Disbarment, a Civil Suit, And Some Jail Time

Michael Nifong was the poster boy for DA malfeasance. In an effort to win re election in a largely black community, he took a case to trail and bent every rule in the book in the process;

As the details of the case emerged, Nifong came under severe attack not only from advocates of the indicted students but by news sources such as 60 Minutes,[13] The Washington Post,[14] and the Los Angeles Times.[15] The criticisms focused on a series of actions taken by Nifong: that he went public with a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue; that he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions; that he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation; that he tried to manipulate potential witnesses; that he refused to hear exculpatory evidence prior to indictment; that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached by failure to include “dummy” photographs; that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations; and that he made misleadingly incomplete presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case (including DNA results).

After the case fell apart the the boys were released it became apparent that prosecutorial misconduct was committed and the civil rights of the accused were violated. Well, it’s happening all over again;

The George Zimmerman defense has recently gotten a lucky break. Angela Corey, Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury for allegedly falsifying an arrest warrant and the complaint that led to Zimmerman being charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.

The indictment accuses Corey of allegedly withholding photographs of Zimmerman’s head after the incident. Also, Corey allegedly falsely signed an arrest warrant under oath without including the pictures as evidence. Critics claim that Corey rushed the arrest warrant through because activists were rallying around the Trayvon Martin shooting, demanding that Zimmerman be charged with murder. Critics argue that Corey was attempting to secure a reelection with the support of the activists.

Talk about deja vu all over again. This is the same kind of shenanigans that Nifong pulled. A rush is judgment in an attempt to placate a loud and boisterous segment of the community, and to curry favor with that segment, all for political gain.

George Zimmerman has had his life totally turned upside down. The death threats, the fear of even leaving his house (having had to move out of his house and to an undisclosed location), not being able to work, to go out, to do anything normal. And there is a good possibility that he will be sent to prison, not because of the evidence against him (still waiting for that to present itself in court) but because of racial tensions within the community, fanned partly by this overzealous DA.

The entire weight of the judicial system needs to fall on those that knowing subvert that system for their own personal gain. It would be sweet if GZ could extract some financial remuneration directly from this women’s bank account in the form of a civil judgment. But that is assuming that she would not take the coward’s way out like Niphong and declare bankruptcy first. Disbarment, a public trial, some jail time, and a monetary settlement, this is what she needs in her future.

Comments are closed.

  1. Section8

    The Skype thing was awesome. The attorney or prosecutor, don’t know which, trying to explain to the judge the situation was also quite funny. Clearly she’s not a Skype user.

    Thumb up 0

  2. Seattle Outcast

    Any time a prosecutor starts “bending” the rules a bit, they need to taken out back and strung up. Malicious Prosecution destroys lives – that the various bar associations won’t actually police their members as they should pretty much means to me that we can do away with the entire bar system as well and start over.

    Any time a prosecutor’s election campaign dictates their actions instead of faithfully, honestly and diligently doing their job, the world can do without their presence in it any longer.

    Thumb up 9

  3. Seattle Outcast

    It is and it isn’t. One that is appointed can’t be run out of office if they turn out to be a horrible choice. On the other hand, they are constantly running for reelection and don’t want to be seen as “weak on crime”.

    One aspect of this was the rash of prosecutions for “domestic violence”, as if assault or torture isn’t already a crime. Here in the Seattle area our DA for Life took the approach that in all cases of this nature the man would be prosecuted, regardless of the circumstances, while the woman would be automatically set free an assumed to be the victim, even in cases where it was the woman that was shown to be the aggressor. Some of them literally got away with murder after setting up a pretext of abuse.

    A friend of mine was nearly disemboweled by his hysterical nutjob of a wife, and he spent 90 days in jail for getting in the way of her knife.

    Thumb up 5

  4. Section8

    A prosecutor being elected is bizarre.

    Yes it is. Voting in justices is also a bad idea but it’s done that way in many states and counties. The problem is every now and then an appointed official will do something stupid and the solution is well let’s make it an electable office or position. The argument is if we can’t vote them in or out then it’s not a democracy. Of course we’re not a democracy, but a Republic here. In fact, considering people for the most part will put more thought into the toaster they are buying than the dipshit they are electing to run their lives for them, I think voting for most positions causes more harm than good. Personally I don’t think the office of the President should be a public vote either, but appointed by the vote of the elected officials of the states. Basically how it was originally designed. Then people don’t focus on a grand leader, but their local representatives. That’s just me though.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    One that is appointed can’t be run out of office if they turn out to be a horrible choice.

    Could they not be fired, like any other employee in a non-elected role?

    Voting in justices is also a bad idea

    Yep, that’s just as bizarre. As is voting in a sheriff.

    The argument is if we can’t vote them in or out then it’s not a democracy. Of course we’re not a democracy, but a Republic here.

    We’re a democracy and we don’t elect prosecutors, judges, or any sort of law enforcement official. They reach their positions like the rest of us – via their ability, experience and reputation. And if they do their job badly, they resign or get fired/stood down/dismissed.
    These shouldn’t be political positions, they should be professional and politically neutral. As much as possible any inference or sniff of conflict of interest or political favoritism should be removed, not inherently made part of the position (which is what electing them does).

    In fact, considering people for the most part will put more thought into the toaster they are buying than the dipshit they are electing to run their lives for them, I think voting for most positions causes more harm than good.

    I certainly have sympathy for that opinion.

    Thumb up 1