Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

If Angela Corey threatened suit against Dershowitz and Harvard, she needs to step down from Zimmerman case

If Angela Corey threatened suit against Dershowitz and Harvard, she needs to step down from Zimmerman case

If this is true, then Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey needs to step off the case.

Alan Dershowitz has been a harsh critic of Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey.  Among his criticisms is that Corey has been too politicized in charging Second Degree Murder.

Now Corey is retaliating by complaining to Harvard Law School about Dershowitz’s comments.

As reported by Dershowitz (h/t Ace):

State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions.

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander.

She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.

When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand….

Even if Angela Corey’s actions were debatable, which I believe they were not, I certainly have the right, as a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years, to express a contrary view. The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander, to sue the university for which he works, and to try to get him disbarred, is the epitome of unprofessionalism.

Corey now has made the prosecution a personal issue. Will she conduct the prosecution in such a way as to achieve justice, or to set herself up for a personal lawsuit against Dershowitz and Harvard?

Corey certainly has a right to protect and defend her reputation in civil actions, but she cannot interject those concerns into a prosecution.  By threatening suit against a critic in the middle of the case, Corey has put her own financial interests at stake in the outcome and conduct of the prosecution.

Florida has adopted American Bar Association Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function.  ABA Standard 3-1.3 Conflicts of Interest provides in pertinent part:

(f) A prosecutor should not permit his or her professional judgment or obligations to be affected by his or her own political, financial, business, property, or personal interests.

Corey should step down.  Now.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

corey does need to step down.

but it won’t happen. with every day that has passed after this tradgedy, this case is more about politics and popularity rather than the law.

“If this is true, then Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey needs to step off the case.”

That is true.

Anything to show it is true?

    wanderingbutnotlost in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    “Anything to show it is true?”

    Oh, I don’t know. How about a direct, public statement of fact by one Alan Dershowitz? Or does that evidence not count?

    And earlier, you bashed someone else for the Nifong comparison, claiming “…Nifong was AFFIRMATIVELY withholding evidence…”, while implying Corey had not. So tell me, Rags, how is leaving out exculpatory evidence in her AFFIDAVIT (To whit: Police DOCUMENTED injuries consistent with the defendant’s statements of events and supportive of his claim of self-defence) so dissimilar to AFFIRMATELY witholding other types of evidence?

    You seem to be on a rant about this case for some reason.

      Ragspierre in reply to wanderingbutnotlost. | June 7, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      What Dershowitz wrote is what we call “hearsay”.

      He knows nothing about the actual content of the conversations, assuming they occurred at all.

      Assuming his story is true in any measure (and I don’t, while not assuming it is false, either), what verifies what he relates second or third-hand?

      See? How do you know what he said is true? At all?

      If you want to bash the dumb Nifong comparisons, we can do that, but let that suffice for the answer to your first challenge.

        wanderingbutnotlost in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm

        *sigh

        No, it’s not heresay in this context. Nobody is in court attempting to use this statement to prove the truth of the matter asserted, so it can’t be heresay by any reasonable assessment.

        What it is, in this context, is a witness statement and would be perfectly legitimate evidence to warrant further investigation. Is it proof by itself? Of course not. But it most certainly IS evidence the matter may have occured.

        As I said, you seem to be on a rant.

          Ragspierre in reply to wanderingbutnotlost. | June 7, 2012 at 4:57 pm

          Ummm…. While conflating a bunch of legalese (i.e., “evidence”…which can be outright lies or shining truth), you just agreed with me. I never said Da Dersh’s story was a lie. I said, as did the Prof., “IF it is true…”

          How is that a rant?

      Ragspierre in reply to wanderingbutnotlost. | June 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      “You seem to be on a rant about this case for some reason.”

      Or a contrarian. I am a “glass is always full of some fluid” thinker. Air is a fluid, according to some physics definitions. I won’t swallow Dershowitz’s load without some substantiation…partly because what he alleges strains credulity. Could it be perfectly true? Sure. Show me.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm

        “I am a “glass is always full of some fluid” thinker”

        What you really are is a “bag is always full of wind” pontificating bloviator.

          So…all you got is the name-calling. Thanks for clarifying.

          As the Prof. said, “IF Angela Corey threatened…”.

          You are on record as having blind faith in the jot and tittle of the Dershowitz story…sans any need for that nasty “support” stuff.

          OK. Up to you. I need more.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 5:34 pm

          I quit trying to discuss anything with you when you began calling me names on every thread on this subject just for disagreeing with you. So now I just point out your idiocies. That’s all the time and effort your worthy of.

          You devolved yourself to an object of sport.

          I know. You’re all butt-hurt because I identified you as a conspiracy loon who hates America because you stated that Zimmerman should commit a felony and seek “political asylum” in another country. I get you are confused about that and “name-calling”.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 7:11 pm

          BS. You began the name-calling on the very first thread about this case, which was long before the arrest warrant was issued.

