I 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.
She 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?
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.
Blouise:
“I’m hooked … I’d even pay for a ticket.”
**********************
The best things in life are free.
I agree with her, but I agree she should have zipped her lip. Very unbecoming. Seriously unprofessional.
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!
If (when?) GZ is killed, will she be prosecuted for contributing to his death?
Nal,
Drunk dialing?
mespo,
I’m hooked … I’d even pay for a ticket
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.
She called Harvard about Dershowitz? Small potatoes.
Did she call George Washington about Turley?
Blouise:
And for the real tease: And like every good story, it’s more about the people than the law they tried to follow.
“… 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!
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.
In re Florida and official malfeasance: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”
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.
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?
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.
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.
Her actions and words show exactly why the jury system has evolved in Western Civilization, and why it must continue to be strengthened in every way possible.
The jury system is not so much about justice as it is about protecting everyone from “the rage of the king who can do no wrong.”
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.
Absolutely disgraceful. Why is she not disbarred? She has had power for far too long.