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 H…
If Angela Corey threatened suit against Dershowitz and Harvard, she needs to step down from Zimmerman case .wpb_animate_when_almost_visible { opacity: 1; } Close Window Font Resize A- A+ Keyboard Navigation Enable Readable Font Contrast Mode Choose Color Button black white green blue red orange yellow navi Underline Links Highlight Links Clear Selected Options Greyscale Images Invert Colors Remove Animations Remove Styles Lights Off Mode Close Window Accessibility by WAH Sign In or RegisterLogout Home About Foundation CriticalRace.org EqualProtect.Org College Donate Contact Home About Foundation CriticalRace.org EqualProtect.Org College Donate Contact 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 Posted by William A. Jacobson Thursday, June 7, 2012 at 10:29am 122 Comments Share This Story Facebook Twitter Telegram Gab MeWe Reddit Email LinkedIn Pinterest Digg Print Buffer Pocket WhatsApp Blogger Yahoo Mail Flipboard Viber Skype Facebook Messenger Copy Link More Sharing Options Share This Story Pinterest LinkedIn Digg Print Buffer Pocket WhatsApp Blogger Yahoo Mail Flipboard Viber Skype Facebook Messenger Copy Link 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. Share This Story Facebook Twitter Telegram Gab MeWe Reddit Email LinkedIn Pinterest Digg Print Buffer Pocket WhatsApp Blogger Yahoo Mail Flipboard Viber Skype Facebook Messenger Copy Link More Sharing Options Share This Story Pinterest LinkedIn Digg Print Buffer Pocket WhatsApp Blogger Yahoo Mail Flipboard Viber Skype Facebook Messenger Copy Link DONATE Donations tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. 122 122 Comments Trayvon Martin Tags: Trayvon Martin Comments drozz | June 7, 2012 at 10:35 am 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. Ragspierre | June 7, 2012 at 10:41 am “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. Ragspierre in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 5:13 pm 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. Ragspierre in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 6:34 pm 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. Ragspierre in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm 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. Think38 | June 7, 2012 at 10:50 am 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. Neo | June 7, 2012 at 11:00 am 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. gad-fly | June 7, 2012 at 11:08 am 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. Owego | June 7, 2012 at 11:13 am 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. Owego in reply to Owego. | June 7, 2012 at 12:58 pm Make that Zimmerman’s defense! raven | June 7, 2012 at 11:17 am “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. profshadow | June 7, 2012 at 11:26 am 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. EBL | June 7, 2012 at 11:31 am As Protein Wisdom notes, Angela Corey is also a Republican. Corey is becoming a Nifong. 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. EBL in reply to EBL. | June 7, 2012 at 3:50 pm 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. Ragspierre in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | June 7, 2012 at 11:49 am 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 … truncated (35,651 more characters in archive)