          Only one person has resorted to name-calling…which you excuse yourself for doing by accusing me of doing it AFTER admitting you do it…on this thread or the one before.

          People are welcome to see for themselves.

Corey needs to step down from the case for bringing charges that are not supported by the evidence.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Think38. | June 7, 2012 at 5:09 pm

    She should be in prison for what she’s done. She should be sentenced to whatever the sentence is for what GZ is charged with. Let’s see how she likes it.

I’m not a lawyer, an actor playing a lawyer, or a convict felon jailhouse lawyer, but I can suggest that maybe we can get Nancy Grace to get on Angela Corey “like a cheap suit” too.

Defense Attorney Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft pretty much agrees with Deschowitz and adds:

Corey avoided the grand jury, insisted on making the decision herself and then overcharged the case. She held a press conference describing how she prayed with the victims’ family. She seems to view her job as defending victims. It’s not. Her office represents all of the people of the state of Florida. By law, she must afford victims certain specified rights, but she doesn’t represent them. Her job is to prosecute perpetrators of crime and ensure crime victims have a voice to the extent the law allows. She’s not their lawyer.

If this case goes south, she is the one to be held accountable — the buck stops with her.

    JoAnne in reply to gad-fly. | June 7, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    Maybe she’s watched too much “Law and Order?”

      Observer in reply to JoAnne. | June 7, 2012 at 2:15 pm

      Not likely. If she had, she would know that lawyers can get in a lot of trouble for making statements to judges that are deliberately misleading.

      Dershowitz is right when he says Corey’s behavior in the Zimmerman case has been unethical. Last I checked, truth is still a defense to a defamation claim. So go ahead and sue him, Corey, but better be prepared to lose.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Observer. | June 7, 2012 at 5:38 pm

        Well,the first question that comes to mind regarding a suit she might file is what her damages would be. She’s a civil servant.

      Ernie G in reply to JoAnne. | June 7, 2012 at 4:04 pm

      Maybe she has. As Jack McCoy has famously said, you can indict a ham sandwich.

      gobsmacker in reply to JoAnne. | June 8, 2012 at 12:16 am

      Yes, I see your point. Corey seems to think she is a real life Jack McCoy, who was played to excess by Sam Waterston. To me Waterston always looked like a deer caught in the headlights, so IMO the end of L&O couldn’t have come soon enough. Too bad Zimmerman’s travails won’t simply end at the close of the hour, just as the TV show was supposed to end with some preachy lesson learned by the audience. Zimmerman’s life is a mess; Corey is just piling on to make sure he gets the biggest dose of misery she can mete out with all the force of the state at her disposal. People like her deserve a special circle of hell of their own.

    Think38 in reply to gad-fly. | June 7, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    The bulk of the evidence points to the conclusion that Zimmerman, not Martin, was the victim of a crime. Corey seems to ignore that, despite her obligation to seek justice.

Corey gets worse every time she does something or opens her mouth. Before this is over her comments and actions, alone, may be Martin’s best defense. (Like Elizabeth Warren, she should stop digging.) And who could agree with Alan Dershowitz all the time? Really. That said, why all the conditional clauses in these statements? Dear Harvard, it doesn’t all come from you; Alan Dershowitz can express his opinion, period. It’s not “a matter of academic freedom” that flows from Harvard. And professor Dershowitz, can you not express a view, contrary or otherwise, whether or not you have been “a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years?” That may add weight to your position, but isn’t it beside the point? The sooner we all remove celebrity from our minds – what we do, what we say, and what we hear – the better off we’ll all be.

Here’s a question: Had the comments been complementary, would Cory have cited them to publicize (strengthen) her prosecution? Just asking.

“When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand….”

They never do. Why should we be surprised? From Warren to Corey to Obama, we’re dealing with Ruling Class sociopaths of one degree or another. They can’t abide dissent or critique to their authority.

This case is already a trainwreck. How does it possibly survive this?

    persecutor in reply to raven. | June 7, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    The case is a trainwreck and will survive becuase:

    This case should have gone to a grand jury, but she was afraid they’d refuse to return a true bill; in NY she’d have no choice but to go to the Grand Jury and Zimmerman would have had a right to testify on his own behalf there.

    No judge is going to risk his reputation by dismissing the case. Better to let the case remain so it can be said that it was the “jury’s decision” if there’s an acquittal.

    I say this as a prosecutor of over twenty years experience as well as experience as a defense attorney.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to persecutor. | June 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm

      I agree, and I have thought and said the same since the charges were filed. I’m not a lawyer but logic and my knowledge of human nature tell me you are (sadly) correct.

NC Mountain Girl | June 7, 2012 at 11:26 am

Remember that old saw about not picking fights with people who buy ink by the barrel? Dershowitz has penned so many op-eds and appeared on so many TV news analysis shows he now counts as a member of the press as well as a law professor and noted criminal appellate lawyer. This is only likely to further inflame him.

