Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[BenBurch]

<just a note: there is a nasty storm in my area approaching. If I don't reply right off, that is the reason>

Stay safe and remember to shelter if it gets really bad.

 

[Rare Truth]

Stay safe and remember to shelter if it gets really bad.

Thanks. I'm still here and it appears to have gone around my area, for the time being anyway.

Lot's of heavy rain, thunder and wind for a bit, but now, minutes later the sun is out. lol. Freaky weather lately.

 

[GWCarver]

fair enough, I was curious as to why it was illegal.

Which I believe was Cylinder's statement.

OK. When I say I think each step Corey has taken is legal, it isn't just my opinion. I don't know the law. I arrived at that conclusion by going through Jeralyn Merritt's site "TalkLeft", and found it all there. She is a lawyer and addresses these issues in pretty good detail. In addition, there are contributors there who have put up pertinent Supreme Court decisions and other relevant data. She does take issue with the way Corey has done things, but she is much more eloquent in her criticism than I am.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying Jeralyn has the same position on this that I do, just that the information I found at her site led me to the conclusion I have reached.

Also, I hope Dershowitz continues to blast Corey, whether he is right or not.

 

[Rare Truth]

Why Alan Dershowitz Is Completely Wrong About the Zimmerman Case

Prof. Alan Dershowitz has gotten a lot of media attention lately for his claims that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey ought to be criminally prosecuted for her actions so far in the prosecution of George Zimmerman. Specifically, Dershowitz believes that the Affidavit of Probable Cause that was filed in support of the State’s Motion for Pretrial Detention on April 12, 2012, was “a crime.” In the Fox News interview where he made the comments, Dershowitz went so far as to suggest that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey ought to be hiring a lawyer to defend herself from potential criminal charges.

But Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Which sounds nice and everything, but making broad statements about principles is not the same as actually providing support for a specific claim. It is more along the lines of a cheap rhetorical trick than a legal argument.

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

 

[LTC8K6]

Why Alan Dershowitz Is Completely Wrong About the Zimmerman Case

Prof. Alan Dershowitz has gotten a lot of media attention lately for his claims that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey ought to be criminally prosecuted for her actions so far in the prosecution of George Zimmerman. Specifically, Dershowitz believes that the Affidavit of Probable Cause that was filed in support of the State’s Motion for Pretrial Detention on April 12, 2012, was “a crime.” In the Fox News interview where he made the comments, Dershowitz went so far as to suggest that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey ought to be hiring a lawyer to defend herself from potential criminal charges.

But Dershowitz’s claims are, to put it simply, completely wrong. His overblown accusations of criminal conduct on behalf of the prosecutors are not supported by the law, and there is absolutely no basis under which anyone could be charged with wrongdoing due to the specific acts that Dershowitz complains of. Dershowitz does not even attempt to identify any specific statutes or rules which may have been violated by the prosecutors. Instead, rather than providing any actual explanations, his accusations of criminal conduct are based on nothing more than a few empty declarations to the effect that “this is the justice system” and “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Which sounds nice and everything, but making broad statements about principles is not the same as actually providing support for a specific claim. It is more along the lines of a cheap rhetorical trick than a legal argument.

http://viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29/why-alan-dershowitz-is-completely-wrong-about-the-zimmerman-case/

I agree that Dershowitz is wrong. I agree that filing such affidavits is very much normal and expected. The Judge basically takes the prosecutor's word. No one really checks to see if the affidavit is truthful, because it really doesn't matter.

I am surprised that Dershowitz would be wrong, but on the other hand, a lot of people really do not know what goes on in the form of "justice" around the country.

When the 3 Duke Lacrosse players were indicted for rape, a lot of people viewed that as very damaging to the 3, including me.

I had heard people say that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich, but I had never really paid attention to the process before, particularly in NC.

Learning that a GJ indictment in NC could be nearly meaningless in terms of the guilt or innocence of the indicted party, and the evidence available, was a shock.

And I'm not even talking about anything Nifong did yet...

 

[LTC8K6]

It is a bit ironic that GZ is being persecuted for not saying something in a court proceeding, but Corey can do it with flair and it's normal.

But that's just the way it is. GZ is not being treated differently than other defendants.

 

[Rare Truth]

It is a bit ironic that GZ is being persecuted for not saying something in a court proceeding, but Corey can do it with flair and it's normal.
...

