home

Angela Corey: Doublespeak

Angela Corey is holding a press conference. She has adopted a patient, reasonable tone, speaking slowly and with a smile.

Unbelievable: "We believe we brought out the truth about Trayvon Martin." Translation: We respect the jury's verdict but we still think our version, not the jury's version, was correct.

If the jury agreed the state brought out the truth about Trayvon Martin and his actions the night of the shooting, it would have returned a different verdict. [More...]

Now she's criticizing people with law degrees who opined against the state's case, without reading all the police reports and witness statements. How about those of us with law degrees that paid hundreds of dollars to her office for a copy of the police reports, witness statements, photographs, audio and video recordings and more? And read every filed pleading, watched every hearing and the entire trial? Are we to be criticized too?

Bernie de la Rionda was gracious.

Richard Mantei looks like he hasn't slept in three days. (Corey looks like she just left the beauty salon.)

She's explaining why she thought the charges were justified. Will she explain why she didn't allow the case to go to the grand jury? No. She just says the second degree murder statute covers an act or series of acts, and they think it was his series of acts that amounted second degree murder.

The first hard question: Why did you go forward if you knew you couldn't determine what happened that night? She tosses it to Bernie.

Corey: This case was never about race or the right to bear arms. We all strongly believe in the constitutional right to bear arms. But Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a criminal. And if race was a factor in his decision to profile, we brought that out.

Bernie: He's tried 80 murder cases and this is only the second one he has lost. He's tried 15 self-defense cases.

< George Zimmerman: NOT GUILTY | Mark O'Mara and Don West Press Conference >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Reporters are asking about SYG (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:36:42 PM EST
    and will continue to misunderstand that this is regular self-defense.

    I'm glad a reporter asked her about firing the IT guy, but she just deflected it.

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:40:50 PM EST
    Not quite regular self-defense. I believe in most states self-defense is an affirmative defense throughout the trial, so the burden of proof would be on the defendant.

    In Florida the affirmative defense is determined right away with a very low threshold of proof.  Once it passes that threshold the burden of proof rests on the state.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#7)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:29:27 PM EST
    I guess I thought it was "regular" because I've lived so long in FL.

    Parent
    It is regular (none / 0) (#9)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    The burdens of production, persuasion and proof in Florida, relating to trial treatment of justified use of force, are common.

    Ohio is the odd state out.  Burden of proof on defendant to a preponderance of the evidence.

    Parent

    IANAL (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:05:06 PM EST
    But doesn't Florida have an unusually low bar for the defendant to prove self-defense as an affirmative defense, compared to other states?  Once this low threshold is met than the burden of proof shifts to the state.

    Parent
    Not unusual (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:13:41 PM EST
    Most states have the same arrangement that Florida does, in the criminal trial.  Florida's civil immunity and absence of duty retreat aren't as prevalent, but aren't uncommon.  I think half the states have similar.

    As far as trial treatment of justification to use force in self defense, most states require the defendant to raise the issue (which is all that "affirmative defense" means), to produce some evidence for the claim, to provide the persuasive argument (fit the evidence to your narrative), then shifts the burden of disproof to the state.  The burden of disproof is the same in all states, IIRC, except Ohio.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:16:53 PM EST
    Makes sense. Florida is not as strange as it seems.

    Parent
    Hmmmm ... as it seems (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cboldt on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:48:22 PM EST
    The press is very good at distorting reality.  Anytime you find a fact particularly interesting, or troubling, do an independent study.

    I found a similar effect in law school, reading the precedents cited in case law to see if they actually stood for the proposition stated.  It was an eye opener.

    Takes much effort to do the research, so it's the sort of thing that can be undertaken on only a few select "facts," if any at all.  But what you can do is change the amount of credibility and weight you give to press accounts, or impressions you form after reading press accounts.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:01 AM EST
    Yes, that is my method, and I did some research, but obviously came up short.  

    Parent
    Sanctions against Corey? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Robocop on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:37:49 PM EST
    Any expectation that Corey will see sanctions from the way she handled this case? Not turning over evidence, withholding relevant information in the probable cause affidavit, etc.

    Best site (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Vanmichael on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    I learned more about law and this trial from this site than any other.  If you take emotion put out of it, the verdict makes sense,  the laws are not perfect but the jury obeyed the law.  I am not happy with Angela Corey --not a gracious woman.  In the end many lives are changed.  I am not in favor of more lawsuits as I feel it further divides but I am just giving opinion.

    I agree (none / 0) (#29)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 12:43:14 PM EST
    with most of your commentary except for the lawsuits.