It makes no sense at all.

Actually, the charges against Zimmerman should be dropped.

The evidence points more and more towards legitimate self-defense on Zimmerman’s part.

And Corey is heading down a path that will lead her to being “Nifonged” for prosecuting this case at all.

    Ragspierre in reply to EBL. | June 7, 2012 at 11:36 am

    I find any comparison to Nifong invidious…and dumb, based on what we know at this point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

    There really is no comparison if you know the facts.

      profshadow in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

      Well, actually, there are a lot of similarities.
      Politically based prosecution comes to mind as the first and foremost similarity.

        Ragspierre in reply to profshadow. | June 7, 2012 at 11:52 am

        Name them, factually.

        I think your opinion on the political thing is fine, but it is your opinion. Nothing more.

          James Felix in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 2:02 pm

          Ok, since you asked:
          1) Racially charged case
          2) “victim” and “bad guy” designated by media without regard to facts
          3) media sticking to story long after facts contradict it
          4) prosecutor acting based on media narrative and political concerns rather than the law
          5) prosecutor persisting in (4) long after the facts should have stopped her.

          So far the only difference between her and Nifong is that no one’s accused her of deliberately hiding evidence. Granted, that is a big difference. But to say that there are no similiarities is just silly.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 2:17 pm

          Here’s what I find silly…

          your first several points have nothing to do with Corey, but implicate the media (or society).

          Your #4 is, again, rank opinion, as is your #5, which is just derivative of #4.

          Nifong was AFFIRMATIVELY withholding evidence, corrupting witnesses, and arm-twisted the local cops, and for a LOOOOOONGGGGG time failed to investigate the FLUCKING case at all. Nifong FANNED the racial flames. Corey seems to be doing the opposite.

          I stand by my earlier statement. Invidious and dumb.

          James Felix in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 2:26 pm

          Read the charging document and then let me ask you this: assuming an identical set of facts but with the races reversed do you think that she would have charged 2nd degree murder?

          If you say “no” you’re admitting that she’s acting politically. If you say “yes” then we’re just at an impasse and will have to agree to think each other insane.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm

          Now you’re changing the subject.

          And asking me to speculate on what someone I don’t know at all would do in a hypothetical situation.

          But lemme help you here…prosecutions OFTEN have a political (or public opinion/public interest) component to them. Is that news to you? Is that immoral, fattening, or illegal? Or is that human nature?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 3:48 pm

          No similarity between Corey’s actions and Nifong’s? Oh, jeez. Here you go again, making a colossal ass of yourself.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm

          And here you are again, with your name-calling and NOTHING but.

          You got a RATIONAL argument; make it. “Smear and veer” fails to impress.

    She is dumb and vicious. I will assume it is not quite as bad as the Nifong malfeasance (he actually hid evidence that helped the defendants, etc.) but she is acting from political motivation and it shows. She absolutely should not be commenting on Alan Dershowitz’ comments outside the court room. She should get off the case.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | June 7, 2012 at 11:36 am

I have felt for quite some time now that with Dershowitz’s persistent criticism of the prosecution he was extending an open invitation to Zimmerman to ask for his help in preparing his legal defense.

I could be way off base. I don’t even know if this is a case where Dershowitz’s legal expertise would be useful. Maybe he sincerly feels its an unjust prosecuation by a zealous, over-reaching prosecutor and he simply wants that to publicized so the public can hold the prosecutor accountable.

Am I the only one who got the feeling that Dershowitz seemed to be itching to get actively involved with Zimmerman’s legal defense.

    For some time, I’ve been mildly amused that Dershowitz and others like Jeralyn Merritt are being held up by people who would normally be more than a bit dubious of their opinions.

    Dershowitz is a MASSIVE ego, and confirmed Collectivist, as is Merritt a self-described Collectivist. When was the last time Dershowitz met a prosecution he liked?

    That said, IFFFFFF his story is true, Corey has jumped the tracks. It DOES remain, at this point, a STORY by a man with a very clear track-record of self-promotion and highly plastic and convenient standards. I found this part of his piece interesting…

    “She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.”

    Here, he is telling his own half-truths. Prosecutors COMMONLY have pressers and make public statements. They ALSO have a very large catalog of things they cannot address. Dershowitz knows that damn good and well.

    Interesting, too, is the paucity of Corey public statements on this case. She’s hardly out beating the drum and waving the red shirt, is she?

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | June 7, 2012 at 11:58 am

    His forte is appellate cases. Should Zimmerman be convicted I’d expect him to be begging to have a piece of the appeal.

    I have little use for Dershowitz, but in this case, if he was offering to get on the case, then I’d say Zimmerman should let him.
    Dershowitz may be a lot of things, but he is a good attorney and he is thorough!

    Ask von Bulow!

