As I mentioned in today’s column, the prosecution team of Angela Corey in the Zimmerman case have been accused of repeated prosecutorial abuse in the withholding of evidence from the defense. Circuit Judge Debra Nelson seemed intent on the most recent charge of withholding text messages to want to avoid the issue, but she earlier held a sanctions hearing with the testimony of the man who brought the violation to the attention of the defense: IT director Ben Kruidbos. Corey has been widely criticized for over-charging the case by experts, including an article out today, and her team was widely criticized for putting on a weak case for prosecution. Now, before Nelson has ruled on her office’s withholding of evidence, Corey has fired Kruidbos. His termination before a ruling on the alleged prosecutorial abuse only strengthens his claims as a whistleblower and throws the ethics of Corey and her office in great question.
Kruidbos received a letter today telling him that he “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” This obviously angry termination followed his extraction of photos from the cell phone of shooting victim Trayvon Martin that showed a gun, a marijuana plant and jewelry, as well as a text message referring to a gun transaction. Kruidbos was surprised that the evidence was not turned over to the defense — a common violation in criminal cases where prosecutors withhold evidence to prevent its use by the defense.
Corey’s office makes no bones about the primary complaint about Kruidbos, though it throws in a couple of other prior complaints: “Your egregious lack of regard for the sensitive nature of the information handled by this office is completely abhorrent. You have proven to be completely untrustworthy. Because of your deliberate, willful and unscrupulous actions, you can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.” This is a curious objection from an office accused of violating core evidentiary rules in a push for conviction at all costs.
I have previously disagreed that the withholding of evidence in this case was minor or just a common practice. The prosecutor handed over the evidence with only days before the trial. That did not leave much time to authenticate the text messages and video which portray Martin as someone with a violent disposition or at least a fascination with violence. This included the filming of a homeless man fighting for a bike as a voice (the defense claimed was Martin) laughing at the disturbing scene. (Previously, the defense wrongly stated that the film showed Martin’s friends beating up a homeless man but they later apologized and said it was a video to two homeless men fighting). Other evidence included text messages talking about violence or showing a gun that the defense wanted to introduce.
The failure to turn over evidence or the delayed disclosure is the most common form of prosecutorial abuse. Handing over such evidence three or four days before a major trial leaves the defense with few options as attorneys are organizing their case and marshaling their witnesses. Corey’s decision to terminate the man who disclosed the withholding of evidence before a ruling on the alleged violations is highly questionable and speaks more to the anger of being called to account for sitting on such evidence. It is an unfortunate reality of high-profile cases that prosecutors will sometimes yield to the pressure to win at any cost as we saw in the Ted Stevens case, the Duke Lacrosse case and other examples of prosecutorial abuse.
Finally, the termination of Kruidbos reflects that same tone-deaf approach that Corey’s office showed at trial. While Nelson seems resistant to the claims of misconduct, most judges would find the timing of this termination of a witness highly problematic before they actually rule on the merits of the violations.
Source: Jacksonville
Former IT director fired after testifying in Zimmerman case plans ‘whistleblower’ lawsuit
Corporate Media are conservative. To think they are “liberal” shows a gross misunderstanding of what liberal means. The news media, government and corporations are the triune oligarchy that is dedicated to enriching the wealthy and further impovershing the poor and middle class, all the while creating an internal civil war of ideals between people like Kevin Dougherty and the people he thinks he disagrees with, distracting all of us from the calculated deterioration of wealth, freedom and safety orchestrated by the true elites: the super rich who control all three heads of the oligarchy.
Is it not possible that the prosecutor might have judged the material both irrelevant and unduly prejudicial? If he listened to gangsta rap, should that have been disclosed as well?
Really, I am not impressed. With respect to your “Res ipsa loquitur”, I can only say that the thing itself speaks but you have clearly misheard it. I would suggest “civis romanus sum. Odi profanum vulgus”. And there is much that is profane and vulgar among these comments.
If I had a dollar for every fool who describes the media businesses of Disney corp, GE or News International as “The Liberal Media” I would be able to give retire to South Florida. However I think I will pick a safer location.
I know everyone thinks she’s a token, but does anyone see that she’s not a white guilter. I think she was raised by her grandparents for a reason and that her “cause” is painfully wedded to her upbringing. She, like Michael Skolnik, has some seriously unresolved issues that compel them to make fools of themselves for this misguided cause.
Kevin Dougherty,
Nice hat.
Felix,
At most, two hyperlinks per comment are allowed.
The biggest problem with the Martin/Zimmerman case was that the liberal media made their decision on the case before any facts were considered. Then they drew a line in the sand and forced everyone to be on their side or against them.
The problem with determining the outcome and doggedly staying with your decision, is that you ignore anything that doesn’t prove your outcome. You twist, pervert or minimalize any truths that aren’t consistent with your outcome. You must win, by any means, so your SIDE comes out victorious.
Why did this have to become one side against another? What happened to tolerance and being open minded? The liberals drew a line in the sand, and if you are NOT on their side, then you are wrong, and probably a racists too by God!
The Liberal media determined this was racially motivated and Zimmerman was guilty of a hate crime. They had the final chapter written the way they wanted it and were NOT going to change Truth, facts and logic be damned…after all, the end was already written and will not be changed.
This was a white against black hate crime! What? Zimmerman is Hispanic? Okay, no problem, he is a WHITE Hispanic. Problem solved. What? The police investigators and FBI interviewed lots and lots of his friends and acquaintances and found no racism in his past? Okay, just don’t print any of that stuff. Problem solved. On and on the liberal media minimized or changed things to prove their outcome was correct. Heck, they even decided to fabricate and create illusions to steer people to believe their outcome was correct. “F..ing coon” was NEVER said, but even crazies like Nancy Grace are still using it as if it were fact. Trayvon was portrayed as an innocent 12 year old from day one to play on the emotional heartstrings of populace to bolster the numbers on ‘their side’ that believed ‘their outcome.’
So after all the time of trying to influence everyone to believe their preconceived outcome as being the truth, facts and logic started to win out. The judge tried to step in and get Zimmerman to testify so they could still prove their outcome was correct. The judge gave the jury an out of considering a lesser crime so they could still get their outcome. And in the end it still came down to facts and logic winning.
NOT SO FAST…the liberal media hates to lose and will persevere hoping to make their outcome correct. Damn the facts, logic and truth…full steam ahead.