[DOC44]

Dershowitz said he believes the Florida prosecution, may be guilty of committing an ethical violation, and potentially may have committed a criminal act by charging Zimmerman with second degree murder. If the prosecution had access to a photograph showing the bloodied head of Mr. Zimmerman, taken immediately after the incident on February 26, there was no basis for a second degree murder charge, according to Dershowitz. If it were proven that the prosecution had access to the photograph, and filed a second degree murder charge anyway, Dershowitz believes they may be guilty of subornation of perjury which is a very serious charge.

http://www.examiner.com/article/ders...a-criminal-act


Doc44

[cowboywannabe]

um yeah, sure. riiiiight.

zimmerman has the political and racist machines against him, both of which supercede the law.

[jtull7]

Ah, Dershowitz. He is an absolute bomb-throwing liberal and media-hound, who can always be counted upon to give a radical sound-bite or quote.

BTW, prosecutors in most states have almost iron-clad immunity for actions they take in the scope of their duties. If not, every indicted person would try to bring a civil suit, claim ethics violations, and trying to bring criminal charges. Dershowitz knows this quite well.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by jtull7

Ah, Dershowitz. He is an absolute bomb-throwing liberal and media-hound, who can always be counted upon to give a radical sound-bite or quote.

This is usually true, but in this case he's on the right side.

Originally Posted by jtull7

BTW, prosecutors in most states have almost iron-clad immunity for actions they take in the scope of their duties.

There are still ethical standards that need to be adhered to.

[Brucev]

Dershowitz is a the epitome of all that together is the most extreme negative stereotype of a lawyer. It is not possible to consider anything he says about anything to be anything but a waste of time.

[Bren]

The prosecutor has done some questionable things, but I don't see anything likely to get a prosecutor in trouble in the real world.

Want an example? A very well known KY prosecutor: (

About Being on the Discovery Channel's Story of Trent DiGiuro's Murder - YouTube

About Being on the Discovery Channel's Story of Trent DiGiuro's Murder - YouTube

) is going to be on Investigation Discovery Thursday night (http://www.kentucky.com/2012/04/24/2...-featured.html) about a very high profile murder case here (U.K. Wildcat football player murdered). After the trial, it came to light that an FBI lab tech had lied about firearm/ammo evidence during the initial trial and the prosecutor knew about it and kept it quiet.

He's as popular as ever and the worst thing that happened to him or anybody in his office was the judge talking mean to them.

Should be an interesting show.

I say again, the first lawyer somebody needs to deal with in the Zimmerman case, on ethical issues, in Benjamin Crump.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by Brucev

Dershowitz is a the epitome of all that together is the most extreme negative stereotype of a lawyer. It is not possible to consider anything he says about anything to be anything but a waste of time.

I think that's a little over the top, even from my point of view. My office (not me, personally) has had a case against him, coming out of the "innocence project" BS. There was nothing that unusual about him or his associates, except that his name excites the press. Besides that and some knowledge of how to litigate a civil case, they could have been local public defenders (who like to involve themselves in random civil cases).

However, I am especially surprised that you object to him - I would have though his politics were fairly in line with yours. I'd expect him to be more disliked by the farther right GTers.

[aircarver]

Originally Posted by Bren

... However, I am especially surprised that you object to him - I would have though his politics were fairly in line with yours. I'd expect him to be more disliked by the farther right GTers.

We like to break out the when liberals eat their own ....

.

[greenman19]

[QUOTE=Bren;18889039]The prosecutor has done some questionable things, but I don't see anything likely to get a prosecutor in trouble in the real world.

The D A in Durham, NC was held accountable. they recently fired another in the same town.

[samurairabbi]

Originally Posted by Bren

The prosecutor has done some questionable things, but I don't see anything likely to get a prosecutor in trouble in the real world.

The D A in Durham, NC was held accountable. they recently fired another in the same town.

In the Duke case, Nifong CONCEALED evidence; that's why he got slammed by the system.

Whatever one's feelings about Dershowitz, if HE says your action is ill-considered, you should at least recheck your audit trail.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by greenman19

The D A in Durham, NC was held accountable. they recently fired another in the same town.

At this point, there is a huge, huge difference between any questionable decisions by the Zimmerman prosecutor and by that scumbag in NC (who, I think, is no longer a lawyer).

[DOC44]

FOX interview with Dershowitz

Fox News

Fox News

Doc44

[TBO]

Dershowitz: Prosecutor in Trayvon Martin case overreached with murder charge

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25...murder-charge/

[hyperstyx]

Several days ago I suggested that the State's pursuit in Zimmerman case was verging on actionable malicious prosecution. It would behoove those unfamiliar with this Florida law to get acquainted. Of the six elements required to establish malicious prosecution, five appear to be present...and the remaining one is likely forthcoming.

Dershowitz's speculation on subornation of perjury is separate, but fits well and adds to the element of malice.

[samurairabbi]

Dang, Hyperstyx! You sure hurl dem big words around real purrty!

[DocCasualty]

[/

Originally Posted by hyperstyx

Several days ago I suggested that the State's pursuit in Zimmerman case was verging on actionable malicious prosecution. It would behoove those unfamiliar with this Florida law to get acquainted. Of the six elements required to establish malicious prosecution, five appear to be present...and the remaining one is likely forthcoming.