      Uncle Samuel in reply to persecutor. | June 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm

      If you have not read Dershowitz’s novels, you should. They are great legal thrillers, with a lot of Israel/Jewish history thrown in. Wish there were a dozen more of his books – and they do showcase the exquisite legal mind of their author.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to persecutor. | June 7, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      Dersh gets stuff right quite often.

      He’s also right about obastard’s hatred of Israel and Jews.

Cowboy Curtis | June 7, 2012 at 11:42 am

On the upside, we are at least getting to watch a vindictive prosecutor blow up her career and future, over and over again, in very public manner. From the moment she stepped in, this entire thing has been a fiasco, and there isn’t anyone else she, nor the press, can blame. No cushy law firm is going to make her partner after her term (after this, she won’t be elected to another), no lobbying gig, and she can’t even run for dog catcher.

From the moment she announces she wasn’t going to the grand jury, I believed she saw this case as a career maker. The charging press conference, in my eyes, confirmed it. Its always been about personal ambition, and its nice to see such a person start to get their comeuppance. Too bad a man’s life had to be ruined to make it happen.

DINORightMarie | June 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

She should be fired. She is violating the Florida and ABA standards, and is thus not fit to fill this position, if what Dershowitz says is true – which I don’t doubt.

And, about her being a “Republican” – yeah, just like Gov. Crist was, I’m sure…..a RINO, at best.

Uncle Samuel | June 7, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Ms. Corey is acting more like a liberal political operative than a public defender.

BUT – the rogues, provocateurs and culpable knaves in this farce are the lawyer brothers, Parks and Crump.

They belong in jail.

[…] time (long past time) for her to step down, and let someone else handle this case (which it would be appropriate at this point to simply drop, […]

Anyone who watched her initial grandstanding should know that this woman is an utterly incompetent and unethical political hack. Reading the charging documents removes all doubt. She was obviously appointed for one reason, purely political in nature: Bring charges against Mr. Zimmerman no matter the evidence.

It isn’t the first time this woman has displayed incompetency and engaged in unethical and politicized misconduct. But it might be the last time.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to novaculus. | June 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    I saw it live and almost had to lunge for a barf bag. It was absolutely sickening. Dule lacrosee redux.

[…] William Jacobson — If Corey did this, she should step down from the Zimmerman case. Advertisement googletag.cmd.push(function() { […]

Glen Wishard | June 7, 2012 at 1:46 pm

“When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as “a matter of academic freedom,” and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand…”

Seem, nothing. She doesn’t understand.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Glen Wishard. | June 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm

    I think she understands completely. She just doesn’t like it. This was just her gambit to shut Dersh up. She probably figured a commie institution like Harvard would be champing at the bit to shut up anybody who’s not on the pro-black, PC side of the case so she gave it a shot.

Law & Order’s Jack McCoy is fond of quoting New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler’s famous comment that a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. My feeling is that Ms. Corey avoided the grand jury, not to cover herself with glory, but because her case didn’t rise to the level of a ham sandwich.

The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander…

Didn’t Dersh go further than disagreement, and (if I am recalling correctly), also say that ABC was not competent? He may have crossed the line himself.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to janitor. | June 7, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    He can say what he likes. He’s not part of the case.

      He has a national media platform, and opined with an air of neutral objectivity as an expert who supposedly read the pleadings. He didn’t merely say that he disagreed with the approach, or doesn’t think she should have done this or that, but called her work, her only profession (this is all she’s done since law school) incompetent. That’s more than “advocacy”.

      As far as I know, Corey didn’t solicit this case; she was ordered to take it. I don’t know that she had a choice to decline. It’s a political hot potato, no matter how handled.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to janitor. | June 7, 2012 at 7:27 pm

        Oh, please. She could have declined if she wanted to.

        Let me ask you this. If you were GZ, or the Duke lacrosse boys, and you were getting railroaded and your very life and that of your loved ones were seriously threatened, and you were looking at years in prison, and your parents had been driven from their home, and you were of meager means to defend yourself, and the media was villifying you everywhere day-in and day-out, and politicians and lawyers and racist hate-mongers were egging it all on throwing gas on the flames, do you think one voice crying out against a rigged system and a rogue prosecutor on your behalf in the wilderness of YOUR innocence would be a good thing? Or not?

          I don’t understand how the facts of the criminal case are relevant to the new issue that is all about Dershowitz.

          I do not know that Corey could have declined to take the case. She could have been manipulated into the hot seat. Why, with 67 counties in Florida, was this prosecutor in this county selected?

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 8:22 pm

          Maybe she got the case because she stuck her hand up in the air, waved it around and asked for it. She’s up for re-election and is not, or at least was not until now, liked by the black population of her district who had a recall effort underway. Maybe she was asked because it was thought she would do just what she did and take the heat off the gov and the AG. If she really didn’t want the case, she has the weight to have weasled out of it.

