This will be a relatively brief update on two interesting, revealing, and profoundly disturbing developments in this profoundly disturbing case. But first, a reminder: Please be sure to read update 11 which will be posted on Wednesday, 06-13-12. It is the complete transcript of the Special Prosecutor’s interview of “Dee Dee,” accompanied by analysis. What you’ll discover in this update—and Update 11—will, I hope, go a long way toward showing you the character of those prosecuting this case, and the utter lack of real evidence they likely have.
THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:
As I’ve often noted, this case—if considered on the facts and law—is truly unremarkable. Similar cases are handled every day around the nation and apart from those directly involved in those local tragedies, the rest of the nation remains blissfully unaware. This is a good thing. In those cases, all of the values of the American system of justice—the fairest and most open in the world—are in play, particularly the fundamental presumption of innocence.
But this case is being played out primarily in the political arena. As such, George Zimmerman is not only presumed guilty, there is no possible way he can ever be exonerated. The courts of social justice, racial division, political advantage and political correctness have rendered judgment. There is no possible sentence but Zimmerman’s doom. A new racial category has even been created: Zimmerman is a white-Hispanic. This is necessary to maintain the outrage—and the fiction—that white people are wantonly—and without consequence–murdering black children all the time. It matters not that Zimmerman’s actual racial background is correctly black and (primarily) Hispanic.
Pity Junior Alexander Guy of Orlando, Florida. At the age of 49 he purchased his first cellular phone—only to be given the number George Zimmerman used to make his 911 call, a number thoughtless recycled and reissued by T-Mobile. I’m sure you can guess what happened:
At two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning I kept getting these [calls],’ Guy said.
In all, he got about 70 threatening calls between May 7, when he bought the phone, and May 16, when he gave it to a lawyer — who is petitioning T-Mobile to pay damages to Guy.
T-Mobile refused, saying it gave Guy a new number and provided an account credit.
It also made the sensible decision to retire the number to prevent another innocent party ending up on the receiving end of death threats.
To reasonable people, this might make it just a bit easier to understand that George Zimmerman—or anyone in his position—might be reasonably concerned about his ability to get a fair trial—or to survive long enough for that day to arrive.
THE PRESUMPTION OF ARROGANCE (AND THE ABUSE OF POWER):
Prosecutors, police officers, even teachers, share a number of common understandings. Among them is the understanding that their actions will be criticized, often unfairly. Another, related understanding is that they have to take it and remain professional—and silent. This is particularly true for prosecutors who are entrusted with one of the most awesome powers in our democracy: the power of prosecution, which, if wielded unethically or with malice, destroys like few other powers, for while other governmental officials can ruin financially, the acts of unscrupulous prosecutors can take it all: lives.
I do not know Angela Corey. I know nothing of her as a person or prosecutor, but when Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz spoke to her lack of professional ethics—as I outlined and agreed with in Update 2–I took notice. As the case has progressed, I’ve found her professional actions and public statements to be jaw-droppingly unprofessional, even unethical, and apparently motivated by emotion and politics. As I wrote in Update 9, her actions are already drawing very disturbing parallels with the Duke Lacrosse case. Being accurately compared with disgraced and disbarred Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong is as far from a mark of honor as a prosecutor can obtain.
I had no idea. I’ll let Mr. Dershowitz tell the story, as reported at Newsmax:
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 proceded 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.
She said that because I work for Harvard and am identified as a professor she had the right to sue Harvard.
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.
For those not familiar with the proper legal ethics and decorum in such matters, this is extraordinary–and outrageous. Prosecutors must always work to avoid even the appearance of undue influence. So great is their power—they represent the full, coercive powers of the state—that they simply do not threaten people, particularly people who are exercising their First Amendment Rights in criticizing a prosecutor’s official actions.
Professor Dershowitz explained:
Her beef was that I criticized her for filing a misleading affidavit that willfully omitted all information about the injuries Zimmerman had sustained during the ‘struggle’ it described. She denied that she had any obligation to include in the affidavit truthful material that was favorable to the defense.
She insisted that she is entitled to submit what, in effect, were half- truths in an affidavit of probable cause, so long as she subsequently provides the defense with exculpatory evidence.
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.
