Year: 2012

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)

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.

For those who have never heard of SLAPP, look here. Looks like the California Legislature actually got something right. A few other states seems to have decent laws in this regard as well. Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP statute looks very narrow, however. We should fix that.