    I believe that Zimmerman should have payment from the media for damages that were put on him by inaccurate/edited/partial reporting.  They stuck to the same narrative until the end.  

    And now, it seems that people are confused by the verdict.  MSM created that thru the efforts of Ryan Julison & Team Crump. They sold a bill of goods that wasn't the truth.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#39)
    by Char Char Binks on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:33:28 AM EST
    Z wins against NBC.  He should also sue ABC for their chyron covering his head wounds -- inexcusable.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 01:16:15 PM EST
    The boys in my son's 3rd grade class would appreciate your humor.  Well, ...

    ... maybe a few of the less mature boys.

    I'm not a lawyer, but... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Aimes on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    ...after watching the pro-Trayvon talking heads on CNN and HLN (surprising hat tip to Don Lemon and Vinnie Politan for being uncharacteristically neutral), I've concluded that the only way they can persist in thinking this verdict was wrong is because they just dismiss and deny the testimonies of both John Good and Dr. Vincent Di Maio, arguably the two strongest witnesses in the entire trial. And Corey's post-trial presser was a self-congratulatory orgasm with only one good question (the IT guy). Sorely missing was asking her if she just flat out thought Good was lying, ya know? Until pro-Trayvonners are challenged about this, we will just be talking past each other.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Leopold on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 09:06:35 AM EST
    And the comment will stand while others, who have just expressed their opinions, will be banned.

    no it was deleted as soon as someone (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    alerted me to it. As well as about 5 others by this commenter. Char Char Binks, our comment rules prohibit personal attacks on anyone, including Ms. Corey. You may criticize her actions in this case, stating them as your opinion, but you cannot attack her appearance or personally insult her.

    Parent
    Thank you Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Leopold on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    Corey Still Calls Zimmerman a 'Murderer' (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by rcade on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:08:04 PM EST
    In an HLN interview airing tonight, Angela Corey was asked for one word to describe Zimmerman and she said "murderer."

    Is this normal behavior? It seems as inappropriate as her beginning the press conference Saturday as if she'd won an Academy Award and thanking people.

    A prosecutor who has lost a murder case should not be describing the former defendant as a murderer. It disrespects the jury and the judicial process.

    Corey does not conduct herself in a manner appropriate to her office. I hope one good thing that comes from Zimmerman's acquittal is for Corey to be defeated when she's up for re-election.

    Well (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    Technically he is a murderer, but his murder was justifiable homicide. Maybe Corey wants to eliminate self-defense from the florida statutes.

    Parent
    Murder is Unlawful Killing (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by rcade on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    The definition of murder is "the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." A jury in Florida just determined Zimmerman's killing was not unlawful. So it isn't murder.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:56:23 PM EST
    Well you may know more than I, but then what is justifiable murder (homicide?)

    It is murder with a qualifier. IANAL but I believe that is what Zimmerman did.

    Parent

    There's just no concievable way (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    Martin could've been reacting proactively to a percieved deadly threat?

    Parent
    Even If He Was (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:14:39 PM EST
    Zimmerman, based on the evidence, could not retreat and would still be entitled to self-defense claim even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, imo.

    But there was no evidence to support that Zimmerman was the aggressor, ergo the aggressor statute was left out of the jury instructions.

    Parent

    He hade a loaded gun AND (none / 0) (#52)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:37:46 PM EST
    a car. He couldn't retreat? Please.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:47:31 PM EST
    Have you been following the case? The moments surrounding GZ's shooting on TM are what counts, regarding self-defense.

    But, yes, GZ could have been at the movies, or just shot Martin the first time he saw him.. or renounced Neigborhood Watch.. took up smoking weed...  or...

    Parent

    The moments as circumscribed by who? (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    the local Wayne Lapierre fan club?

    He had a loaded gun and a car, two sure outs the dead seventeen year old didn't have.  

    Parent

    Really jondee (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    I get it that this is a tragedy and that you, like most of us are horrified by racial injustice but you are being willfully obtuse here.

    The moment circumscribed by the law. The one that the jury decided on. The one you would be cleared by should someone you pissed off was straddling you and you thought you were going to get killed... that is if you hit them in the head with a rock or something to escape.

    Parent

    Speaking of which, Squeak.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 11:53:23 AM EST
    if Z had killed Martin with of rock or a tire iron, do you think there would've been all these exhaustive debates in the last few months?

    Maybe if a National Rockman's, or National Tire Ironman's Association existed..

    We all have a right to reinterpret and protest the parameters of the law if the law is shaped by imbeciles..