Before she submitted the probable cause affidavit, Corey was fully aware that Zimmerman had sustained serious injuries to the front and back of his head. The affidavit said that her investigators ‘reviewed’ reports, statements and ‘photographs’ that purportedly ‘detail[ed] the following.’
It then went on to describe ‘the struggle,’ but it deliberately omitted all references to Zimmerman’s injuries which were clearly visible in the photographs she and her investigators reviewed.
In these assertions, Prof. Dershowitz—a man with whom I do not always agree—is absolutely correct on ethics and the law. I would never have submitted such an affidavit during my police service because not only did it fail to fulfill the elements of the statute, it did indeed lie by omission. My credibility would have been instantly, and forever more, shot.
Dershowitz continues:
Even if Angela Corey’s actions were debatable, which I believe they were not, I certainly have the right, as a professor who has taught and practiced criminal law nearly 50 years, to express a contrary view. The idea that a prosecutor would threaten to sue someone who disagrees with her for libel and slander, to sue the university for which he works, and to try to get him disbarred, is the epitome of unprofessionalism.
Fortunately, truth is a defense to such charges…
If Angela Corey doesn’t like the way freedom of expression operates in the United States, there are plenty of countries where truthful criticism of prosecutors and other government officials result in disbarment, defamation suits and even criminal charges.
We do not want to become such a country.
Corey’s actions might reasonably be thought to reveal a woman emotionally and professionally unsuited for a position of public trust. A prosecutor who cannot take reasoned and well-argued criticism of their work is simply not fit to be a prosecutor. Prof. Dershowitz is correct: He has not attacked Ms. Corey personally, but has argued procedure and the law as interpreted and applied by Ms. Corey. Surely this falls well within the boundaries of speech protected by the First Amendment, and the truth does indeed appear to be on his side.
Few have understood and explained human nature as well as William Shakespeare. And a line from Hamlet (Act 3, Scene II) has come to expose the guilty consciences of and to define those who attack the very people that expose their misdeeds:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Angela Corey would seem to be a questionable choice to prosecute a murder case—if adherence to the law and the highest observation of professional ethics are of concern—but a perfect prosecutor for a trial played out in the court of public opinion.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
only one comment to make here – Cristian Fernandez. She did the same kind of rants towards those who criticized that she was prosecuting a 12 year old as an adult for first degree murder instead of perhaps manslaughter. She also railroaded the boy’s mother. It is another horrible case where there has been overcharging in an effort to get a plea bargain. In that case she attacked a journalist and ranted on the phone to his boss.
Let me begin with this: I enjoy your writing style, and am able to understand very clearly all of the points you are making. Now, to be frank. I disagree with a few things, and will reference some things that give me pause to wholly agree with what has been written here.
1. The creation of a new racially category “White Hispanic” has actually already existed. I will not name my agency, but I do work for a government agency, and we deal often with having to help people fill out official paperwork and that division has existed for quite some time. So this is not wholly new.
2. The presumption of innocence piece is largely BS, since we have, in our lifetime, a bunch of cases that happened the same way. The O.J. Simposon Trial is a major one in which a man (who was acquitted) is still presumed guilty. The evidence did not match up, and yet he is presumed guilty. This is not the first, or the worst, of it’s kind. And this could have been fixed if they had arrested and processed him at the time of the occurence. Because they failed to do what was right, they opened the door to the circus we see now. Also, the Jerry Sandusky case in which Joe Paterno (who never sexually assaulted a child) lost everything and died disgraced (because of his loss of presumption of innocence).
You have very optimistic views of America’s legal and justice system, but I have a hard time seeing that matchin with reality. I don’t know if you know of the recent (former athlete) that was accused of rape and spent 10 years in prison before they found him not guilty. He lost his life and a portion of his youth.
Personally I find it somewhat concerning that a selfdescribed government employee finds that the presumption of innocence to be “largely BS”, there is a hint of totalitarianism in that. But then you seem to base that on the O J Simpson case and another that was a trail of a public nature. Inadvertently you are supporting the notion that the press tends to behave irresponsibly and picks side which leads to the nullification of the presumption of innocence.
However, prior to the trial, O J Simpson was awarded a great deal of presumption of innocence, dispite the famous white Bronco chase. What you forget when you say that he was aquited because the evidence did not match up, was that Simpson was then found guilty in a civil trial and did everything in his power to escape judgement from that. That alone is reason enough for many to deny him a countinued presumption of innocence following the murder trail.