Dershowitz's speculation on subornation of perjury is separate, but fits well and adds to the element of malice.

Can you expound for those of us not familiar with FL law?
----------------

Okay, found this:

Under Florida case law, six separate elements must be proved in a malicious prosecution claim or the case may be dismissed:
An original civil or criminal action was commenced;
The original action was filed by the defendant in the new malicious prosecution action;
The original action ended with a ruling in favor of the plaintiff who is bringing the malicious prosecution action;
The original action was instigated with malice;
The original action was instigated without probable cause; and
The original action resulted in damages to the person bringing the malicious prosecution action.

[CAcop]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

This is usually true, but in this case he's on the right side.



There are still ethical standards that need to be adhered to.

You realize you just said "ethical standards" in a thread about lawyers, right?

They wrote those with the intent of looking good but still giving them the opportunity to make money.

[Gunnut 45/454]

Her very words showed it to be Malicius prosecution- "We're here to find justice for Trayvon!!" No your not - your there to find the truth! And apply the law as written. When she didn't include the photo of his injuries to gain the warrent for arrest! Thats purjury! I can't wait for a jury to get this case and rip the prosecution to hell and back for not following the law! A good judge should shut this BS down real quick.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

Her very words showed it to be Malicius prosecution- "We're here to find justice for Trayvon!!" No your not - your there to find the truth! And apply the law as written. When she didn't include the photo of his injuries to gain the warrent for arrest! Thats purjury! I can't wait for a jury to get this case and rip the prosecution to hell and back for not following the law! A good judge should shut this BS down real quick.

It's going to depend on the jury, and how well each team tells their story.

[Brucev]

Originally Posted by Bren

I think that's a little over the top, even from my point of view. My office (not me, personally) has had a case against him, coming out of the "innocence project" BS. There was nothing that unusual about him or his associates, except that his name excites the press. Besides that and some knowledge of how to litigate a civil case, they could have been local public defenders (who like to involve themselves in random civil cases).

However, I am especially surprised that you object to him - I would have though his politics were fairly in line with yours. I'd expect him to be more disliked by the farther right GTers.

From my POV, the statement made is restrained. It is not a matter of politics. It stems from his partisan involvement in academic matters.

[Mushinto]

I was surprised to see Dershowitz attack the prosecutor. He is usually a far left tool. But, he is brilliant even when he is dead wrong, which he isn't in this case.

I have read most of his books, and my favorite thing he wrote is when he was rallying against this new plastic undetectable pistol (Glock), he said, 'Why would anyone want a plastic pistol. ... All law enforcement organizations are in favor of banning them.' If only he could have peeked into the cop's holsters in the future.

[samurairabbi]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

Her very words showed it to be Malicius prosecution- "We're here to find justice for Trayvon!!"

She was showing the same tactical agility that we see in an NFL receiver keeping both feet inbounds on a tricky catch. She did NOT say "We're here to CONVICT for Trayvon"; she said "We're here for JUSTICE for Trayvon". Her choice of words covers her legal tush while still vehement enough to satisfy an angry constituency. She may be an opponent, but she knows the nuances of her prosecutorial job.

[hyperstyx]

Originally Posted by samurairabbi

She was showing the same tactical agility that we see in an NFL receiver keeping both feet inbounds on a tricky catch. She did NOT say "We're here to CONVICT for Trayvon"; she said "We're here for JUSTICE for Trayvon". Her choice of words covers her legal tush while still vehement enough to satisfy an angry constituency. She may be an opponent, but she knows the nuances of her prosecutorial job.

I'm thinking Corey was "encouraged" by the race baiters, who pushed hard for just an arrest, and helping cheerleaders at the federal and state level, to proceed with prosecution solely to strip away the immunities provided to Zim under the statute.

She may not have done enough to cover her ample RINO ass, particularly if either malicious prosecution and/or Dershowitz's speculation play out. A bit of additional spec could well add conspiracy to the mix.

As for Corey's perspective on objective justice, Jon Gutmacher, on his Criminal Defense Service blog (floridafirearmslaw.com), has reported that Corey attended a prayer vigil for Martin prior to her press conference announcement of the charge against Zim. Blind justice, peeking through spread fingers with a smirk.

[ScubaSven]

Originally Posted by samurairabbi

Dang, Hyperstyx! You sure hurl dem big words around real purrty!

I will never understand how it is somehow "cool" to be ignorant.

Candidates these days get knocked if they are intelligent and well-educated. Sorry, but I do want the smartest, hardest-working person in the room to be the President.

[samurairabbi]

Originally Posted by ScubaSven

I will never understand how it is somehow "cool" to be ignorant.

Candidates these days get knocked if they are intelligent and well-educated. Sorry, but I do want the smartest, hardest-working person in the room to be the President.

This is also a trend that shows up in movies. In the fifties, the HERO had superb vocabulary and diction, and the VILLAIN had crude speech. In the sixties, the patterns began to switch. The ultimate switch was in the first Diehard movie: Alan Rickman spoke elegantly, and Bruce Willis spoke like a down-home good-ol-boy.