Zimmerman Prosecutor threatens lawsuit against Dershowitz-Harvard

hm1996

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
Quote:
Dershowitz: Zimmerman prosecutor threatened to sue Harvard


By Joshua Rhett Miller
Published June 07, 2012
FoxNews.com

State Attorney Angela Corey threatened to sue Harvard Law School during a “40-minute rant” on Friday while trying to get attorney Alan Dershowitz disciplined by the Bar Association and to file libel and slander charges against the Harvard law professor.

When Alan Dershowitz blasted the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case, she went straight to his boss at Harvard Law School to complain, according to the legal legend.

Angela Corey, the state attorney who charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the fatal shooting of the unarmed teen, threatened to sue the law school and Dershowitz for libel and slander during a “40-minute rant,” according to Dershowitz. The "Reversal of Fortune" lawyer — who has said Corey overreached with the charge against Zimmerman — told FoxNews.com he hopes the attorney for Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit Court follows through.


“I would welcome a lawsuit from Corey. It would give me a chance to prove what an awful thing she did.”
- Attorney Alan Dershowitz

“It’s certainly professional to respond, but by calling the dean and threatening to sue the school, which she knows she cannot do, is unprofessional,” Dershowitz told FoxNews.com. “I would welcome a lawsuit from Corey. It would give me a chance to prove what an awful thing she did.”

Dershowitz, who penned a column for Newsmax revealing Corey's call to the school, said he’s received “a lot” of letters of support.

Corey’s “beef,” Dershowitz wrote, pertained to his criticism of the state attorney’s filing of a “misleading affidavit” to support the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

“When the communications official explained to her that I have a right to express my opinion as ‘a matter of academic freedom,’ and that Harvard has no control over what I say, she did not seem to understand,” Dershowitz wrote. “She persisted in her nonstop whining, claiming that she is prohibited from responding to my attacks by the rules of professional responsibility — without mentioning that she has repeatedly held her own press conferences and made public statements throughout her career.”

Multiple calls seeking comment from Corey were not returned Thursday.

“She should go back to law school, where she will learn that it is never appropriate to submit an affidavit that contains a half truth, because a half truth is regarded by the law as a lie, and anyone who submits an affidavit swears to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Dershowitz’s column continued.

A new bond hearing has been set for June 29 for Zimmerman, who returned to jail Sunday after his bond was revoked. He has pleaded not guilty in Martin’s death, claiming self-defense.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/07/der...s#ixzz1xDZ084Od

Regards,
hm
 
Am I to take from you comment HB that you support Martins family and would like to ruin Zimmerman for staying alive.I recon there is no code now but it used to be when someone hit you from behind he lost a lot of credibility.Short of like shooting in the back.It looks to me like all Martin had to do was let Zim leave and that would have been all,but he came to Zim and struck him in the back of the head.Course all I know is what the liberal news reported.
 
Martin was the typical thug!
If it is 1 on 1 they try the sucker punch!

He shouldn't have brought a can of Sprite to a gun fight!

Rip thug!
 
I'm confident the jury will decide what happened and prescribe appropriate punishment. I don't have any special knowledge of the case. Clearly the prosecution doesn't believe that ol' Zim was attacked from behind. We'll see.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I'm confident the jury will decide what happened and prescribe appropriate punishment. I don't have any special knowledge of the case. Clearly the prosecution doesn't believe that ol' Zim was attacked from behind. We'll see.

All the prosecution did was to cut the burning fuse from the bomb. They did so under immense pressure from the blacks all the way to the White House. She was going to charge Zimmerman no matter what.
 
Pretending the prosecution is politically motivated isn't going to reduce Zimmermans sentence. Either a jury believes he acted in self defense or they will not believe it. The case will be decided on its merits.
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawg However, FBI involvement means Department of Justice involvement, which in turn means Eric Holder involvement. Mr. Holder's idea of judicial impartiality is, shall we say, conflicted.

Not content to simply ignore the New Black Panthers' voter intimidation efforts, Holder closed the ongoing investigation.

A black mob attacked two white reporters in Norfolk, Virginia. Again, neither Holder nor the media showed interest. Not even the newspaper where the reporters worked reported the story. Four "minorities" beat a soldier in Tampa, Florida, and the result is deafening silence. The Justice Department hasn't launched a hate crimes investigation, and no civil rights leader has scheduled a march.

What benefit exists in practicing selective justice and biased reporting? Why is black-on-white crime, like the Christian-Newsome murders, largely ignored, while white-on-black crime is overhyped? It's no mere oversight. Since the "progressive" solution to every problem is more government, we can expect bureaucrats and leftist politicians to demagogue racial issues. The sympathetic press corps is content with being their cheerleaders.

No matter how Zimmerman's trial plays out, whether he's convicted or acquitted, the left have achieved tactical victories. They've sown doubt regarding the right of an individual to protect life and limb. Each state's authority to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate crimes occurring within its borders is compromised, which concentrates power in the central government. Racial tension and division increase, too, which invariably leads to less liberty.
The purpose of a lynching isn't to punish the accused ne'er-do-well. It's to intimidate anyone who shares characteristics or attitudes with the victim. George Zimmerman has been lynched, no matter how his case is adjudicated. But the message behind the lynching isn't for him; it's for the rest of us.

