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?
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.
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…..
I agree with Mike Appleton in his comment above.
Reblogged this on euzicasa.
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.
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
“The Language of the Law” deftly blocks the truth more than it reveals it.
I agree completely. Corey has been completely unprofessional and has brought disrepute upon the prosecutor’s office.
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.
raff, Maybe she can team up w/ Nancy Grace.
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.
My belief is that prosecutors should say nothing after a verdict-period. Ms. Corey’s conduct is highly unprofessional.
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.
Mespo,
Nice plug for the weekend!!
This prosecutor should be looking for work outside of the legal field.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
Mespo: This is one that I can’t wait to read!
It’s amazing Corey is also responsible for spinning post-trial misinformation in the press for another blatant over-prosecution of a woman who fired shots into a wall to scare off her abusive husband – except this time Corey won and the woman got a 20 year sentence!
http://www.letstalkaboutit.info/2012/05/4-lies-distortions-and-inaccuracies_19.html