry it?
Would you wear it to a party or to a bar? Logically you should, as the streets embody the same danger level no matter what your destination.
Your home is always in danger of burglary, so logically you would keep it beside you while in the bath.
Because I can gaurantee you a criminal will always have one.
Assuming for a moment that this is true, then someone who looks like they were stealing your car is armed?
Would you physically tackle such a person?
Would you shoot him if you suspected that he was going for his hidden gun? It would seem foolish to wait until you actually see the gun being brought to bear on you – as that might be too late?
What if you were walking down the street and saw a group ahead who looked definitely dodgy? Would you avoid getting near them?
Would you walk right into a situation that you believed to be dangerous, relying on the fact that you had a gun for protection?
Having walked into that situation, would you shoot them to save your wallet?
It seems to me that while a Constitution written in a very different societal environment allows the general carrying of guns, the actual carrying of guns today as routine might raise a number of problems.
Very few of you were upset with over-charging Zimmerman. Most of you felt it was a logical tactic to take to force a plea. Almost none of you actively spoke out against it.
And yes, COREY should hang her head in shame on this one.
But not on that other one, right?
@BettyKath,
IIRc from when I first saw it at FARK, that article doesn’t seem to answer the most salient question: were these “likes” clicked on at work? If not, then it seems clearly well within their rights, if at work, maybe less so.
““Is 20 years fair for a woman trying to defend herself? “
On a quick reading, she brought a gun into a situation where she was well aware she might end up using it.
In a sane world outside of the Wild West, that should carry some penalty, regardless of whether or not she had a licence for the gun.”
???
Yeah, what’s the purpose of having a gun for self-defense if you only bring it to places where it’s never going to be needed at all?
I’ve never had it adequately explained to me why she couldn’t escape through the garage door or wait in the garage and call the cops, BUT, it’s truly stupid to think she should not have brought the gun with her as she walks through the house her attacker is in, or that she should be punished merely for bringing the gun in the house.
The next time a Florida cop fires a gun or taser “in the direction” of the courthouse I am going to want to see him/her prosecuted. Sauce for the goose and all that.
On appeal this defendant ought to include a defense not raised by incompetent counsel, the defense of “thought the gun was a taser” and hence not lethal. The mandatory sentencing scheme takes away her jury right– right of the jury to determine her sentence. Not some legislator in some town called Tallahassie.
And yes, COREY should hang her head in shame on this one. Every reasonable person who looks at this case knows this woman should not be doing one DAY in jail, let alone 20 years.
It confirms everything about the justice system that we know is WRONG. Innocent people getting long sentences because they are poor & minority. The rich walking or getting reduced sentences or not charged at all.
How can this legal problem be fixed for Marissa? Does she have any chance for a remedy?
latisha
you ar certainly right. she had all the evidence infront of her. stuff that the public has no knowledge of. yet i read everywhere that george z. was a monster.a racist, which when asked by dispatch what colore martinwas, his reply was i don;t know, he may be black. martin was a pot smoker, maybe a dealer, maybe he was paranoid which is a side effect of mj. i read somewhere, i cant remember where becaues i skip from one site to the next, that someone made the stupid statement that martin was on his knees when this happened, meaning z was standing over martin, that zimmerman somehow found some kind of object and inflicted the injuries to himself.. with what? and you can’t honestly think that after getting the shit beat out of him, ,after a fight for his life, fighting to keep control of his gun, that he had the diabolical mind to make up a story and break his own nose. all this in the short amount of timehe had before the cops go tther. does this sound reasonable at all, to anyone?. supposedly he was on his way to the store and he saw this stranger and knowing nothing about him decided to kidnap him. is there something wrong with me or does this actually make sense? maybe i’m the stupid one and can’t rationalize. someone said the pic of z with the blood running down his head had been doctored. Some one took that pic and in my opinion saw an opportunity to make a few bucks. why don’t people bother to read the real reports, facts about z? find out about both people involved. third time expelled for martin. caught with stole, expensive jewelry, swinging at one bus driver. lots of things came out about z but noone will even get the facts about m. he was just a little boy honor student. b.s. he was in trouble all the time. criminal trouble. charged or not. it’s makes it more a racial issue to just throw innuendo out there. why take all of his social pages down if you weren’t worried about the content. holding something against z that happened when he was 21/22 is ridiculous. can’t even get that right. domestic violencfe, he was the one with the injuries. attacking a policman, plain clother and they were attacking a friend. this whole thing hsa been one sided from the start. before you start spouting your lies why don’t you try to find out the trut h first.