SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (86246)6/8/2012 12:17:16 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 90947
 
Zimmerman prosecutor has history of going after critics



Posted by William A. Jacobson Friday, June 8, 2012 at 8:10am

Yesterday I posted about how Alan Dershowitz alleged that Zimmerman prosecutor Angela Corey called up Harvard Law School complaining about Dershowitz and treatening to sue for libel based on Dershowitz’s criticisms of her handling of the case.

The whole incident seemed strange, and reflected conduct that should be off limits for any prosecutor and certainly for a senior prosecutor on a high profile case.

It appears, however, that the Dershowitz incident was no isolated incident. According to Ron Littlepage, a columnist for the (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union, Corey has done this several times before:

Last December when I wrote a column critical of how she handled the Cristian Fernandez case, she fired off a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel.

In the letter, she called me out for my “lack of knowledge and objectivity about the workings of the criminal justice system.” Ouch. I think she called me stupid….

Then there’s Corey’s spat with Sandy D’Alemberte.

D’Alemberte is a former president of the American Bar Association, a former president of Florida State University and a law professor — not too shabby in the legal credentials department.

When Corey was appointed to head up the investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, D’Alemberte had this to say:

“I cannot imagine a worse choice for a prosecutor to serve in the Sanford case. There is nothing in Angela Corey’s background that suits her for the task, and she cannot command the respect of people who care about justice.”

Earlier, D’Alemberte had criticized Corey in the Fernandez case. The reaction then: A public records request from her office to FSU seeking all emails, text messages and phone messages involving D’Alemberte related to Fernandez.

Then there was this:

When David Utter of the Southern Poverty Law Center was on Melissa Ross’s radio program and had the audacity to say that Fernandez should be in the juvenile system instead of adult court, that prompted a 20-minute scream-fest from Corey in a call to the center’s director.

Similar criticism from Jeff Goldhagen, a professor and chief of the division of community pediatrics at Shands Jacksonville, elicited a similar response from Corey.

Something appears to be rotten in the state of Zimmerman prosecution.

legalinsurrection.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (86246)6/15/2012 9:15:55 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 90947
 

Zimmerman's Bail Bond Agents to Testify at Bond Hearing
By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 06:56:55 PM EST

Mark O'Mara, attorney for George Zimmerman, filed a pleading today stating he would call two witnesses from All Star Magic Bail Bonds at the June 29 hearing for bond.

I assume they will testify of the difficulty the family had in coming up with the $15,000. bond premium, as evidence that George and Shellie Zimmerman didn't think of the money raised by the website as their money, but money earmarked for legal fees, living expenses while waiting for trial and creditors. O'Mara has said in the past that the Zimmerman's didn't fully appreciate that the money belonged to them.

O'Mara has said he explained to Zimmerman why his belief was wrong, and he now understands.

Shorter version: Zimmerman wasn't lying, just mistaken, and had no intent to deceive the court.

Will he get another bond? Absolutely, in my view. First, he's legally entitled to it. Second, he will have spent 29 days in jail for his mistake -- that's a steep enough penalty. The judge is not concerned Zimmerman is a flight risk. He may not even raise the bond amount since the money is no longer under Zimmerman's control, but the control of a independent third party trustee. [More..]



Bail is not intended to be punishment. It's intended to assure the person's appearance at trial. Zimmerman, having ceded control of the raised funds to a trustee, is in no better financial condition today than when he was arrested on April 11.

O'Mara said at the June 1 hearing he still owed the bondsman $10,000. of the $15,000. premium on the first bond. Since the premium is the bondsman's fee for making the bond, he might give George a break on a new bond, but I doubt he'll forego his fee entirely. Local bondspersons use national insurance companies to underwrite the bonds, they don't put their own money at risk. The national company has to get paid too, and it's unlikely in my opinion, they would view Zimmerman as different than any other client.

Could the judge reinstate the old bond now that it's been discharged and turned in? I'm not sure, but I think not, since that would again involve the national insurance company that underwrote the bond and their contract probably says their obligations end when the bond is discharged.
Maybe someone who practices in state court can fill us in.

The agents may also testify to how compliant Zimmerman was while released on bond, but I doubt that's the reason they are being called. I think they are being called to support that Zimmerman didn't think the money raised from the website was available for bond, as was evident from the difficulty they had paying the $15,000, and that $10,000. is still owed to them for the first bond.

Yes, there's a call in which Shellie tells George that's what the money is for, and he says he'll think about it, but there's no indication from that transcript whether he agreed that's what the money was for. He could have been agreeing to think about whether it could be used for that purpose, and since he ultimately only used $5,000.00 of it, it's more likely he didn't agree that is what the money was for. He said on his website the money raised would be used for legal expenses and living expenses.

talkleft.com