    Parent

    The law has become such a joke... (none / 0) (#61)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:08:38 PM EST
    it's imbecilic to discuss/analyze anything in strictly legal parameters, imo. Better to discuss/analyze within the parameters of conscience and common sense and basic human rights.  At least there's some reason to those rhymes.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    No question about it. This was trumped up by Crump as death because of racism. Rocks, tire irons etc would have made no difference. Sure those with gun agendas are using this case for their agenda too. But, no doubt, the would have used this case even if a rock was involved. Why not? everyone else is using this case to pimp their cause.

    For instance...  Zimmerman kills child with rock... would this tragedy have happened if Zimmerman had a gun?  bla bla bla..

    Parent

    Uh huh (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    So the case would've been dwelt on just as exhaustively here if it'd been a rcck.

    O.k.

    Parent

    rock (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    OK (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    Maybe you have not been following closely...

    the bulk of comments, discussion, editorials, and news coverage has been about racism in america and how this case shows that it is still alive and well.

    If claims of racism for not arresting Zimmerman were not used by Crump we would not be seeing much of this case. If no gun, I doubt anything would be different.

    Parent

    What you say may have obtained in some quarters (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    but the key to the Z case's charisma here, I'm convinced, was guns and SYG.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:11:12 PM EST
    So you think that Martin's family would have been fine with no arrest because their dead son got bashed in the head with a rock by someone who racially profiled him as a criminal?

    more brutal, and many would believe that was a stronger indication that Zimmerman hated black people. Bashing in the head of a child, who was only armed with skittles, with a rock.

    Parent

    white men killing black men (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    under questionable circumstances is such a rare occurence that that event in itself and the subsequent accusations made exhaustively explains the obsession with this case. Nothing further to discuss. No interests or motivations to uncover or discuss other than those of the race baiters and persecutors of the longsuffering George Zimmerman.


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue Jul 16, 2013 at 02:12:55 PM EST
    Got it, you are not interested in discussion but hammering your meme.  Missed that at first, and on second thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt..

    Parent
    Sounds to me like two memes (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    hammering together. Take a little responsibility.

    I will say though that there's a partyline in the vicinity that one of us has been parroting quite closely. In a TL official policy kinda way.

    Parent

    Responsibility (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:01:58 PM EST
    OK..  except you decided that sarcasm should take the place of discussion..  Got it. Party line..

    Parent
    You should know by now (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    I can't even talk to myself without being sarcastic..

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 17, 2013 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    Not really true, but I appreciate the humor..  

    Parent
    I'm No Expert (none / 0) (#47)
    by rcade on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    ... I just gave a common dictionary definition of murder.

    If someone shoots a home intruder to death, that person is not called a murderer.

    The same principle applies here, even if you don't like the trial outcome. He had a self defense right and exercised it, making his actions as reflected in the jury verdict not murder (and not manslaughter too).

    Parent

    Got IT (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:16:06 PM EST
    But you still did not answer the question.  Is justifiable murder still murder?  I think so.

    Parent
    Actually, no. It is homicide though. (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Really (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    Isn't homicide and murder the same? 2nd degree murder is not premeditated..  but it is excusable or justifiable homicide..

    the jury instructions appear to use the words interchangeably.

    Please elaborate, oculus, as IANAL...  

    Parent

    A link is sometimes (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:44:56 PM EST
    worth more than a thousand word reply:

    "Homicide"

    Parent

    Thanks Oculus! (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    Murder is a subset of homicide. Corey was acting much worse that I suspected.. surprise surprise..

    Parent
    Pouring gasoline (3.50 / 2) (#2)
    by Redbrow on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:35:49 PM EST
    On the fire is what they are doing.

    I see what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:37:37 PM EST
    now that I'm seeing and hearing her.  Were I one of the jurors, I would be ticked by her comments.

    Parent
    Now Bernie is raising his voice again (none / 0) (#1)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 09:34:19 PM EST
    in outrage.

    She acted like she was accepting an award (none / 0) (#8)
    by Payaso on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 10:30:26 PM EST
    Her press conference was both surreal and shameful.

    Corey wasn't smiling... (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:30:35 PM EST
    that is just how her mouth looks when she is talking through both sides of it.

    Parent
    I thought they started out great (none / 0) (#11)
    by Teresa on Sat Jul 13, 2013 at 11:12:34 PM EST
    and then fanned the flames. If there is any unrest, I place the blame squarely on her and some on Bernie.

    Praise the jury to the heavens and then when questions started they were outraged at the verdict. But the jury did good they said. Makes no sense to me.

