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
Were Zimmerman’s phone records included in the trial?
Judge Nelson will have no problem ruling in favor of the prosecution. We have to find a way to stop whistleblowers and other annoying people from getting in the way of necessary prosecutorial misconduct that attorneys deem essential to winning their cases at all costs and also to ensure that businesses can continue to conceal their fraud and corruption that they feel are helpful to enhancing their profitability.
Governments and businesses need a mechanism that will allow them to silence whistleblowers from ever revealing governmental or corporate misdeeds. I propose a national law banning all whistleblowing or disclosure of any information that governments or businesses deem necessary to conceal, carrying a manditory 20 year sentence for any violations, with no hope of pardon or a reduction in the sentence. That should silence those pesky whistleblowers but good.
nick, I don’t know if there was prosecutorial misconduct or not. I just presented information that was otherwise lacking.
As to my leaving, well, it was my intention to stop getting the email notifications of new threads and I would have unsubscribed on one of the emails I was to receive today. How many new threads today? and not one email.
I do have a tendency to do the opposite of what some authority tries to decide for me when it should be my decision. I exercised my right to change my mind. Now I do recognize that JT has the right to exclude me but if that is his wish, he’ll have to do it by sending my emails to the spam folder. Or he can reinstate my emails and I’ll decide when/if I unsubscribe.
bill, Calling the jury, “ignorant,” says nothing about them, but a lot about you.
If the prosecutors DID overcharge, as some allege, then isn’t it unfair to complain about them “putting on a weak case”?
Actually, I think the outcome had more to do with the problems that come from having the outcome depend on the “panel of six ignorant people” aka
the jury.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.lawreader.com%2F&ei=_zPkUanbBcLT7AbW0oDYDQ&usg=AFQjCNFuQcHb9K-UezHq1Zf2w1rE62R9mw&sig2=mUfWTQR-UrNNE7ECgp0H3g
bettykath, This person would have been the fall guy if Zimmerman lost, there was an appeal, and the exculpatory evidence was then discovered. The prosecutor is an absolute and total disgrace to attorneys, not just prosecutors. You have now set yourself up to not be able to cry foul the next time Mr. Turley points out prosecutorial misconduct. And, it appears the reports of your leaving were greatly exaggerated.
Here is a draft of the Introduction I was asked to write for a book written by retired Judge Stan Billingsley in northern Kentucky in 2009 on the subject of Prosecutorial Accountability:
BOOKS: Stan Billingsley’s book for sale: “PROSECUTORIAL …
http://www.uslaw.com › … › Kentucky Blogs › Kentucky Law Blog
THE CHALLENGE TO ALL CRIMINAL LAW DEFENDERS
Practicing criminal law as a defender is not for the timid or weak of heart. Accepting a client’s case carries a tremendous responsibility. Sometimes it seems overwhelming. But we accept the challenge because we believe that our client is really entitled to a fair trial. And part of our duties require the calling out of the unethical prosecutor.
FOR OF THOSE TO WHOM MUCH IS GIVEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED.
Bible (Luke 12:48)
We believe the prosecutor should be held accountable and follow the case law, the constitutions, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Rules of Evidence and the Rules of Professional Responsibility. We have an obligation to make sure the prosecutor plays fair.
I AM NOT AFRAID…I WAS BORN TO DO THIS.
Joan of Arc
We have a duty to bring the actions or omissions of the offending prosecutor to the Court’s attention, when the prosecutor is behaving badly. He/she doesn’t follow the court’s pretrial orders or deadlines? Ignores RCr 7.24 and & 7.26? Ignores FRCrP 16? Subpoenas records to their office or have them picked up unethically? Hides favorable evidence or discovery? Ignores Brady materials? Blames errors on the police/lab/witnesses? Fails
to accept their legal/ethical duties to disclose? Tells their witnesses not to talk to us? Blames everyone else for their sins? You better bow up and go get them!
THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO BEAT SOMEONE: OUT WORK THEM, OUT THINK THEM, INTIMIDATE THEM.
Ben Hogan
File a written motion, make a motion to dismiss, to exclude evidence, to prohibit the use of evidence, cite case law and the governing rules of professional conduct, ABA standards, ethical case law, etc.. Your loyalty is to your client on his/her case only. You can’t flinch or turn your head because you have other cases with that prosecutor or before that judge. You have to man/woman up. Your client is depending on you. You must act even when it will be uncomfortable and unwelcome. You must be aggressive and hold the prosecutor accountable. Write letters to the prosecutor, make motions to compel, ask for Giglio, Rovario, Brady materials, ask for sanctions, ask for a hearing, etc..
THE ZEALOUS DEFENSE ATTORNEY IS THE LAST BASTION OF LIBERTY-THE FINAL BARRIER BETWEEN AN OVERREACHING GOVERNMENT AND ITS CITIZENS.
Alan M. Dershowitz
I’m old school- get up in their face type, if I see an offending conduct. I’ve been told that I’m politically incorrect. You can be civil and respectful and accomplish the same objectives by using your own style and your methods, probably more effectively than this this old, beat up, scarred trial warrior. The manner/method is unimportant- accepting the challenge and acting is all that counts.