Additionally, many feel that the trial was a whitewash. Can you imagine the outcry if the Zimmerman trial was relocated to an area where it was ensured that majority of the jury pool was white. That is just what happened in reverse when the O J trail was moved from Brentwood to downtown L A. To that you can throw in the inept prosecution, the star struck judge and the theatrics of the defense, all of which was played out on TV.
But hanging over all of this was the threat of riots and violence if the jury did not bring back the verdict desired by the racist industry. There was intense pressure on the blacks in the jury to “do the right thing” and their future existence in the community might not be very pretty if they didn’t.
Oh, and I am still waiting for the first update in his “search for the real killers”.
While it is true that the presumption of innocence, which is one of the great underpinings of our judical system, cannot always be guaranteed, it is usually the acts of the defendent that results in the denial of it. The accused bank robber that shows up in court with a blue face because the dye packet blew up when he opened the money bag, the accused who committs his crime in the full public view of witnesses and cameras, the terrorist who publically takes credit for his acts and so on and so forth.
But when it is denied because the media ruthlessly and deliberately publicizes false information in order to push a narrative, and then in turn is aided and abeted by no less than the President of the Unitied States, then it is time for the people to call BS on them.
So your mystery agency uses a category “White Hispanic”. Does your agency assign which race to label your consumers or are they allowed to choose their racial identity themselves?
There is a copy of George Zimmerman’s voter registration available. According to the document, Zimmerman’s race is officially listed as Hispanic not “White Hispanic”.
If that is how he chooses to identify himself then the media and everybody else should respect that.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=841_1333044956
James, first, I don’t work for a mystery agency, but I do know that it would be unwise for me to mention my employer when it is related to something that is of my personal opinion. It’s about being a professional. So, please, you don’t have to use the tone in which I am reading your post. Please respect my discretion without be a butt about it.
Also, there is no “assignment” we don’t have “customers” we are an agency that works in communities to help people navigate the difficult higher education process. There are organizations that have created materials for people to self-identify. And those tools have used that category.
So, once again, you can ask a question without being a butt about it. So, to answer your question: NO one assigns anyone, anything; they all self-identify.
Hey, all I am saying is nothing was made up. It exists. And when has the media NOT been misrepresenting things? They do that, it is a forgone conclusion. My remark was not related to what they media chooses to do.
So, please, again, if you reply to me again, just don’t be so insulting. You can be a man and ask real questions without insulting people. You don’t have to agree with me, I’m not going to be hurt if you don’t. But let us discuss this like men.
To conclude, if you want to be frank. ALL racial categories are made up (no just “white, Hispanic.” If you’d like some scholarly work on it, I can give you a reference for a book.
In a court of law, anywhere in the world, a person is presumed innocent until found guilty by a judge alone, or by a jury of his/her peers.
However, it seems that in the court of public opinion, which is subject to the vagries of a biased media, an innocent man can be presumed guilty based upon media lies and half-truths.
Let’s not get into the O.J. Simpson case, because a jury of black peers finding him innocent has its own problems.
jonpraxis: I enjoy your writing style, and am able to understand very clearly all of the points you are making
thanks, Jon, can I borrow that to top my response too? I enjoy the writing style too, the discussion of some matters that puzzle me too, and the attempt to discuss it in a rational manner, were he looses me, is where interpretation starts. Like Trayon Martin taking a button off his shirt before you fight someone. That actually made me laugh.
It matters not that Zimmerman’s actual racial background is correctly black and (primarily) Hispanic.
I found that part interesting too. So, if one of my great-great-grandfathers was black, my racial background would be automatically black too? No matter what origins on the other side of the family? And no matter how many generations back? Why not German or Jewish German, since that is obviously his father’s origin as can be easily guessed by his name: Carpenter? But in that case he would be simply white American after a generation, correct?
I red about the subgroups among US Hispanics, in other words black or white Hispanics, by the way. And thus thought exactly the same thing. Fighting windmills? Expecting this argument is valid for the vast majority on the other side of the issue? I couldn’t care less. But I don’t think the core problems are purely racial either, that feels a distraction.
