More on Zimmerman Prosecutor Targeting Critics

It turns out that Angela Corey has a history of targeting critics, something that’s really getting attention ever since she threatened to sue Harvard Law School for employing a critic of her work.

She hinted at going after a newspaper columnist for libel (and called him stupid) for disagreeing with her treatment of another big case she’s handling. She also targeted the university that employees another critic of her handling of a different case by submitting records requests for the school to turn over all documents from the law professor regarding the other case Corey is handling. While there isn’t a claim in this article that she threatened to sue this critic or her employer, it does seem absurd for the prosecutor to waste her time on such an exercise.

Specifically, the act of calling a critic’s employers to rant and scream apparently isn’t a first. She has done the same thing two other times. (h/t Harold)

5 Responses to “More on Zimmerman Prosecutor Targeting Critics”

  1. Sage Thrasher says:

    Lance Ito, part II…

  2. Weer'd Beard says:

    she’s a piece of work!

  3. Harold says:

    But wait, there’s more!

    Again from Legal Insurrection, here’s the two page letter on official letterhead she sent to the editor of the columnist “and several other people”. It’s a real piece of work with a clear implied threat of suing for libel.

    She also claims it’s unethical for lawyers to call other lawyers unethical. I wonder….

  4. Patrick says:

    And then Zimmerman hires a tv personality for a lawyer who has been out of serious practice long enough that he failed to chase the donations Zimmerman received. Good lawyers would have caught that. He didn’t, and now his client is in jail for probably the better part of a year waiting on trial.

    This one is coming down to who is th worst o the bunch: the shooter, the dead guy, or their lawyers.

    Feels like OJ all over again. All we need now is a publicity-minded judge and we’re in for a real show.

  5. Andy B. says:

    This is one more example of why we should always wish for an independent judiciary, and why I’m not comfortable with judicial appointments based on (or obstructed by!) partisanship or ideology — regardless of the party or ideology.