Excellent article, Dog! 0 weighed in on this from the get-go, his motivation was clear from the beginning and is spelled out clearly in this article.

Regards,
hm
 
Originally Posted By: redeyeddawgThe media has already decided he's guilty. After the media circus, how will an unbiased jury be found?

IMO, the only way Zimmerman could ever even remotely receive a fair hearing would be with a change of venue, which is not even being considered, strangely enough. And even then a case of this magnitude held anywhere within the State where it occurred is iffy. And he's not alone in this dilemma. Consider the case of Jerry Sandusky, of Penn State football fame. The main backbone of our justice system is a fair and impartial trial by a jury of our peers. And therein lies it's greatest weakness. Try for a moment to put yourself in Zimmerman's place. Or for that matter, put yourself in the place of a potential juror. Under normal everyday circumstances, it's a herculean feat to even seat a jury in a normal, run of the mill case, let alone a murder case. Who among us have never done everything in their power to get out of jury duty? Now imagine a case of this magnitude. Each and every juror seated will have in the back of their mind, the potential ramifications to themselves and their families should he be acquitted. Without a change of venue it will not be possible for Zimmerman to receive a fair trial, and we and our system of justice will suffer along with him. Dershowitz is right, and he is not a lone voice in the wilderness.


Is it possible to find an unbiased jury for the Trayvon Martin case?

On behalf of Patriot Law Group posted in Criminal Defense on Wednesday, April 18, 2012

For the past month and half, individuals in Rhode Island and throughout the country have watched intently as news sources covered the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Unfortunately, because of the media's extensive -- and at times unreliable -- reporting, it is proving difficult to find a jurors and a judge who are impartial to the case.

Typically, cases are held in the community where the criminal allegations took place. However, because the media's reporting has contributed to highly charged emotions in many people, that may be difficult.

But who stands to lose the most if a trial is held locally?

George Zimmerman, the man who is facing second-degree murder charges, would certainly suffer if he is not given a fair trial. But he is not the only one.

If the wrong jurors are chosen, they may feel pressure from the public to give a guilty verdict, regardless of whether the sentence actually aligns with what they believe. One Harvard Law professor spoke about the challenges jurors face. "I do not believe that Zimmerman could get a fair trial in the location where the alleged crime occurred. For me, the major criteria of a fair trial is could a juror who voted to acquit feel safe back in his community, feel that he wouldn't be hassled or criticized by community members."

Even the judge who was supposed to hear the case excused himself. According to a CNN article, the new judge has a reputation for listening to both sides of a case. In a 2011 poll, criminal defense lawyers voted him the top judge in the county for legal knowledge and diligence. Although he does not have a reputation for being soft on criminals, he is known for being fair.

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. We'll post more information as it becomes available.

http://www.patriotlawgroupri.com/blog/20...rtin-case.shtml
 
Good grief is right.The police investigated and the DA declined to press charges so they hunted around till they found a DA that would over reach and press charges.Wonder where they will get their judge they control so they can make this come out politically correct.This deal is already a sham.
 
Originally Posted By: tnshootistGood grief is right.The police investigated and the DA declined to press charges so they hunted around till they found a DA that would over reach and press charges.Wonder where they will get their judge they control so they can make this come out politically correct.This deal is already a sham.

That's ridiculous and the result of too much conservative media. The lead investigator wanted to charge the guy from day one. The case became a huge PR problem and they reluctantly had no choice but to prosecute. The original DA declined because it is not an easy case to obtain a conviction. We have evidence that Zimmerman stalked the kid but little evidence of the confrontation. The sham is that the same folks who were confident in the decisions of Florida law enforcement when Zimmerman was walking free are now pretending a great conspiracy exists to convict an innocent man. Accept reality...the jury will decide.
 
No, DDW. I honestly don't know. We have proof he was following the kid. Maybe the confrontation occured exactly as Zimmerman claimed and he was defending himself. However, I have to suspect that prosecutors uncovered further witness testimony that shows Zimmerman was the aggressor. Why else would they charge the guy with second degree murder?
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71 However, I have to suspect that prosecutors uncovered further witness testimony that shows Zimmerman was the aggressor. Why else would they charge the guy with second degree murder?

Uh, maybe to appease the blacks?

What if Dershowitz is correct?
 
Originally Posted By: CoyotejunkiOriginally Posted By: HunterBear71 However, I have to suspect that prosecutors uncovered further witness testimony that shows Zimmerman was the aggressor. Why else would they charge the guy with second degree murder?

Uh, maybe to appease the blacks?

What if Dershowitz is correct? Maybe. If that is the case, the jury will find Zimmerman innocent. To prosecute without evidence is pointless but not inconceivable.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71 Why else would they charge the guy with second degree murder?

Ever hear of Rodney King? Ya think JJ & Al fanning the flames might have had an influence as to the decision to lynch prosecute? Why do you suppose the special prosecutor is going for the elevated charge of 2nd degree murder that may be beyond her ability to support in the courtroom?

Lots of questions yet to be answered. Unfortunately the flood of (mostly false and/or simply WAG) "information" foisted upon the public by the MSM will make it quite difficult if not impossible to seat a truly impartial jury and does not bode well for all concerned, including Zimmerman, the Martins, race relations or our right to self defense. I foresee no good stemming from the entire situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Regards,
hm

Regards,
hm
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top