          My point about GZ’s plight is that maybe Dersh sees this as more than just advocacy. Maybe he sees it, as do I and many others, as an abject railroading and abuse of the system so extreme that strong and direct speech as to Corey’s tactics are the order of the day. There are times for polite niceties and there are times for speaking the unvarnished truth. This is a time for the latter.

          Florida could be a swing election state. Angela Corey is a Republican.

          Maybe this is about her reelection bid, or pleasing her constituency. Or maybe it’s about someone thinking that she’s the easy mark to stick political problem on, draw the heat away from other politicians. Maybe she is completely wrong in how she’s handling this, or maybe she’s not. Or maybe it’s about sending it to trial with the highest possible charge, and passing the political hot potato to a jury.

          The thing is, we don’t know. And neither does Alan Dershowitz. For myself, I prefer to not second-guess what another lawyer is doing unless I am privy to the entire case file.

          I know I had a bad gut reaction when this case first came up, because as a parent, all I could think of at first was what if that had been one of my boys (they’re grown now, but not that far from teenagers). I could imagine them visiting somewhere unfamiliar and bored with the relatives, wandering around seemingly aimlessly “exploring” the environs. A kid died.

          I also fear irresponsibility and stupidity in the handling of firearms, which only fosters laws that take away our rights.

          But I wasn’t there, and you weren’t there. Why can’t we let the system do its job. This coming down on the prosecutor is damaging and over the top speculation. (Dershowitz is easy: pro-defense, but most of all pro-publicity for himself).

          I find this venom in favor of George Zimmerman confusing. No one is more of a supporter of Stand Your Ground than I am. And I share the everyone’s detest of the race-baiting. But we now also have proof that Zimmerman has lied. And we also know that whatever happened, he voluntarily put himself into a law enforcement-type position that he simply was incompetent to handle. This is not a hero, even if innocent of criminal charges.

          Most of all though, these attacks on the Republican prosecutor in the absence of knowing the facts are just not politically expedient.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 8, 2012 at 7:09 am

          It really doesn’t matter what her motives were for taking the case. She was approached and she took it. It’s what happened thereafter that is of public concern.

          That Dersh has put a finer polish on that concern should be an encouragement to those who wish to see justice prevail.

          I couldn’t care less about the FL ‘pub party political calculations and machinations when it comes to our system of justice. It just doesn’t compare in importance. Are you suggesting that GZ’s cry for justice and fair dealing is just too paltry a matter to warrant interfering with any political maneuvering by the FL GOP?

          This woman was appointed after a GJ had been convened, then she side-stepped that. Why? The answer is obvious. Why was this prosecutor practically making out with Trayvon’s family members at the press conference? Why were they even at the press conference? I could go on and on with rhetorical questions about Corey’s behavior and actions, but (I think) you are already aware of them. If you are satisfied with them, all I can say is that you present a mentality I fight against most every day. Unquestioned belief and faith in our elected and appointed officials is what has brought this country to the brink of ruination. Reagan’s phrase, “Trust, but verify” needs to start at City Hall in Hometown, USA, with those to whom we grant broad powers of governance over us, and not be used just as a method of sentry operations over foreign enemies.

          I also hold no reverence for prosecutors or any other public functionaries, period, and I cringe with embarrassment for my countrymen who do. People absolutely should speak out when a serious miscarriage of justice is afoot. If you don’t see it happening in this case just as it did in the Duke lacrosse case, then there’s nothing anyone can say or do to remove your shadow of blind faith. You either ‘get it’ or you don’t.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 8, 2012 at 7:27 am

          A couple more things:

          GZ cooperated to the fullest with law enforcement, only to have it bite him on the butt. His biggest mistake was naively expecting a fair shake from the government and not immediately hiring a good attorney. After he realized that he’d been hoodwinked and railroaded by the government and his faith in them and their system betrayed, he began looking out for himself. Perhaps he did so clumsily, but after what all has been done to him, it’s no wonder that his epiphany may have caused him to use less than stellar judgment. As he sat in jail, under death threat, with his wife and parents driven from their homes, and the media villifying him all day long every day, he must have worryied and wondered if the government’s next move would be to take away the last and only resource he has for his defense.

          As for him being incompetent to manage following a teenager on his own volition, he had every right to investigate what was going on in his neighborhood. That he was attacked by a drug-addled thug for doing so is not proof that he should not have done so. It’s merely proof that the person he observed was capable of violence. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. I’m very glad GZ was armed, and since he is alive and the little thug isn’t, it’s obvious to me that he was indeed capable of taking care of himself and the situation. Just because the government is once again set on making a mockery of self defense doesn’t mean they are right this time any more than they are any other time, which isn’t very often. The fact that dead cops sometimes aren’t as skillful or as lucky as GZ should in no way reflect poorly on GZ’s skills or judgment. That just wouldn’t be logical, but it seems to summarize your viewpoint on the subject.

markofafreeman | June 7, 2012 at 2:21 pm

This was my response to this on Facebook a couple days ago:

===
As if Angela Corey hadn’t *already* jumped the shark.