What you just said there doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

[KatieG]

IIRC, Zimmerman's differences on TM's age and whether he was armed are related to the timing.

GZ thought TM was older before he got a better look at him. GZ thought TM might be armed when TM approached his vehicle with his hand in his waistband.

When TM got closer, GZ realized he was a teen and was not holding a gun.
That is my recollection of prior discussions.

When did GZ ever say that on the NEN call?

 

[LTC8K6]

When did GZ ever say that on the NEN call?

I'll answer that right after you point out where I said GZ said it anywhere, let alone in a phone call.

 

[LTC8K6]

What you just said there doesn't make a lick of sense.

GZ/SZ left out some inculpatory evidence.

Corey left out some exculpatory evidence.

Made sense to me, but I am tired. I've been at work for over 10 hours now.

 

[johnny karate]

It is a bit ironic that GZ is being persecuted for not saying something in a court proceeding, but Corey can do it with flair and it's normal.

But that's just the way it is. GZ is not being treated differently than other defendants.

If you're talking about defendants who conspire to deceive a court of law, you're right, he's not being treated any differently. He got his bond revoked and now he gets to sit in a jail cell and ponder the wisdom of his choices. Just like any other dishonest person who stupidly tries to hide material facts from the court.

And as far as this whole conspiracy-not-a-conspiracy with Corey, I see a lot of smoke but no fire.

Despite allegations of due process being subverted, no one seems to be able to actually cite any laws broken or ethics codes violated, or explain why anyone in a position of authority or oversight would allow Corey to run roughshod over constitutional rights.

So I guess it just boils down to "I think she's a big meanie and I don't like her ".

 

[johnny karate]

GZ/SZ left out some inculpatory evidence.

Corey left out some exculpatory evidence.

Made sense to me, but I am tired. I've been at work for over 10 hours now.

A more succinct way to put would be:

Zimmerman did something dishonest.

Corey did not.

 

[crimresearch]

Another thing crosses my mind if this was really self defence why go on the run in the first palce, he would have nothing to fear at all.

So the lying, going on the run and the pst record of violent criminal behaviour, does not look good at all.

The charge should be lowered to manslaughter not Murder, no way was this murder.
stupidity yes murder no

On the run? Do tell...

 

[LTC8K6]

What you just said there doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'm not saying that Corey is doing anything unusual or different, btw.

She's using the system the way it's set up.

Theoretically, she could leave out a DNA test result, and get an arrest warrant.

A DA in NC can do the same thing with a GJ. Just don't present the DNA test results to the GJ.

These are rubber stamps if a DA chooses to use them as such.

 

[Rare Truth]

Ham sammich

 

[crimresearch]

I'm not saying that Corey is doing anything unusual or different, btw.

She's using the system the way it's set up.

Theoretically, she could leave out a DNA test result, and get an arrest warrant.

A DA in NC can do the same thing with a GJ. Just don't present the DNA test results to the GJ.

These are rubber stamps if a DA chooses to use them as such.

You do understand that the issue of the probable cause affadavit is well removed from issues of absolute proof/truth/justice, and not just in Florida, don't you?

All it does is initiate the process by establishing that a crime has been committed and naming the person being accused. It can be chock full of inacuracies, as long as the gist is there.
The investigation doesn't have to be complete, it just has to have uncovered enough get the ball rolling.


I may be missing your point, but it sounds like you are complaining about having to buy a ticket before finding out if the movie is any good.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just a bit of what I am talking about in NC with a GJ.

Investigative function. The grand jury also may investigate offenses and determine whether to return a presentment. See G.S. 15A-628(a)(4). As a practical matter, the grand jury rarely does its own investigation, restricting its activities to the review of documents or receipt of testimony by witnesses suggested by the prosecutor. If the grand jury finds probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, it may issue a presentment.

The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is required for the issuance of a presentment. See G.S. 15A-623(a), 15A-628(a)(4). A presentment is not a criminal pleading and does not charge a crime or confer jurisdiction on the court to hear a case. Rather, a presentment is a written accusation by the grand jury charging a defendant with one or more crimes. It is submitted to the prosecutor, who then is required under G.S. 15A-641(c) to investigate the allegations and submit a bill of indictment to the grand jury if appropriate. A misdemeanor prosecution that is not joined to a related felony may not be initiated in superior court except by presentment. See G.S. 7A-271(a)(2); State v. Petersilie, 334 N.C. 169 (1993) (noting superior court jurisdiction over misdemeanor charges initiated by presentment).
For a discussion of investigative grand juries in drug cases, which are governed by different procedures, see infra § 9.5.

