It would appear that questioning the quality of the job a prosecutor does during a case is unacceptable according to Angela Corey.
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.
When Harvard disputed this, she apparently emphasized that because they hire him as a professor, they can be sued for anything he says, even his personal opinions outside of the classroom. It would seem that if the woman has time to rant to a communications staffer for 40 minutes about the horrors of freedom of expression, she would have the time to review her cases a little more thoroughly to avoid the kinds of criticism that have been heaped on her by legal professionals.
Of course, this also leaves one to wonder if Corey is threatening other critics through their employers, but they don’t have the protection of tenure and academic institutions. If she has not done so yet, there will likely be plenty of time for her to do so, and likely many reasons for critics to speak up if her track record of submitting only facts that support her case continues.
Beyond 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. 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.
So now, according to Corey’s own claims, she plans to seek financial gain from her prosecution of George Zimmerman. But we wouldn’t want to criticize her for such unprofessional behavior or she might threaten to sue us. Because who wants to live in a country where we are allowed to question the state’s prosecution of citizens? Freedom is just so overrated.
Harvard has a lot more dollars and lawyers than the prosecutor. Even if she had a strong case it might not be economical to sue.
Again, this all goes back to anonymity. Suppose Dershowitz were to quote “an anonymous email” he received, rather than taking ownership of his own words. His readership would still be exposed to his ideas, yet he would be completely immune to any legal consequences for his internet postings and the like.
After all, even a baboon with two or more brain cells could tell you that her actions are highly questionable.
It’s a win-win. You might call it cowardice, but I call it prudence.
There are pros and cons to being anonymous. Some people like to take ownership of their words, while others would prefer to have their say, but not the spotlight.
I would not call anonymity cowardace, by any means, unless you hide behind it so that you could be uncivil, or downright libelous. And you should never assume that your identity is fully protected, because sometimes there are ways of figuring out who says what.
Even if Dershowitz were to quote an “anonymous email”, if the contents are libelous, he would still be held responsible for publishing it, if I remember libel and slander law correctly. Especially if he’s publishing something that was meant to be a private communication. Furthermore, if Dershowitz were to quote an email, rather than express his opinion directly, the opinion wouldn’t have the full force and reputation of Dershowitz behind it; thus, why should we consider it important? (This is one of the down sides of anonymity.)
In any case, I doubt that Corey has a leg to stand on: she’s a public figure, and Dershowitz is likely just expressing an opinion (I’m not sure if I’ve read what he wrote). While an individual has the power of harrassment via lawsuit, in this case, she’s taking on Harvard as much as she’s taking on Dershowitz, and I would be surprised if they would be willing to allow themselves to be harrassed into silence.
And Sebastian is right: this hurts Corey’s credibility. While credibility is certainly important for Zimmerman, this case is wishy-washy enough that I would expect credibility of the Prosecutor to matter a lot too!
Perhaps most famously for us, the Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym “Publius”. This followed a general style, and as I recall one of the reasons for doing it was to avoid the appearance of making an appeal to authority. Your words stand on their own, or they don’t.
Wow Corey would fit in real well in Chicago or C(r)ook County Illinois Politics
She’d have to change her registration. According to Wikipedia, she’s a Republican. Presumably she’s a “law and order” Republican, and since she is the law, you cannot question her.
“law and order” republicans are WORSE than the worst of the Marxist PC enforcers. God damn them all straight to hell, I say!
I don’t agree with labeling an entire section of the electorate with an extremely harsh comparison like that. I tend to agree that a straight up law and order Republican who doesn’t think about the consequences over exerting the power of the state is a problem – a big problem. But the key element there isn’t the law and order Republican, it’s the part about them being a person who does not think about the consequences of state overreach.
‘“law and order†republicans’ are indeed bad news at this point, but I can’t compare them to the Marxists who want to put 10s of millions of us in “reeducation” camps or worse. You don’t have to read much 20th century history to note that pattern when they get control.
Doesn’t she know that the “libel” bar for speech about a public official is very, very high – actual malice is a tough one!
Especially hilarious from a prosecutor.
She’s simply incompetent.
I’m not sure how this story could get weirder. But it probably will.
This story will get very strange.
Corey needs to destroy Zimmerman to appease the social justice crowd. Dershowitz stated that she feels they need to convict Zimmerman no matter what the evidence in order to prevent riots.
This is the modern day equivalent of a lynching under the auspices of the state.
More from Legal Insurrection, “Zimmerman prosecutor has history of going after critics“, including this choice quote from (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union columnist Ron Littlepage:
He was a target of her ire, receiving “a two-page, single-spaced letter on official state attorney letterhead hinting at lawsuits for libel” and the above is just 1 of 3 other incidents clinical law professor William Jacobson includes in his quote.
Yow; D’Alemberte assessment would seem to be spot on, and echoes comments by many on her press conference announcing the indictment.
Corey seems to have a short temper and a chip on her shoulder. She way over-reached (based on the evidence we’ve seen) in trying for a 2nd degree conviction and seems to be preparing her way to cash in on the talk show circuit–no doubt to fan the flames of civil discontent–in the event that she loses in court.
And just from a common-sense perspective, I can’t imagine a worse person to try to bully with a fishing expedition into his email as part of an obviously personal vendetta than the former president of the American Bar Association–imagine the favors a guy like that can call in when he wants top notch representation! Corey seems like an impulsive hothead at this point, not a methodical impartial public servant. Pity, the Zimmerman case really needs to be lead by people on all sides who can gain the public’s confidence that justice is truly served in the final verdict.
Long ago, I got into an argument with a person on the phone. The subject of disagreement is unimportant, but here is how I handled the increasing level of vitriol spewed at me:
“With your permission, I am now recording this conversation to preserve both my words and yours in case this matter does come to legal action. If you refuse permission for me to record this, I must insist you send your complaint to me in writing, signed and dated, because I need your words and mine accurately recorded one way or the other. Now, would you please repeat what you just said?”
Permission to record was refused, rudely, so I said, “I await your written complaint.” And hung up. And started every attempt after that to speak to me by phone with the same request.
I’d love to read a transcript of Prosecutor Corey’s discussion – all 40 minutes! – with the Harvard Dean.
Great idea! thank you.
https://www.change.org/petitions/remove-state-attorney-angela-corey
I think Angela is doing a great job…I had a man following me when I was 15 years old and I was so Scared that i didn`t know what to do…I found a big stick and told him to leave me alone…He started to come toward and A man came out of a store across the street, then he turned and ran….I can feel the fear that Travon must have felt, by being in a strange place…Lots crazy people and preverts out there…If I had been a larger boy, I may have hit that man with the stick…I feel that George had no fear because he had the gun…If he had told Travon that he was a watchman, then after George found out that he was there with his dad… nothing would have happen….