“She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense.”

Reminds me of “My Cousin Vinny” where a clueless lawyer who had never been in a courtroom, thought he pulled one over on the prosecutor by getting him to hand over boxes of information he had on the defendant, only to be smacked down by his girlfriend, who knew more about the law than him and told him that the prosecutor was *required by law* to turn over all the evidence to him.

I smell a “Nifong” coming.

I disagree with Dershowitz on one point: Corey shouldn’t return to law school. She should serve another term. A prison term.
===

Yeah, it was a fictional movie, but the legal point is valid. The job of a prosecutor is not to convict, but serve justice.

[…] the simple issue of trying to suppress speech against government actions, Legal Insurrection points out that she may be digging herself into a hole. Corey now has made the prosecution a personal issue. […]

My guess is that Angela Corey will not voluntarily step down. She would not be in this mess if she did not lack both the integrity and the professionalism to do the right thing in the first place.

This is fascinating to me.

Dershowitz, who has…

1. no personal knowledge of what was or was not said, and

2. is conveying second or third-hand accounts he does not substantiate AT ALL,

is believed by most all here without the least, question, reservation, or critical thought.

The capacity for blind faith is sometimes amazing.

    SmokeVanThorn in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    It sure is.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to SmokeVanThorn. | June 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm

      It sure is. It’s also comical, but almost makes one want to cringe in embarrassment for him, too.

      “We’re from the government and we’re here to help.”

      🙂

    Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Blind faith? Let’s assume for the moment that Corey did, in fact, call Harvard. According to Dershowitz’ account, there are two people who spoke to her: the Harvard Law dean, and someone in the Communications Dept. (to whom the dean transferred the call). How do you think Dershowitz learned of the call? He seemed to know quite a few details about what was said. Presumably, either the dean or the communications official (or both) told him about it.

    If Dershowitz is making up the story about the call, or substantially altering the contents of the conversations, the dean and/or the communications official could contradict him, which would make Dershowitz look like either a liar or a loon. Presumably, Dershowitz is not interested in damaging his credibility in that manner (especially with his colleague, the Harvard Law dean). As you pointed out earlier, Corey herself may be refraining from denying she made the call because she thinks it is inappropriate to be discussing the Zimmerman case in public. Giving her the benefit of that doubt, what would be stopping the Harvard dean and/or the communications officer? If someone made up an imaginary phone conversation about a topic of intense public interest in which they claimed you were one of the parties involved, wouldn’t you deny it if you could?

    Believing Dershowitz’ account is less a matter of blind faith than common sense.

      Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | June 7, 2012 at 6:04 pm

      Let’s assume

      According to Dershowitz’ account

      How do you think

      He seemed to know

      Presumably,

      Presumably, Dershowitz

      Giving her the benefit of that doubt, what would be stopping
      __________________________________________

      See the problem there, Observer?

      How about Dershowitz’s support? Not your conjecture. Support for the claims.

      Both ends of this story are incredible, seems to me. Somebody screwed the pooch.

        Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 6:34 pm

        There are only two possibilities here: either Dershowitz is telling the truth about the phone call or he is not. So far, we have only his word that it happened. You’ve said there is no reason to believe him. I’ve suggested there is. I suspect we’ll learn soon enough who is correct. Until then, we can agree to disagree.

          Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | June 7, 2012 at 6:41 pm

          “You’ve said there is no reason to believe him.”

          No. I never said that. I said, variously, we need his support, we should not assume he is being truthful, he is not always been someone Conservatives knee-jerk to believe, and that we should maintain healthy skepticism.

          There is at least a third possibility, and that is that someone told Dershowitz a story that was not true.

          janitor in reply to Observer. | June 7, 2012 at 7:43 pm

          There is a fourth possibility, and that is that there was a telephone call, but exactly what was said or emphasized, after going through at least two hearsay iterations, isn’t quite accurate, and has been spun.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 8:00 pm

        This is beyond absurd. I guess Dersh should just go hound the dean and the other guy for affidavits about the conversations just to satisfy Rags. Or maybe some depositions, eh? How about some subpoenas? I guess it doesn’t matter that there’s no case pending in court.

        Isn’t there something in the law about silence equalling assent? A claim has been levied, none of the parties allegedly involved have spoken to the claim, so, until they answer it, it carries the day.