C. Proceedings before Grand Jury
Secrecy of proceedings. Grand jury proceedings are secret. See G.S. 15A-623(e) through (g). The oath taken by grand jurors includes a pledge of secrecy. See G.S. 11-11; State v. Jones, 85 N.C. App. 56 (1987) (“nature and character of the evidence presented to the grand jury” is secret). A defendant has no right to review the grand jury proceedings or have a judge do so. See State v. Griffin, 136 N.C. App. 531 (2000) (trial court not required to conduct in camera review of grand jury members and witnesses to determine validity of indictments). Nor may the defendant cross-examine at trial a grand jury witness about that witness’ grand jury testimony. See State v. Phillips, 297 N.C. 600 (1979); State v. Blanton, 227 N.C. 517 (1947).
To protect the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, attendance at grand jury sessions is highly restricted. For example, the prosecutor may not be present. Generally only the testifying witness is present, although an interpreter (if needed) or police officer (if a witness is in custody) also may be present, provided that the person takes an oath of secrecy. See G.S. 15A-623(d). A person disclosing information about grand jury proceedings (other than to one’s attorney) may be found in contempt of court. See G.S. 15A-623(g).
Proceedings not recorded. Transcripts generally are not made of witnesses’ testimony before the grand jury; the sole exception is special drug trafficking grand juries. See infra § 9.5. Thus, the defendant has no right to a transcript of grand jury proceedings. See State v. Porter, 303 N.C. 680 (1981).
Clerk’s minutes. Although there is no record of grand jury deliberations, the clerk of court keeps minutes recording indictments, which must be returned in open court. See infra § 9.3E. If counsel identifies a defect on the face of an indictment, he or she should obtain the clerk’s minutes to determine whether the indictment was properly returned as a true bill in open court. The clerk’s minutes are a public record and should be available from the clerk’s office. Courts have denied defense motions to dismiss indictments based on technical or syntactical errors, provided that the clerk’s records indicate that the
indictment was in fact returned in open court as a true bill. See State v. Childs, 269 N.C. 307 (1971) (return in open court ascertained by reference to court records); State v. Midyette, 45 N.C. App. 87 (1980) (no error in indictment even though foreperson failed to mark returned bill as “true bill” where clerk’s minutes showed return of true bill).
D. Grand Jury Witnesses
Selection of witnesses. The grand jury must hear from witnesses to determine probable cause. See G.S. 15A-623(b), (c). The prosecutor ordinarily selects the witnesses who will testify before the grand jury and lists them on the bill submitted to the grand jury. See G.S. 15A-626(b); State v. McLain, 64 N.C. App. 571 (1983) (foreperson should call witnesses from among those listed on indictment, but need not call all of the listed witnesses). Frequently the only witness called will be the law enforcement officer who investigated the case. The foreperson swears witnesses who testify before the grand jury and should indicate on each bill who was sworn and examined. See G.S. 15A-623(b), (c).
If a person wants to testify before the grand jury, he or she must apply to either the prosecutor or a superior court judge, and the prosecutor or judge may allow the testimony in his or her discretion. See G.S. 15A-626(d). If the grand jury wants the testimony of an individual not listed on the bill, the grand jury foreperson requests that the prosecutor add the name to the list. The decision of whether to add the person to the witness list is within the prosecutor’s discretion. See G.S. 15A-626(b).

 

[LTC8K6]

You do understand that the issue of the probable cause affadavit is well removed from issues of absolute proof/truth/justice, and not just in Florida, don't you?

All it does is initiate the process by establishing that a crime has been committed and naming the person being accused. It can be chock full of inacuracies, as long as the gist is there.
The investigation doesn't have to be complete, it just has to have uncovered enough get the ball rolling.


I may be missing your point, but it sounds like you are complaining about having to buy a ticket before finding out if the movie is any good.

I'm not complaining about anything. I just said the procedure was normal and that Corey hadn't done anything out of the ordinary. It stinks that it's that way, but it's not Corey's idea.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ham sammich

I could use one about now.

 

[Rare Truth]

I could use one about now.

Here ya go.

Enjoy.