Hmmm? Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Ei incumbit probatio qui.). Would it matter that an early principle of the presumption of innocence was created by a Frenchman quite a few centuries ago: Jean Lemoine (1250-1330), to not go back to similar ideas over the centuries and in different places and variations that surely must exist. America is the peak of the universe, the city on the hill? I suspect that maybe you’ll be able to find similar principles around the Egyptian Ma’at, at least I wouldn’t be surprised.
How about Trayvon Martin and the presumption of innocence? You added a little bit of drugs he hid somewhere, remember?
Don’t worry this “unremarkable little story” that happens every day somewhere without anybody taking the slightest interest will fade into oblivion again, with America shining forth again in all it’s well earned brightness as the center of the universe.
sorry, that of course was supposed to be a quote:
Strictly it doesn’t matter to mention, since I apparently failed to proofread the rest, which includes an abrupt shift from “one” to “you”.
Dear Leander22:
Hi there and thanks for your comments. May I clarify a few issues you raised?
I wrote about the button only because the SPD evidence documents indicate it was found in Martin’s pockets, while the 7-Eleven video shows it still affixed to his hoodie as he left. Why then did he remove it? I offered two possibilities: he knew he was going to be fighting and didn’t want to lose it, or realizing it was the only distinctive identifier visible, he removed it. I do not, for a moment believe these are the only two possibilities, but knowing teenagers as I do, either is certainly possible.
UPDATE: 061212–By the way, I forgot to mention that Zimmerman reported seeing a button on Martin’s hoodie when he made the call to the dispatcher.
Regarding the matter of Zimmerman’s race, I’ve written about that only to call attention to the lunacy of the narrative. Zimmerman can’t be only Hispanic, because the narrative gets much of its force from the idea of a white man murdering an innocent black child. There, Zimmerman becomes “white-Hispanic.” But then we discover that he actually has black blood, and in much greater proportion that Fauxcohontas’, Elizabeth Warren’s “indian” blood. As you so correctly note, race isn’t the issue here. There is, in fact, no evidence at all of racial animus, rather the opposite.
The American system of justice, being only a bit over 200 years old, surely borrows from the justice traditions of older nations and peoples, but having worked in the American system for many years, and knowing its strengths and flaws very well indeed, I’ll take it over any other.
Oh yes, and just for the record, In calling this an unremarkable case, I’m not minimizing the tragedy visited on so many, merely calling attention to the fact that the motivation for this prosecution is not the pursuit of actual justice.
Thanks again!
PS: I had a delightful foreign exchange student from Germany in one of my classes this year. She was an extraordinary representative of your country. We often laughed about “crazy Americans.”
To jonpraxis – In one of your posts above, you wrote:
“And this could have been fixed if they had arrested and processed him at the time of the occurence. Because they failed to do what was right, they opened the door to the circus we see now.”
I submit to you that the evidence (at least the evidence thus far released to the public) is inconclusive at best as to George Zimmerman’s guilt. I also submit to you that nothing thus far released contradicts George Zimmerman’s version of the events leading up to the shooting. His injuries, witness accounts, etc. are consistent with his statements taken over a period of several hours following the incident, in which he waived both his right to have a lawyer present during questioning, and to remain silent in the first place.
It would only have been right to arrest George Zimmerman that night if police concluded that, a) a crime had been committed, and b) Zimmerman was the one who committed it. All that the police concluded – and all that the publicly available evidence suggests, is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin – no evidence indicates that doing so constituted a criminal act.
Arresting someone is not a political move, or one made out of administrative expediency. Absent probable cause that Zimmerman’s actions constituted a crime, his non-arrest was ENTIRELY appropriate, and in my opinion, will be proven the proper thing to have done when the trial is concluded with a likely acquittal.
Currently, George’s position is very bleak, because of those that are surely working to deny him fairness and equal justice. The case has left the courtroom, and he is being tried in in public, by the media and those with political agendas.
I am holding onto hope that the case is delayed as long as possible. I don’t believe the judge can keep him in jail, and deny him bond, even if that bond amount breaks him financially, which appears to be the goal of the prosecution. O’Mara and West had already agreed to represent him even if they aren’t paid legal fees. They will be reimbursed from the state for expenses related to their defense.
O’Mara has already indicated that it will take him quite a while to depose 50 witnesses, and to fight with the state to get additional information, which the judge will likely have to decide. If O’Mara can delay any trial until after the election, which is just a few months away, George has a much better chance without the influence and pressures of those in Washington. Obama must be sent packing, and he can haul Holder’s butt out of the WH as he departs.