[…] of her behavior. There’s a discussion of the legal ramifications of that (if true) at Legal Insurrection. If she has made such a threat, she is ethically bound to resign from the […]

2nd Ammendment Mother | June 7, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Maybe she’s being Crazy like a Fox –

Go off on someone unrelated to the case, the Republican Governor will be forced to replace her and “Alakazam”…. she’s off the hook on a dog of a case. The Governor and whatever brave soul he finds to take this thing on gets to deal with Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the NBP when the case goes to heck.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to 2nd Ammendment Mother. | June 7, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    I think she wants the case. In her particular case, it helps her re-election chances. There’s a fairly large contingent of black voters in her district. There was a recall effort underway by said blacks because they claimed she was too gung-ho about prosecuting blacks and seeking harsh sentences. There apparently was no claim that she was harder on blacks than whites, but since there are so many black criminals, it probably seemd that way to them given the critical thinking skills of the people this matters to. I don’t know how vigorous the recall effort was, but it goes without saying that going after GZ, especially if it’s unfair, appeases them.

    That’s just one more similarity to Nifong. She needs the black vote, just as Nifong did, and this is her big chance to corner it, no matter GZ and his life. To hell with him. He’s just a pawn, as were the Duke lacrosse boys, in the re-election scheme of a ruthless prosecutor with no conscience and no ethics.

[…] 2nd degree murder, it's not like a lack of evidence plays a large role in your prosecutions. https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06…immerman-case/ and State Attorney Angela Corey is no stranger to taking fire. And she also is no stranger […]

Kudos Professor!!! Mark Levin just mentioned you and the blog on his show!!!! 🙂

While I disagree with his view, I don’t understand the carpet-bombing of Ragspierre via the Dislike buttons.

Rags is not the most delicately spoken of men, but he is an attorney and obviously has standing to express an opinion.

To my skepticism when the buttons were introduced, I add that they can foster groupthink (and groupthink’s misanthropic brother, trolling).

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | June 7, 2012 at 6:59 pm

    “Scouts take the arrows”. I step out and say what others won’t, sometimes, and I don’t try to palliate it. I can deal with the slings and arrows of outrageous whatever.

    What’s interesting to me is that people leave objectivity and consistency behind so readily, depending…

    I try to get people thinking out of the herd, which is not comfortable. I expect the “dislikes” sometimes.

    What’s funny is that I could…same as could others here…easily fashion statements that would garner ALLLLLL positive support. Walk in the park.

    Wouldn’t be me.

      quiznilo in reply to Ragspierre. | June 7, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      Oh I see, we’re too cowardly to say what’s really on our minds! hmm. People are also so inconsistent and unobjective… silly them. But you’re beyond all that, you are not “of-the-herd”. That’s harsh, considering that you’re just trying to “get them to think”.

      Your posts drip with condescension and arrogance. Sorry, I wasn’t born with a “know-your-betters” bone, and you’re “I’m the only independent thinker here” bullshtick won’t fly here, not on Legal Insurrection blog (comments area)! *humming Battle Hymn of the Republic and walking out*

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to gs. | June 7, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Rags demands proof. He claims he is a lawyer.

    Where’s the proof that he’s a lawyer? We’ve seen his so-called “legal” postulations destroyed over and over by people here who are lawyers, which they make obvious by their very concise presentations and deep knowledge of the law and clear statements about what they don’t know rather than blowhard bloviating about points on which he gets completely shot down, as well as by non-lawyers using ordinary logic. Rags’ display of actual knowledge of the law has always been limited to citing statutes, something anybody with a little bit of background can do. Beyond that, he knows a little bit about process but not procedure. At best, he’s a paralegal or a gopher in a law office writing boilerplate. If he’s a bona fide lawyer, he’s not a very good one.

    EBL in reply to gs. | June 7, 2012 at 7:52 pm

    Are you asking us not to click the buttons to avoid group think?

      gs in reply to EBL. | June 7, 2012 at 9:04 pm

      No, I’m expressing my opinion to the blog owner.

      Though an exercise in group dynamics suggests itself. Give identical inputs to test groups but vary the mechanisms by which members can interact. Examine how collective opinions evolve.

      I won’t be surprised if it’s been done.

“step down”? Anyone willing to abuse his power (or her power) in order to settle personal issues should not only lose his job (he cannot be trusted exercise the power granted him) but he should be in jail!

A prosecutor (or anyone in government) has a solemn duty not to abuse his position. We live in a representative republic, not some bureaucratic tyranny. We grant these government people these powers at OUR discretion.

I’ve got to disagree with you on this one Professor, though we agree Corey needs to be sanctioned.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to quiznilo. | June 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    Maybe the professor intended “step down” as the first “step” in righting the wrong that Corey has perpetrated.

Strict Scrutiny – The most stringent standard of behavior and responsibility, reserved to those individuals in elected office, or appointed to positions within government bodies. Due to their unique power over ordinary citizen’s lives, mostly to the detriment of, these positions require the utmost in care and deliberation in the execution of their duties. We, the people hold absolutely no allegiance, nor are we in the slightest obligated to express loyalty towards these individuals.

