Some links on ethics and the prosecution of George Zimmerman for the homicide of Trayvon Martin

Andy Perlman and I questioned the behavior of Zimmerman's prior lawyers as they announced that they no longer represented Zimmerman.

Monroe Freedman questions the prosecutor's press conference.

Dan Markel, at Prawfsblawg, asks questions about the charging decision.

Radley Balko, at Huffington Post, looks more broadly at the ethcis of charging decsions.

Alan Dershowitz, in a TV interview we posted about, says that the probable cause affidavit was "unethical." At National Review Online, David French and Andrew McCarthy disagreed about the quality of the probable cause affidavit. At the Atlantic, Andrew Cohen has been running some pieces that strike me as partisan and shallow, but check them out and see what you think. Empty Wheel gives the probable cause affidavit a close, critical reading.

Here's the link to the prosecutor's press conference. The prosecutor, Angela Corey, discusses who she works for, what she's ethically allowed to say about the case, the no-contact rule, what level of evidence justifies a charging decision, and other issues.

George Conk, at Otherwise, has thoughts about the prosecutor.

Comments

[John David Galt]

How in the world did anyone persuade a grand jury, even in Flori-duh, to indict based on this affidavit?

If FL doesn't use grand juries, this would be an excellent time to call them on that fact.

[John Steele]

John, the news accounts say that the prosecutor did not need to use, and in fact did not use, a grand jury for the crime of murder in the second degree. She filed the affidavit, which was sufficient to get the warrant for the arrest. Now it's Zimmerman's turn. He can have a hearing to contest the existence of probable cause.

[Monroe Freedman]

Here is a draft of an Op-Ed. Comments appreciated.

The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is tragic, but whether Mr. Zimmerman is guilty of having committed a murder is an issue to be determined in a court of law – not in a pretrial press conference by special prosecutor Angela Corey.

An ethical rule adopted in Florida forbids a prosecutor to make a public statement if she should know that her statement will substantially increase the likelihood of prejudicing jurors before the trial has begun. Specifically identified as unethically prejudicial is for the prosecutor to express her opinion about the strength of her case against the defendant. No potential juror, hearing Ms. Corey’s press conference, could avoid believing that the prosecution has an overwhelming case against Mr. Zimmerman based on a thorough investigation that established “the facts” and “the truth” of his guilt.

Ms. Corey stressed how highly professional her team’s investigation had been and claimed that the prosecution is engaged in a “never-ending search for truth and a quest to always do the right thing for the right reason.” Prosecutors are not only a “ministers of justice,” she said, but they are “seekers of the truth” and she will “stay true to that mission.”

Having established that she is dedicated to pursuing and establishing the truth, Ms. Corey went on to say that the decision to charge Mr. Zimmerman with murder was not reached lightly. Only after she was able to establish “the facts” and “the truth” through an “extensive and full investigation” did the “search for justice” for Mr. Martin lead her to charge Mr. Zimmerman with murder. In addition, her pursuit of truth and justice required Ms. Corey to make sure that Mr. Zimmerman had no viable defenses, such as the Stand Your Ground law or self-defense.

Florida ethical rules also recognize that the purpose of the criminal law is to vindicate public interests, not private ones. Specifically, the ethical rule says that “the prosecutor's client is not the victim,” but members of the public generally. Yet Ms. Corey” said that she knows only one category of persons, her “precious victims.” Indeed, she added that “all we know”is justice for our victims. Accordingly, her first act as special prosecutor was to pray with Trayvon Martin’s family. She also thanked “all those people across this country who have sent positive energy and prayers our way,” and she asked them to continue to pray for Trayvon’s family and for the prosecution.

In passing, Ms. Corey acknowledged her obligation to do justice also for Mr.Zimmerman. But with Ms. Corey’s single-minded dedication to “our precious victims,” her repeated assertions that truth and justice are on the prosecution’s side in this case, and with positive energy and prayers from all over the country supporting her never-ending quest to always do the right thing for the right reason, George Zimmerman has all but been convicted already, without the need for the due process of a courtroom.

[Rick Underwood]

April 21 Dershowitz (AD) argues that the prosecutor improperly kept important facts (for example, bloody cuts of Z's head) out of her affidavit. I gather that this affidavit is associated with a procedure by way of Prosecutor's Information as opposed the Grand Jury. This is all very interesting to me because the Grand Jury proceeds largely without judicial supervision and one assumes that prosecutors frequently fail to present exculpatory information to a grand jury - unless they really don't want a true bill (you can probably date me by my terminology). On the other hand, this affidavit was presented to someone - help me out with Florida procedure?) ex parte, and the prosecutor claimed that she had eliminated affirmative defenses - so it seems that AD is correct that several ethics rules apply (3.3, 4.1 ...)? Does anyone have a take on this?

[Rick Underwood]

Gee Wiz, I wonder who wrote that perceptive OpEd? It's a mystery. Think it might have been some Ethics Maven?

[John Steele]

Rick, that was my earlier question: what is the law governing the degree of adversarialness (if that's a word) for such a probable cause affidavit? Can the prosecutor omit inconvenient facts and facts that contradict the prosecutor's theory? Dershowitz seems to suggest "no," but I don't know the source of his belief.

By the way, the investigator who signed the affidavit was really exposed by cross. A tough judge might have just thrown out the affidavit and asked the prosecutor to start over.