It’s really sad that the political party that George was a registered member of, is the very same party that wants him hung at high noon, in the town square. Hopefully many of those in that same party will realize that this can happen to them as well. There is a lot of room under the bus.
It is refreshing to read all of the above comments. It is absolute proof that people may disagree but they can state their case in a polite and honest way. Thank you all for your opinions.
Because this discussion has encompassed more than just the Zimmerman/Martin case, I would like to point out the excellent work that Mike has done on researching and writing about another case; Jose Guerena. Today there is an article, in the Tucson Daily Star, about the SWAT killing of Jose. It shows how another case has been ‘tried in the press’. The press and law enforcement officials have no difficulty totally vilifying an innocent man (who served 2 combat tours in Iraq) to cover the SWAT Team killing him. Mike has done an excellent job covering the killing and the aftermath. The article today further demonstrates how the law enforcement community, especially the Pima County Sheriff, will go to any lengths to crush and silence this family. Mike will no doubt write more about the Guerena case, the Scott case and the Zimmerman/Martin case. Sadly, few will bother to take the time to read the facts.
Mike, thanks for the reply anyway. I am eagerly awaiting the transcripts of De Dee, admittedly, I gave up to listen to it again. It feels beyond my capacities to understand the black idiom; just as I can’t deny I am somewhat skeptical concerning her statements. Maybe since in the end she says: I feel guilty. Something I admittedly expected, since strictly I find it easy to imagine, that when TM told her about a strange man he felt was watching him, she didn’t respond with telling him to run, but maybe with disbelieve or even curiosity. Why should he do that? Who do you think he is?
But strictly it feels you bend too far towards “GZ’s reality” at points, possibly out of the feeling it is necessary to balance the debate, nevertheless that leads you often to ignore what impact Z’s suspicion could possibly have had on TM’s, or to what extend it necessarily influenced George’s “reading” of whatever Trayvon did.
It may not belong here admittedly, I have to read all your articles on the case. But take the whole “he is coming to check me out” context. That’s how Zimmerman experiences it, based on his suspicion this guy may well be one of the ones earlier observed that “were up to no good”.
Strictly he could simply have moved too close for Zimmerman’s taste, who choose that spot to be able to observe him from afar, and suddenly he approaches and passes him.
If I may slip into Trayvon’s perspective for a moment. What if he passed him already slowing down and suddenly there he is again in a different part of RTL? Same car, obviously same man. What is he doing? Maybe I would check the houses to see if there is a porch light, if someone emerges from there, indicating he is waiting to pick someone up? From George’s perspective if he does did, he is obviously checking out the houses.
Isn’t it slightly suspicious too, that someone parks somewhere, remains in his car, and you can’t really come up with an explanation what he is doing there? Wouldn’t you maybe in passing move slightly closer to see what that man looks like yourself? Even if you aren’t an appointed neighborhood watchman. Personally at the ripe age of 62 I never lost my curiosity. Just as I experienced over and over again, we even have the ability to realize when someone is watching us behind our back.
I have taken Trayvon side for one simple reason, if feels he is in a strategic disadvantage to understand George’s behavior. After all doesn’t George already believe he knows what this guy is all about, or at least deeply suspects he does?
Concerning your objection that Martin did not commit a crime, as stated in Corey’s affidavit, we can of course let our minds meander in the huge universe of possibilities, and strictly I have to agree that an intention on his part or something he had to hide, could be one way to explain the confrontation. But as earlier comments by me surely indicated the story that unfolded may well be much more boring, e.g. that Trayvon’s responses in the earlier shouting match only served to confirm George’s suspicion that he must have been right all along. To put it slightly cynical, why else would this guy claim that he stood with an inhabitant, that oh how convenient wasn’t home, only a little boy was. Remember Jabari Shelley, a friend of the son of the complainant turned out to be the one that stole the Sony Play-station. I am sure George was well informed about that.
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 12: Perjury and–Perjury? « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case: Slow Rolling and Hypocrisy « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 17: Black and White « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Coming This Week: Trayvon Martin Case Update « Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 53: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 54: All White People Are Racist! | Stately McDaniel Manor