WE, AS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, ARE FORCED TO DEAL WITH SOME OF THE LOWEST PEOPLE ON EARTH, PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO SENSE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, PEOPLE WHO WILL LIE IN COURT TO GET WHAT THEY WANT, PEOPLE WHO DO NOT CARE WHO GETS HURT IN THE PROCESS. IT IS OUR JOB-OUR SWORN DUTY-AS CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, TO PROTECT OUR CLIENTS FROM THOSE PEOPLE.
Cynthia Roseberry
This book provides a much needed and long overdue resource for every real criminal defense lawyer in Kentucky. Buy it, order extra copies for your fellow warriors at the defense bar, read it, cite it and use it in every case where you are called upon to act to defend your client from all sources, who would defeat his/her right to a fair trial, by being ready as a competent, zealous, informed, prepared ethical criminal defense litigator. Focus grasshopper and ready the fight.
P.S. The rules and regulations are unfair to the people when an ineffective prosecutor does not have his evidence and uses the endless taxpayer money to make a name for himself. I do not want my money going to these causes. Months and months of prosecution that never end.
If the defense had entered any of that into evidence, which had absolutely nothing to do with how gz profiled Trayvon, the prosecution could have entered in the information about gz’s assault of an undercover officer, his assault and the subsequent restraining order of his ex-fiance, his termination from a job as a bouncer b/c of his anger issues and his assault on a woman by throwing her across a room.
Trayvon participated in organized 3 round fights. gz initiated violence against a number of people. Not sure if his years of sexual abuse of a younger cousin would have been used. Uncle Jorge remembers how George sounded when he yelled when playing with his kids (=> a young George). Uncle Miguel didn’t testify for his nephew. I suspect that Uncle Miguel is the father of gz’s sexually abused cousin.
From personal experience, I have found that the DA’s office trains their prosecutors to ignore their oath and prey on the uninformed jurors emotions. Mark O’Mara and Don West are the first real attorneys that I was compelled to listen to every word. Unlike the prosecution dancing around the facts and dragging out the case for lack of evidence. This jury did their job and was well informed, thanks to Mark O’Mara. The crime in this case was an over zealous Angela Corey and heads should roll! She almost single handedly tried to incite a riot and good people doing their job were fired.
It’s not moot, he is my brother.
It might be a good idea for all to read the actual termination letter.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/pdf/7/13/kruidbos.ltr.pdf
It indicates that Kruidbos had already had his duties greatly curtailed for cause, that the defense received all the info from the cell phone so their own expert could analyze it (and he did and so testified).
Apparently Kruidbos, without any authority whatsoever, including his job description as a tech, not an expert analyst, took it upon himself to do further analysis. He expected his non-expert report to be passed on to the defense and when it wasn’t, he hired another disgruntled ex-employee who decided to give the information to the defense.
Reblogged this on euzicasa.
It appears to me from what I’ve read over the years, that prosecutorial misconduct is rampant. I ask; who are going to prosecute the Prosecutors? Our society must once again acknowledge and accept criminal charges filed to Grand Juries by all Citizens. Even though such a system invites fraudulent or poorly derived causes of action, perhaps there is a method, some level of initiative petition, judges signature or legal co-sponsors for a pro-se plaintiff(s) claim to be heard. We’ve all seen the effects of granting the prosecutorial burden only on the State and it is clearly not acceptable.
Prosecution misconduct has always been a part of the criminal justice system. In my 36 years I have seen and felt it in pretrial matters and in jury trial. Judges are hesitant to sanction a prosecutor even when relief is sought by a zealous criminal defense attorney.
Shame on the prosecutor offices that allow this conduct and the judges who turn a blind eye to it! Defense attorney must remain strong and expose this conduct and seek judicial relief, knowing it will not be well received.
The oft cited U.S. Supreme Court case that condemned this conduct is:
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court held that withholding exculpatory evidence violates due process “where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment”; and the court determined that under Maryland state law the withheld evidence could not have exculpated the defendant but was material to the level of punishment he would be given. Hence the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling was affirmed.
A defendant’s request for “Brady disclosure” refers to the holding of the Brady case, and the numerous state and federal cases that interpret its requirement that the prosecution disclose material exculpatory evidence to the defense. Exculpatory evidence is “material” if “there is a reasonable probability that his conviction or sentence would have been different had these materials been disclosed.” Brady evidence includes statements of witnesses or physical evidence that conflicts with the prosecution’s witnesses, and evidence that could allow the defense to impeach the credibility of a prosecution witness.
Actually Prof he was canned on Friday if I recall correctly….the day before the decision….of the jury….like 11:48 am or something like that…l
I’m looking for some outrage here folks. “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller, anyone…anyone.”
Withholding evidence is very bad, even though I get the impression it is also common, even in nonpolitical cases. In a civil case, wouldn’t someone go to jail for this? In a criminal case, where it’s the representative of the state who obstructs justice this way, why don’t prosecutors ever go to jail for it? Am I wrong in thinking that they *never* do? (Well, I am— Nifong, the Duke lacrosse prosecutor served *one day* in jail). Why are judges so incredibly lenient?
Or is is a selection issue— that is, the prosecutor knows his judge and acts accordingly. Maybe prosecutors in the 7th Circuit obey the law, because there’s a chance Judge Posner or Easterbrook might help a trial judge castrate them.
Aside from the basic unfairness to the defendant (who deserves to see all evidence), prosecutors and judges are undermining the perception that our courts are fair.