    Are you of the opinion defense counsels' (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 02:08:35 AM EST
    was helpful re maintaining public calm?  

    Parent
    Scheme team (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by friendofinnocence on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:00:14 AM EST
    Defense counsel pointed out it was a simple self-defense case that had race injected into it by Crump and the Scheme Team.  I think the Schemers  are going to be hearing more from them on it down the road.

    Parent
    Where Online is the Entire Conference? (none / 0) (#18)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:13:20 AM EST
    I have only seen a couple of snippets.  TIA.

    My Question (none / 0) (#21)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    Cnn or HLN is on in the background and they are discussing the case again . . . and they have playedthe clip of BDLR again.

    The press had the opportunity to ask BDLR and Corey questions, but it seems that they did not ask the question that seems to me to have been basic to the case:

    Suppose we suppose that it was George Zimmerman who was screaming for help, and we suppose that TM was beating GZ, including at some points pounding his head into the sidewalk.  Suppose that John Good had in fact told the persons to stop and that TM had continued to beat GZ.  Would shooting TM have been justified?

    I don't understand why no member of the press has asked this question directly, because it is the real question that the jury faced, I believe.  However, the closest anyone has come to addressing it was the lady Corey, who dismisses it by saying that people get these scratches and scrape injuries every day and immediately get back into the football game or whatever.

    However, it appears that she has forgotten that many studies have shown that playing prof football significantly lowers life expectancy.  The injuries she says are nothing in fact contribute to early death.

    Jeralyn: A question (none / 0) (#22)
    by Darby on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:14:18 AM EST
    I understand the politics of oorey using innuendo as facts

    But what do you make of attorneys who certainly understand the law, the evidence and yet act as is there was a case. Spewin nonsense about Martin being followed(unproven) and shot without justification.  

    While none of us were there and don't know what happened (did Zimmerman pull his gun first on Martin etc).  There is no disputing what the evidence shows and I cannot understand those with a  supposed understanding  of the law opining about skittles etc.

    I (none / 0) (#24)
    by morphic on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    missed the press conference. Did Corey ever explain how someone, from the dispatcher call, could be standing in one place, no heavy breathing, no wind noise after the dispatcher suggested George not follow, just a conversational tone of voice, thus he was just standing in one place, can run down someone was is actually moving?

    Parent
    Finally a Full Version of Press Conference is Out (none / 0) (#25)
    by RickyJim on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    Just have to say... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Aimes on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    I've heard this type of what-if comment made so many times on tv in the last month, and my reply is always, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. I mean, what good does it do, it didn't happen. And furthermore, I bet GZ was wishing that as well the entire time he was screaming for help.

    Kicking would have been unneccessary... (none / 0) (#35)
    by unitron on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    ...just shoving him off of Zimmerman with his foot and a lot of leg muscle behind it would have done.

    But since he had no idea who was involved or what was going on or who might have had what kind of weapon, it would have been better to discharge a fire extinguisher between their faces, or throw a large amount of pepper in their faces.

    Non-lethal, but temporarily disabling of pretty much everything except trying to breathe.

    Caution is natural for locals, I think. (none / 0) (#36)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    By getting directly involved, John Good and the other neighbors might have believed that they'd be instantly setting up their permanent addresses as targets for future vandalism and any of the other sorts of stupid things that stupid angry kids do with their friends in America these days.

    (And I'm pretty sure that if a 17 year old kid isn't spending at least a few hours a week being stupid and angry, he isn't doing his job right.)

    Also... using a fire extinguisher? That almost sounds sort of humiliating. Even if it might be effective it the short term, it could also ve viewed as something of a double-dog dare for payback time.
     

    Parent

    a certain background (none / 0) (#37)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    I have a Christian background . . . and grew up hearing a variety of stories . . . and one story is that David Wilkerson, when younger and alive and when in some inner city, saw a rape in progress.  And he ran over to where it was and with some mild but clear force, stopped it.

    At least, I think I remember hearing such a story . . . and at least some people would have gone over to kick or push TM off of GZ.

    Parent

    This is probably a good 911-related question. (none / 0) (#38)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jul 14, 2013 at 11:25:44 PM EST
    What do the police/fire/emergency folks recommend to someone who calls 911 in situations like this? When would they encourage callers/witnesses to get physically imvolveed in an altercation, or would they tell them to stay inside and wait for the police to arrive. I'd assume that there's a general policy that's followed by most 911 systems, but maybe differnt cities have different rules of involvement.  

    Parent