There, a people’s definition of the lawyerly term “Strict Scrutiny”. This is what I think of whenever I hear some lawyer use the term. We dumped out monarchy 240 years ago, let’s not let it creep back.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to quiznilo. | June 7, 2012 at 9:38 pm

    Hear, hear!

    And on a subject loosely related to your good post, is it not the case that the grand jury system was created, in part, to avoid the monarch’s abuse of prosecutorial power for political, financial, personal or any other non-judicial reasons?

    If so, the idea doesn’t seem to have seeded over very effectively, at least not in its present form as practiced in FL. If we substitute “government” for “monarch” in this case, we have a situation of the government abusing GZ strictly for political reasons.

    Why hasn’t there been any form of review of the charges by the court?

And as a very nice note – Mark Levin on todays show liked Legal Insurrection [and you by name Prof] and read the “very eloquent’ Alan Dershowitz post on the Harvard intimidation effort by the prosecutor.

“….THE CONSERVATIVE William A. Jacobson…..” from Mark Levin is a compliment, and he and Landmark Legal were ..almost hoping Corey would sue him.

In any case congrats! MP3 will soon be avail on Mark’s website. I have to listen on WMAL but they delay an hour.

As a BTW I looked and found http://www.alandershowitz.com/ in an effort to find what else he said. 90% of my favorites are conservative or neutral like Fox Bus or Fox News. About the ONLY news I watch anymore is time shifted Neil Cavuto on FBN or Fox News.

Geez, Rags! You make a perfectly logical statement and you get dumped on! But you are a lawyer so you’re probably used to that.

I think we have disagreed on one or two things over the years, but I know I’d want you in my corner when things got ugly. But then if I am in that corner it is already ugly.

Rags is a good, level-headed guy and you dismiss him and his comments at your own risk…

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to WarEagle82. | June 8, 2012 at 2:43 am

    On the other hand Rags called Dershowitz a “media whore’.

    I object to that very much. There are a lot of us out here who try to understand US law & where it stands in the world. WE welcome people like Dershowitz who get out & give public lectures.

    2,000 people paid $$$ to see 2 (leftie ) Titans go head to head in The Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Sydney Opera House in Oct 2010. Geoffrey Robertson vs Alan Dershowitz . It was booked out in hours & I could not get a ticket. I think the price was $60.

    In this instance Dersh got the upper hand . It was all very entertaining & everyone had a good time.

    Later Dersh addressed another 2000 people at The greater Sydney Synagogue for free.

    Also I commend him for almost alone coming to Sarah Palin’s Blood Libel defense.

    I gotta go with Dersh.

      WarEagle82 in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | June 8, 2012 at 6:52 am

      I think your post proves a) you didn’t understand a thing Rags actually said, and b) that “Dersh” is in fact a “media whore.”

      In the end, he is no different that Gloria Allred though he sometimes is right, or at least on the right side of an issue. But when he is right, the story quickly becomes more about him rather than the issue.

      And of course, that doesn’t mean “Dersh” can’t be entertaining at times…

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to WarEagle82. | June 8, 2012 at 9:22 pm

        I was not particularly disagreeing with Rags. I was pointing out that -no matter what his personal politics are – Dershowitz has an International Following. People are prepared to pay to listen to him .

        If that is a whore to you then I am sorry for you .

        The US Ambassador to Australia is a Harvard Human rights Lawyer who also promotes US /Australian legal symposiums. For example Justice Scalia was also here recently.

        We are interested 7 glad to have dershowitzes view.

        Unfortunately Rags is as yet an nternet poster.

As a lifelong liberal Democrat, I am no political supporter of Sarah Palin. I also oppose her use of rifle sight crosshairs as political symbols…

Alan Dershowitz

Many American supporters of Israel who voted for Barack Obama now suspect they may have been victims of a bait and switch… At the suggestion of Mr. Obama’s Jewish supporters — including me — the candidate visited the beleaguered town of Sderot…

Alan Dershowitz

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to janitor. | June 8, 2012 at 9:28 pm

    It does not matter that Deshowitz did not like the rifle sight crosshairs. He has no political clout. But he did validate the ‘Blood libel’ claim by Palin.

    Certainly I was able to use that at The guardian a& the lefties had no answer.

    That he is a lefty Dem is not the issue.

    We are talking in this thread law.

One of my favorite descriptions of Alan Dershowitz was Jonah Goldberg’s to the effect that if you gave him Viagra, he’d stand up taller and straighter and get a ruddier complexion…his head couldn’t get any bigger. But if you threaten to sue him, the first thought that comes to mind is “you’d better pack a lunch”. The second thought is “you’d better be supremely well-prepared”. The third thought is that if you threaten to sue Harvard Law as well, the first two thoughts apply even more. I devoutly hope she’s better prepared to try that suit than she seems to be to try the Zimmerman case.

[…] allegedly responded by threatening to sue Dershowitz and Harvard.  This appears to be part of a pattern when she is […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend