Zimmerman’s lawyers: He might seek “compensation” from the prosecution

posted at 11:21 am on July 15, 2013 by Allahpundit

Something new to add to the pile of possible lawsuits post-verdict. Trayvon Martin’s parents will likely sue Zimmerman for wrongful death and hope that the lower standard of proof for civil actions beats his claim of self-defense this time. The feds are pretending that they might prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin’s civil rights, but they won’t. They probably can’t win and the combination of racial tensions and perceptions of double jeopardy (which is what a federal prosecution would smell like, even though it’s technically not DJ) makes the whole thing too politically risky for O. If he wants to use Zimmerman to galvanize liberals for the midterms, President Above The Fray can have his surrogates pound the table about the Florida verdict. No need to get the DOJ involved.

Meanwhile, as Ed noted earlier, Zimmerman himself seems set to proceed with his defamation action against NBC. I’m more skeptical than Ed is about the odds of success: It’s very easy to become a “public figure” for purposes of defamation law, which Zimmerman arguably was even before NBC butchered the tape of his 911 call. NBC’s segment ran on March 27, 2012; as of a week earlier, there were protesters at the courthouse in Sanford and news stories running at CNN about the feds opening an investigation into the incident. He was probably already a public figure at that point. Doesn’t mean he can’t win on defamation, but it’ll be much harder.

Now, via the Right Scoop, here comes potential lawsuit number four: What if Zimmerman sues Angela Corey and the state? Watch the clip and you’ll find Mark O’Mara hinting at “compensation.” I wasn’t sure offhand what he meant by that, but a little educated googling revealed a few possibilities. One: He could sue the state on federal grounds (a “Section 1983 action”), claiming that the prosecution was mishandled in a way that violated his right to due process presumably because some evidence wasn’t turned over during discovery. Actions like that are exceedingly hard to win against prosecutors, though. Two years ago, the Supreme Court vacated a judgment awarding a man $14 million in damages after a prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence during his trial and he ended up on death row. To win damages, you need to show that the prosecution engaged in a pattern of behavior. Maybe Corey’s office is guilty of that, but if not, Zimmerman will have trouble.

The other option is to skip the federal claim and sue Corey for “malicious prosecution” under Florida law. This summary seems fairly comprehensive.

To bring a lawsuit for malicious prosecution in Florida, a plaintiff must allege and prove the following six elements: (1) a criminal or civil judicial proceeding was commenced or continued against a present plaintiff; (2) the commencement or continuation of that proceeding was caused by the present defendant; (3) there was a “bona fide” termination of the proceeding in the present plaintiff’s favor; (4) there was no probable cause for the judicial proceeding to be commenced or continued; (5) the present defendant commenced or continued the proceedings against the present plaintiff with “malice;” (6) the defendant caused legally cognizable damage to the present plaintiff. See Central Fla. Mach. Co. v. Williams, 424 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…

The existence of “malice” is the essence of a cause of action for malicious prosecution. “Malicious” means without reasonable cause and for a purpose other than that for which the criminal prosecution is provided and, therefore, out of ill will, animosity and with a desire to do harm for harm’s sake. Erp v. Carroll, 438 So. 2d 31, 40 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Malice may be either: (a) actual or subjective malice, sometimes called “malice in fact,” which results in intentional wrong; or (b) “legal malice,” which may be inferred from circumstances such as the want of probable cause, gross negligence, or great indifference to persons, property, or the rights of others, even though no actual malevolence or corrupt design is shown. See Morgan Int’l Realty v. Dade Underwriters Ins. Agency, 617 So. 2d 455, 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Durkin v. Davis, 814 So. 2d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Legal malice may be inferred from one’s acts, and, unlike actual malice, does not require proof of evil intent or motive. Olson v. Johnson, 961 So. 2d 356, 359 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Maybe you can infer malice somehow from the political tensions that informed the case plus the fact that he was obviously overcharged with second-degree murder, but how do you show that there was no probable cause to commence the proceeding? Granted, the cops didn’t arrest him initially, but the trial judge thought the evidence was strong enough to go to the jury and the jury itself thought it was strong enough to deliberate for more than 12 hours. “Malicious prosecution,” I would think, is something you’d see where the trial court issues a directed verdict of acquittal because the evidence is so flimsy that there’s no reason to even let it go to the jury. That’s not what happened here. Click the image to watch.

mom


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

That should be a “+”.

kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Where’s yo dollah?

BobMbx on July 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM

BobMbx on July 15, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Hey, verb, isn’t that sand irritating?

questionmark on July 15, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Care to retract your statement?

kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM

No.
He wasn’t convicted of murdering minorities.
And I’d imagine you’d of objected if he had been.
Care to at some point accept that RWM is fully capable?

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I am not a slander and run type person Verbulace; so, in the present case I do not have ample time to respond to your previous response of an earlier comment, but will address it on another occasion. I have a rare ability to not forget things.

DDay on July 15, 2013 at 4:40 PM

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM

I never said that sshe was not.

Whom do you think that Gosnell’s clientele were?

Poor minorities.

You can’t handle the truth.

He killed minority babies.

kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM

If George Zimmerman’s name had been Jorge Zapata we’d never have heard of this case. I’d like to see an in depth investigation of how this all came about. I’m guessing there are incriminating documents showing that DOJ was up to their eyeballs in getting this off the ground.

claudius on July 15, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Care to retract your statement?
 
kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:02 PM

 
Care to at some point accept that RWM is fully capable?
 
verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 4:38 PM

 

rogerb on June 28, 2013 at 4:16 PM

 
RWM is more than capable.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM

 
This new nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-your-points debate technique is pretty comical.

rogerb on July 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM

This is the reason there will be no civil suit:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

As soon as a wrongful death action (or whatever claims are presented), Zimmerman will have an immunity hearing, show justifiable use of force (strongly implied in the jury’s not guilty verdict) and expose the parties suing (along with their attorneys per 57.105) to strict liability for the defense fees.

kmaster31 on July 15, 2013 at 4:58 PM

rogerb on July 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Positively hilarious.Sad…but hilarious.

kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM

This seems to be some overreach of it’s own.
I too feel the 2nd degree charge was unwarranted, but in the end contributed to Zimmerman walking scott free here. So maybe he should be thanking the DA for their ineptitude here.
It’s clear that the jury, based on it’s manslaughter questions, did not feel that Zimmerman was guilty of nothing. Perhaps by pursuing a lawsuit like this, he opens himself up to that getting a little more play than it has in the reporting of his acquittal of 2nd degree murder.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

In an echo of the prosecution we just watched, you have nothing but speculation. There’s no evidence that the jury felt Zimmerman was guilty of some vague “something.” It could well be that a single juror was unsure, or that no one was unsure, but their intensive review of the evidence raised a question.

By the law, we know that Zimmerman was found not guilty. The suggestion that there was something else hidden is just a matter of opinion.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:07 PM

chasdal on July 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM

This guy got more info out of Martin’s phone than the police did but it was all deemed inadmissible, so why fire the IT guy? And from what I understand, he didn’t give the defense the information, he just asked them if they had received his report.

Cindy Munford on July 15, 2013 at 1:01 PM

There seems to be a pattern of the prosecutor being very thin-skinned and retaliatory. I’m betting she’ll pull out all the stops to get the IT guy’s life and reputation ruined, and she’ll still ultimately fail.

I have to say, though, that is nowhere as clear-cut as Zimmerman’s innocence.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

First good laugh I’ve had all day.

It’s clear that the jury, based on it’s manslaughter questions, did not feel that Zimmerman was guilty of nothing.

Second. Is English your native language?

talkingpoints on July 15, 2013 at 5:31 PM

The issue here is the pattern of behavior by the prosecution AND the governor’s office from the outset. You not only have directed misconduct- Corey ordered by Scott to make the case. The unusual bypassing of the grand jury. The initial PC statement that withheld exculpatory evidence- a CLEAR violation of Florida law. Trust me, when the investigator who actually signed it is on the stand wondering if HE is going to get fined, sued or jailed, he won’t hesitate to give up Corey.

Then there is the willful hiding of evidence during discovery, which normally kills a case outright, but because the judge refused to hear it at the time, was left hanging out there. Now remember, the FIRST judge was forced off the case because of his misconduct and he was the one who approved the PC case.

Add to that the former police chief, Serino and at least one SAO that quit when he realized what was going on and Corey has some explaining to do.

Now can they make it stick in today’s world? Honestly, we are living in a time where up is down and left is right, so who knows. The system has become so corrupt and arrogant I’m not sure of anything. HOWEVER, get to trial by jury in a civil case- and Corey loses big time.

archer52 on July 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Protestors at the courthouse in Sanford….

Were those the protestors supplied by DoJ’s CRS unit?
If anyone made George Zimmerman a “public figure” it was the race-pimp industry, along with its allies within the DoJ, and media.

Another Drew on July 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Note to Florida GOP:

Primary the Governor!

Another Drew on July 15, 2013 at 5:36 PM

chasdal on July 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

In fairness I think the judge was saying that the phone could have been borrowed (as kids will do) and that everything on it might not have been put there by Trayvon.

Cindy Munford on July 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

That was indeed her reasoning. But since these text messages were actually stored in a separate password-protected application that FDLE couldn’t get into for quite some time, the idea that a 7-year old could have accessed it and sent all those texts is very thin. And I don’t see how that could be justified at all, since at the very least the presence of these text messages and photos on Trayvon’s phone would add to reasonable doubt.

But the most damning thing is that she claimed the issue was about authentication of the texts and photos, but refused to give the defense the chance to attempt authentication from the people who received those texts and photos.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

It’s clear that the jury, based on it’s manslaughter questions, did not feel that Zimmerman was guilty of nothing.

verbaloon on July 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Which is why they acquitted him.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

If Zimmerman can get the funding, the civil case can go in a number of directions.

Remember, we only know of the maleficence that escaped into the public eye. We have NO idea what happened that didn’t come out, but the one SAO who quit does. He’ll give direction to the Zimmerman’s people, as will the IT guy.

In a normal world, this will make the Lacrosse case and that DA’s ouster look like child’s play.

And Corey knows it.

archer52 on July 15, 2013 at 5:39 PM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race. High profile cases are just that, and not as easy for him to avoid commenting on.

Despite the fact that he is the first black president, his is is far from a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton presidency in this regard.

Perhaps you could look less for patterns and instead focus his actual words and deeds and minimal level of involvement in these issues.

verbaloon on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Wipe your chin off and adjust your O’bama Kneepads, they’re crooked.

First of all, can you credibly prove that O’bama had no input when Steadman Holder said the New Black Panthers were above the law?

And what about O’bama injecting himself unsolicited into the race-charged story about the black Harvard professor and the white Cambridge cop? He pronounced the white cop guilty of racism with absolutely no evidence.

Finally, he also injected himself into this case. You’re just too dim to realize it, or still too in puppy love with your Cult Leader to admit that he’s a hustler.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 15, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Why would Obama comment on Gosnell?

Because the right has deemed it to be relevant to the abortion issue?
He was asked about it once, and it was in the middle of the trial – so he properly didn’t offer a comment.

verbaloon on July 15, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Which amply explains why he weighed in on the innocence of Professor Gates and Trayvon Martin before all the facts were known.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 15, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Gosnell was convicted of murdering 4 minorities.

Resist We Much on July 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No he wasn’t.
But you know that.

verbaloon on July 15, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Wow, you’re smart!

Gosnell was convicted of murdering 3 minorities.

F-

Del Dolemonte on July 15, 2013 at 5:50 PM

It’s clear that the jury, based on it’s manslaughter questions, did not feel that Zimmerman was guilty of nothing. Perhaps by pursuing a lawsuit like this, he opens himself up to that getting a little more play than it has in the reporting of his acquittal of 2nd degree murder.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM

It’s clear that he was found Not Guilty on all charges including manslaughter. So I guess they did feel he wasn’t guilty of anything.
Drawing an inference from a jury question regarding manslaughter and then ignoring the outcome doesn’t speak well for your analytical skills does it.

chemman on July 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Someone may have already noted this, so I apologize in advance, but if I read the law correctly, Zimmerman can’t be sued in a civil action. See this.

From Florida Statutes:

“A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…”

NavyMustang on July 15, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Perhaps such lawsuits would reveal who gave the order or put the pressure on the police to make an arrest without any probable cause. I think it’s a waste of time given how Congressional hearings can’t even find out who instructed the IRS to target conservatives.

lea on July 15, 2013 at 6:43 PM

Gosnell was convicted of murdering 4 minorities.

Resist We Much on July 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No he wasn’t.
But you know that.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Have you read the autopsy reports?

Resist We Much on July 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

NavyMustang on July 15, 2013 at 6:32 PM

That’s my understanding, too. What’s more if the Martins were to file a civil suit against Zimmerman and lose, they would pick up his expenses.
The Martins need to get lost with their $1M+ payoff from the Homeowners insurance and find a rock to crawl under before their dirty family laundry stinks up the place. Besides they are being used for the NAACP, Sharpton/Jackson agenda which is only going to squander their new found fortune. Old daddy Tracy Martin looked pretty sheepish during the trial. Wonder what his issues are. He sure wasn’t looking after his son that night. In fact, he never even new he left home to walk out in the rain so innocently to get Skittles and Watermelon Arizona Ice Tea…just to complement his Robitussin DM cocktail don’t you know.

gracie on July 15, 2013 at 7:00 PM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

What fu cking world do you live in?3

Seriously.

Beer summit? He looks like my son would have looked?

You’re in denial .

CW on July 15, 2013 at 7:15 PM

. What’s more if the Martins were to file a civil suit against Zimmerman and lose, they would pick up his expenses.

I hope they try…likely it will get shot down due to Zimmerman being given immunity….

but it will be great to see more come out about who Trayvon really was…..and no he was not a good guy. He was not a nice guy. He was a bad guy. I doubt his parents(who appear to be good souls) want that exposed. Dirty laundry.

CW on July 15, 2013 at 7:17 PM

gracie on July 15, 2013 at 7:00 PM

The stupid homeowners association that settled should sue to get their money back.

The Martin/Fulton gang is making money from donations to their “charity” (it’s not tax-deductible) and passing the bucket at churches worldwide. The NAACP is just trying to generate donations. Sharpton is just trying to generate ratings.

That is all this is about now – money & who gets it.

batterup on July 15, 2013 at 7:27 PM

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I bet she was looking forward to giving Zimmerman twenty-five years on the manslaughter charge.

Cindy Munford on July 15, 2013 at 8:10 PM

I wonder if the absurd child abuse felony charge could be used to support Zimmerman’s case for malicious proecution? My understanding was such a case had never been brought before, which would strike me as strong evidence for malicious prosecution. Any thoughts on this matter, Resist We Much?

talkingpoints on July 15, 2013 at 8:37 PM

RWM is more than capable.
 
verbaluce on June 28, 2013 at 4:24 PM

 
This new nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-your-points debate technique is pretty comical.
 
rogerb on July 15, 2013 at 4:53 PM

 
Positively hilarious.Sad…but hilarious.
 
kingsjester on July 15, 2013 at 4:59 PM

 
I can certainly see how it’s preferable to only have one response-chain to obfuscate and avoid answering anything directly before you flee the thread. I can’t relate, but two or more simultaneously is bound to be unbearably difficult for that mindset and ability.
 
Speaking of:
 
Hey verbaluce, did you ever figure out why you were so concerned with what adults do in the privacy of their own homes?

rogerb on July 15, 2013 at 8:40 PM

The other option is to skip the federal claim and sue Corey for “malicious prosecution” under Florida law.

How about run of the mill defamation ? Unless of course, Corey’s publicly calling Zimmerman a murderer on TV, following his acquittal on such a charge, isn’t actionable in the Sunshine State.

Barnestormer on July 15, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I took Zimmerman’s attorney to be saying not that he was going to file a tort action against the prosecution but, rather, a petition for sanctions.
tommyboy on July 15, 2013 at 12:36 PM

I was under the impression he had already petitioned for sanctions but was considering a tort action as well.

talkingpoints on July 15, 2013 at 8:48 PM

…It could well be that a single juror was unsure, or that no one was unsure, but their intensive review of the evidence raised a question…

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I’m sorry but I have to correct you on this. The Jury was polled at the time of the verdict. All 6 jurors gave the verdict not guilty.

The polling of the jury showed a unanimous verdict.

Chaz706 on July 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM

LOL. Wouldn’t it be great if Zimmerman goes ahead and charges FL with malicious prosecution while at the same time the idiotic Holder / O administration charges Zimmerman with another crime. LOL.

anotherJoe on July 15, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Too bad Florida doesn’t have a self-defense reimbursement statute like Washington: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.110

PS – State’s Attorney Corey will have absolute immunity from civil suit unless it can be shown that she wasn’t acting as a prosecutor (Google “Imbler v. Pachtman”). If I were her I would be more concerned with disciplinary action from the Florida Bar Association and/or Fliorida Supreme Court (as a Washington lawyer (prosecutor, 26 years) IDK exactly who runs their system). As I understand it, Corey made material omissions in the charging affidavit and should be subject to discipline for violating the rules of professional conduct (specifically Rule 4-3.3 (d): http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-3.3 and 4-3.8: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-3.8).

Lammo on July 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM

“Malicious prosecution,” I would think, is something you’d see where the trial court issues a directed verdict of acquittal because the evidence is so flimsy that there’s no reason to even let it go to the jury. That’s not what happened here.

There’s a good case to be made that it SHOULD have happened. If Zimmerman had been convicted, it might very well have been overturned on appeal.

1) There was no evidence of anything besides self-defense, yet the judge insisted on going to trial rather than directing acquittal. That is desirable from a political standpoint, but questionable from a legal standpoint. The state has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they didn’t even come close.
2) The prosecution kept back all kinds of evidence. What they did turn over was in a binary format, to force the defense to hire their own experts to tease out the evidence that the state had available. This was egregious enough that the defense actually filed for sanctions against the prosecution. And while the Zimmerman trial is over, those sanctions hearings are not. The judge postponed them until the main trial was over.
3) A grand jury was already convened to hear the evidence and consider whether the evidence was sufficient to proceed with the prosecution. The prosecutor decided to skip it and go forward with just an affidavit. While that is not necessarily an indicator of malicious prosecution, it certainly raises the question of why they would skip the grand jury, which raises the question of whether they were afraid to face a grand jury.
4) By withholding evidence from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone on the basis that it could not be authenticated as coming directly from him, the prosecution — and the judge, for that matter — prevented Zimmerman from getting evidence favorable to him from being heard. This would not be so serious, except that the defense could have authenticated the text messages by contacting the recipients if only the judge had given them the time to do so. But keeping to the schedule was apparently more important than giving Zimmerman a fair trial

There are other calls by the judge or actions by the prosecutors that may have been questionable, but those are the ones that come to mind as possibly justifying charges of malicious prosecution.

There may not be enough to overcome the presumption of prosecutorial immunity, but monetary sanctions are certainly possible. And if any on the prosecutor team are disbarred, that’s the end of their legal career.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2013 at 1:08 AM

…It could well be that a single juror was unsure, or that no one was unsure, but their intensive review of the evidence raised a question…

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 15, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I’m sorry but I have to correct you on this. The Jury was polled at the time of the verdict. All 6 jurors gave the verdict not guilty.

The polling of the jury showed a unanimous verdict.

Chaz706 on July 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM

They certainly did, at the end of the trial. That doesn’t mean there weren’t concerns or disagreements during deliberations.

The important point, though, is that you can’t read too much into a question like that. All it really means is that at least one juror at that point felt manslaughter might be possible, depending on exactly how it was defined.

There Goes the Neighborhood on July 16, 2013 at 1:11 AM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

You mean like NASCAR? Or maybe Grand Prix?

Nutstuyu on July 16, 2013 at 1:14 AM

Uhm, the prosecution itself admitted during its closing argument that it had no evidence. They told the jurors to use their “common sense” and appeal to their “hearts,” NOT ANY EVIDENCE, to reach a verdict of guilty.

So, are you kidding me Allahpundit? There is no case here? The state can now charge people and bring cases to trial with no evidence whatsoever?

Ok dude.

Riposte on July 16, 2013 at 3:36 AM

But how do you show there was no probable cause to proceed?

Angela Corey chose NOT TO HOLD A GRAND JURY--that’s how.

Had she held a grand jury, she would be safe; she chose not to do so, and she is very vulnerable on that score.

This prosecution was malicious; the charge of 2nd Degree Murder is further evidence of malice, particularly since prosecutors added manslaughter and other charges at the end of the trial instead of at the beginning of the trial.

mountainaires on July 16, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Angela Corey’s performance the night the verdict was returned makes it quite obvious that she fears a charge of malicious prosecution. She clearly knows she’s guilty of malicious prosecution; and her prosecutorial attorneys know it too.

mountainaires on July 16, 2013 at 7:43 AM

So, are you kidding me Allahpundit? There is no case here? The state can now charge people and bring cases to trial with no evidence whatsoever?

Ok dude.

Riposte on July 16, 2013 at 3:36 AM

Indeed. If ever there were clear evidence of malicious prosecution, this is it.

And, frankly, I think Gov. Rick Scott should be worried himself.

After all, he REMOVED THE ELECTED OFFICIALS whose job it was to make the determination to prosecute, just so that Angela Corey could be installed in their place to make a malicious prosecution.

mountainaires on July 16, 2013 at 7:47 AM

One has to look no further than the Prosecutor’s statements on HLN’s “After Dark” to show a level of malice. When asked for “one word” to describe Zimmerman at this point, one of the Prosecutors (I forget if it was Corey or Del La Rionda) said “Murderer”. This shows they do not honor the same legal system they portend to represent, and do not believe in it’s basis of “innocent until proven guilty”.

Del la Rionda also had a similar moment in his closing argument when he said something akin to “Doesn’t he look like a murderer to you?”, pointing to Zimmerman. The Defense did not object, which I found odd. But, again, this shows that at least in this case, the Prosecution already had made up it’s mind–Zimmerman was already guilty, and there was no presumption of innocence.

These statements, coupled with multiple cases of blatant discovery malfeasance, shows Malice toward Zimmerman. Not to mention that the Prosecution team also seemed to imply that they want the DOJ to pursue a “Hate Crime” charge, again bolsters the Defense argument of complete and evil bias. It is not wrong to believe the person you are charging is guilty, but to say it in court both before and after he is found innocent means big problems for them.

darkmetal on July 16, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I’m also not sure I agree with Ed or Allah on the belief that the DOJ will not prosecute Zimmerman. These are people who believe that they have imperial power to disregard law at one moment, and use it as a weapon of the State the next. They don’t care if it costs millions, because it isn’t their millions.

And I don’t believe for a minute that Obama hasn’t chimed in to the DOJ on his opinion. What they are doing right now isn’t investigate Zimmerman, but to put their finger to the wind and decide how they can use such a prosecution to their advantage. If more than 50% of young people think they should prosecute, they probably will. Because they will think it will help them in the upcoming elections. Justice be damned.

darkmetal on July 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

As has often been noted, Obama has a reluctance to be drawn into issues regarding race.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Wow, I laughed so hard my Coke Zero came out my nose, and now I have to clean my keyboard. Thanks. Best line I’ve heard all day.

Chris of Rights on July 16, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Gosnell was convicted of murdering 4 minorities.
Resist We Much on July 15, 2013 at 2:24 PM

No he wasn’t.
But you know that.

verbaluce on July 15, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Have you read the autopsy reports?

Resist We Much on July 15, 2013 at 6:48 PM

 
So another dead thread, eh verbaluce?
 
But didn’t you realize it was RWM asking it?

 
It’s hilarious that you refuse to address more than one single-minded topic that you introduce, and even funnier when you run away from the thread when pressed.

rogerb on July 16, 2013 at 12:19 PM

AP. stop spewing ill-informed legal stuff unless you’re an attorney

TexasJew on July 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Or quoting an attorney
Consult Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection or Andrew Branca.

TexasJew on July 16, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Trayvon Martin’s parents will likely sue Zimmerman for wrongful death and hope that the lower standard of proof for civil actions beats his claim of self-defense this time.

CORRECTION:

Trayvon Martin’s parents will likely sue Zimmerman for wrongful death and hope that they can enlist the mob threats of violence to intimidate the judge and jury so that they can finally get revenge for Trayvon’s death.

They’d better be careful; if they sue, and they lose, they could end up with a judgement that they must PAY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN for the costs of his defense and possibly even a punitive damage award for their frivolous and malicious lawsuit. Crump had best advise his clients that pursuing this, in light of the FBI report, and the jury verdict, that they don’t have much of a case.

Just because Ron Goldstein’s father won against OJ Simpson, doesn’t mean that the result will be the same against George Zimmerman. There was ample evidence to hold Simpson responsible; there is no evidence that Zimmerman acted in anything but self-defense–legal under the law.

Moreover, in any civil suit, the evidence of TRAYVON MARTIN’S CRIMINAL RECORD WILL BE ALLOWED. So, if the parents don’t mind that everyone finally know the truth about their delinquent, and violent, and criminal son; if they don’t mind taking the risk that they might actually end up having to PAY GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S DEFENSE COSTS, and if they think they want to keep the lies and the hate seething inside them, only to have the entire country see the truth about their son, instead of the hagiography going on now, then…..maybe they will want to endure those particularly shameful things in the public forum.

Trayvon Martin attacked and beat up a bus driver and was on suspension for 10 days for it when he was shot and killed while wandering around at night in a neighborhood where a lot of burglaries had occurred; burglaries like the one Trayvon Martin got caught for by school authorities, who found a backpack filled with jewelry along with a burglary tool. His twitter feed is filled with violent language, racist language, and sexist and “gangsta” language. Now, some might think that’s just normal adolescent behavior. It isn’t. It’s criminal behavior; it’s a huge stinking pile of evidence that Trayvon Martin was a budding criminal who likely would have ended up in jail or prison within a short time for something.

Do his parents want people asking WHY HE WAS OUT WANDERING THE STREETS WHEN HE HAD BEEN SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL FOR ASSAULT?

I don’t think so. And, that’s what will happen in a civil suit.

The Curious Case of Trayvon’s Backpack with Stolen Jewelry and a Burglary Tool

Ironically were it not for Frances Robles writing a Miami Herald article on March 26th 2012 an entire chain of events would not have taken place.

It was that Robles article, and the outlining of the Miami-Dade School Police Department’s report on a Trayvon Martin incident from October 2011, that kicked off an internal investigation by M-DSPD Police Chief Hurley against his own officers to find out who leaked the police report.

[Note: The Miami-Dade Public School System has its own Police force, and Chief, who report to the School Board and Superintendent - Not the Police Dept. The Police Chief is appointed by the School Superintendent, in this example, Alberto Carvalho]

Full story:

http://thejacksonpress.org/?p=5088

mountainaires on July 17, 2013 at 8:12 AM

Well isn’t it apparently long overdue that the lawyers of Florida finally grow a set? Given this woman’s record and apparent personality, she doesn’t seem to be well suited (tempramentally or even intellectually) for the job.

kens on July 17, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3