[sharpcat]

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/g...ofessor-claims

That said, the affidavit Corey filed in the Zimmerman case is about as minimal as I've seen in more than 30 years of practice as a criminal defense attorney.

Corey, Dershowitz and I all might have varying interpretations of the law, but because Corey disagrees with Dershowitz, it surely doesn't subject him to being sued by her. If Corey made that threat, it's frightening for a prosecutor in power to act that way and smacks of prosecutorial overreaching in an effort to chill any critics. Corey has not publicly responded to Dershowitz's claim.

Corey is a public official and public person. When she introduced herself to the American public on the Zimmerman case, she glided on stage, smiled for the cameras, flashed a V for "victims," told the country how she prayed with Travyon's family before she commenced her "impartial" investigation and made it clear that she would circumvent the grand jury, which was already scheduled, and make the charging decision herself.

Corey was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott to prosecute the case after Norman Wolfinger, the experienced state attorney for the 18th Judicial Circuit who had been in office 18 years, mysteriously announced that he was stepping from the case, "to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest ..."
Even though Wolfinger had one of his most experienced career prosecutors, Jim Carter, involved in the case within hours of the shooting and had scheduled a grand jury to consider the case, he unexpectedly left.
To this day, there's no documentation or public statement about what possible conflict of interest existed. From the many I have talked to and from all that I have learned, it is my informed belief that there was no conflict of interest at all.
Contrary to some speculation, Wolfinger wasn't personally involved in the investigation and had never met Zimmerman or Zimmerman's father. Why was that prosecutors' office, which even Corey praised, replaced?

Was there a fear that the grand jury might consider the evidence and not indict? Sure looks like it. If that's true, then the question is whether a fair and impartial review of the evidence actually occurred. Or were the charges that Corey brought a foregone conclusion from the onset?

Read more: http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/g...#ixzz1yMjJesIA

[sharpcat]

No comments on this?

I am curious to see what others feel about this.

Is this case nothing more than political grandstanding?
Did Angela Corey overstep her bounds by praying with the Martin family and vowing justice for Trayvon?
Why did the original prosecutor step down? what was his conflict of interest in the case?
Why did Angela Corey not allow the case to go before the grand jury when it was already scheduled?
Did Angela Corey bypass the grand jury because she feared they would dismiss the case?
Why were the injuries to George Zimmerman witheld in the charging affidavit?


Both Alan Dershowitz and Mark Nejame have now criticized Angela Corey for bringing charges in this case. Did Corey truly feel that she could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon? or is Zimmerman just a pawn in her game?