Angela Corey should be disbarred for demonizing Marissa Alexander

March 27, 2014

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Good evening:

Angela Corey should be disbarred for demonizing Marissa Alexander.

Demonizing Marissa Alexander with two irrelevant and extremely prejudicial booking photos and using over large emboldened fonts to make her points is not setting the record straight.

Therefore, it’s prohibited by RPC 4-8.4(d) which states,

A lawyer shall not:

engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage,humiliate, or discriminate against litigants . . . on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

Marissa Alexander is a litigant. She is the defendant in a criminal case.

RPC 3.8 (f), Special Duties of a Prosecutor, provides in pertinent part,

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Finally RPC 4-3.6 (a) states:

Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

That’s a trifecta of serious violations that establishes that she is unfit to serve as a prosecutor.

Justice Sutherland said long ago in Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

We have a right to expect no less from state prosecutors.

I believe she should be disbarred for this extremely unprofessional stunt and the case against Marissa Alexander should be dismissed with prejudice for deliberate prosecutorial misconduct that has made it impossible for her to get a fair trial.


Did Angela Corey Violate the Rules of Professional Conduct?

March 27, 2014

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Good morning:

I begin today with this question:

Did Florida State Attorney Angela Corey violate the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct when she sent the unsolicited three-page statement below regarding the prosecution’s case against Marissa Alexander to the Duval County members of the Florida legislature?

Ms. Alexander was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a firearm and sentenced to 20 years. The First District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. The new trial is scheduled to begin on July 8th.

Ms. Corey’s statement bears the title, STATE OF FLORIDA VS. MARISSA ALEXANDER. Immediately beneath it are two jail booking photographs of Ms. Alexander dressed in jail clothing. One is dated August 2010 and the other is dated December 2010.

The following statement appears below the photographs:

Marissa Alexander to her husband: “I’ve got something for your ass.”

Ms. Corey increased the size of the font and emboldened Ms. Alexander’s alleged statement.

The rest of the three-page statement sets forth the prosecution case against Ms. Alexander in considerable detail. Ms. Corey claims that the purpose of the letter is to set the record straight, and that it is based on “testimony at trial” and various legal rulings.

At various times in the recent past, Ms. Corey has publicly complained about media reports that Ms. Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her kitchen to prevent her abusive ex-husband from assaulting her. Ms. Corey has since claimed that she produced the statement in response to a request by state Representative Mia Jones regarding the state’s stand-your-ground law, a defense that was rejected in Ms. Alexander’s case.

Representative Jones denies that she requested the statement.

Read the relevant rules of professional conduct that I have set forth below and decide whether you think Angela Corey violated them. Then let us know what you think. With the exception of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Model Rule 3.6, which I cite below, all of the rules are from the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct (RPC). Bracketed and italicized material are my comments.

1. RULE 4-3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL

(a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror,
prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court.

[“other decision maker” includes prospective jurors]

2. RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an
extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of
public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a
substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of
an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

[“extrajudicial” means out of court]

Comment

It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding
the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some
curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly
where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical
nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules
of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination
of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves.
The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its
security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in
matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often
of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

3. RULE 4-3.8 SPECIAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF A PROSECUTOR

Comment

A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an
advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations such as making a reasonable
effort to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to and the procedure for obtaining
counsel and has been given a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel so that guilt is decided
upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the prosecutor is required to go in this
direction is a matter of debate. Florida has adopted the American Bar Association Standards of
Criminal Justice Relating to Prosecution Function. This is the product of prolonged and careful
deliberation by lawyers experienced in criminal prosecution and defense and should be consulted
for further guidance. See also rule 4-3.3(d) governing ex parte proceedings, among which grand
jury proceedings are included. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and
knowing disregard of these obligations or systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could
constitute a violation of rule 4-8.4.

4. ABA Model Rule 3.6: Trial Publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.

[Should Ms. Corey have reasonably foreseen Representative Mia Jones’s dissemination of the three-page statement to the public?]

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

(2) information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6):

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation.

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

[Can Ms. Corey claim that her disclosure is authorized by subsection (c)?]

5. ABA Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity – Comment

[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy.

[2] Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern proceedings in juvenile, domestic relations and mental disability proceedings, and perhaps other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance with such rules.

[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer’s making statements that the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the proceeding is small, the rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

[4] Paragraph (b) identifies specific matters about which a lawyer’s statements would not ordinarily be considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition of paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is not intended to be an exhaustive listing of the subjects upon which a lawyer may make a statement, but statements on other matters may be subject to paragraph (a).

[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant or suspect or that person’s refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved. Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive. Non-jury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The Rule will still place limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different depending on the type of proceeding.

6. Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

Comment

[5] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutor’s extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).

[6] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer’s office. Paragraph (f) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law- enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.

7. RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT
A lawyer shall not:

(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the
administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage,
humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on
any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national
origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or
physical characteristic;

Subdivision (d) of this rule proscribes conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice. Such proscription includes the prohibition against discriminatory conduct committed by
a lawyer while performing duties in connection with the practice of law. The proscription
extends to any characteristic or status that is not relevant to the proof of any legal or factual issue
in dispute. Such conduct, when directed towards litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or
other lawyers, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability,
marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, physical
characteristic, or any other basis, subverts the administration of justice and undermines the
public’s confidence in our system of justice, as well as notions of equality. This subdivision does
not prohibit a lawyer from representing a client as may be permitted by applicable law, such as,
by way of example, representing a client accused of committing discriminatory conduct.


Angela Corey wants you to know that she is helpless and unhappy

March 19, 2014

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Good morning:

Angela Corey is unhappy about public criticism directed at her and her office and she wants you to know it.

BET.com reported yesterday,

But Corey has also been criticized by a host of African-American elected officials and community and civic leaders, who have portrayed her as being overzealous in many cases involving Black defendants. Most stinging have been the criticisms of her in the case of Marissa Alexander, the Florida woman who fired a shot to dissuade her estranged husband from attacking her.

Corey contends that the criticisms of her, specifically in the case of Alexander, are unfounded and that her critics know little about the true facts of the case.

“Marissa was the one pulling the trigger,” Corey said, in an interview with BET.com. Corey added that the gun was fired in a room where her children, ages 10 and 13, were present. “Thank God it didn’t hit them. But she was on the trigger-pulling side of the gun.”

Marissa Alexander is the 31-year-old mother of two who fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her kitchen to prevent her estranged husband from attacking her. The jury convicted her of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and she was sentenced to 20 years in prison, which is the mandatory minimum.

She wants you to know that her decision to prosecute Alexander for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon has nothing to do with the color of Alexander’s skin.

The First District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for a new trial because the trial judge improperly instructed the jury.

The case is scheduled for trial on July 28th.

Corey has announced that she is going to retry the case and request a 60-year sentence if the jury convicts her.

Corey wants you to know that her decision to do that has nothing to do with the color of Alexander’s skin.

Corey wants you to know that she is helpless before the facts of the case; that she was helpless before the grand jury that decided to charge Alexander with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; that she was helpless to do anything but retry the case when it was reversed and remanded, and that she was helpless and had no discretion to do otherwise when she decided to seek a 60-year sentence if Alexander is convicted again.

Marissa Alexander deserves justice, not a steamroller.

If she is that helpless and blind to her own prejudice, Jacksonville needs a new State Attorney.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

We work hard for you. We have passed 2 million views in a little over two years and we are closing in on 1,000 posts. This is our 938th post. If you appreciate what we do to keep you informed and provide a safe place to express your opinions and discuss matters of common interest, please make a donation.

Thank you,

Fred


Angela Corey failed to disclose evidence in Michael Dunn case

January 31, 2014

Friday, January 31, 2014

Good morning:

I have disappointing news to pass along from Angela Corey’s office.

The audio recordings of Michael Dunn’s jailhouse phone calls will not be available for 9 to 10 weeks. Since the trial is likely to end before then, I do not believe we will have an opportunity to listen to them.

According to the terms of the order issued two weeks ago today by the 1st District Court of Appeal, the prosecution was required to release the audio recordings to the media no later than one week ago today.

Corey claims that she has a legitimate excuse for the delay.

I disagree.

She says her office has 170 hours of recorded calls that cannot be released to the public in their present condition because the names and addresses of the participants and various other people mentioned in the calls have not been redacted.

True, but that task should have been accomplished months ago.

Why?

Because anything Dunn said during the calls about the shooting will be admissible in the prosecution’s case-in-chief pursuant to the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule. If Dunn testifies and his testimony differs from what he said during those calls, the prosecution can impeach his testimony with his prior inconsistent statement.

The prosecution acquired this evidence approximately one year ago and I cannot think of any reason that would justify its failure to review the calls months ago. I do not believe that any reasonably competent prosecutor would have failed to review that evidence months ago and for that reason I do not accept Corey’s excuse.

If I were Judge Healey, I would find Corey in contempt and order her to pay $500 per day until she produces the records.

Given the inadequate performance of her team of prosecutors in the George Zimmerman trial, I was expecting her to avoid bonehead screw-ups like this.

Her failure to do so raises new questions about her commitment to this case.


George Zimmerman is back in the news

January 23, 2014

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Good morning:

George Zimmerman is back in the news today with yet another paint-by-numbers masterpiece.

CNN describes his latest work:

The painting, a swirl of bright red and yellow, shows Corey with her fingers pinched.
The caption, in all caps, says, “I have this much respect for the American judicial system – Angie C.”
It’s an artistic depiction of a much-reprinted photograph of Corey from the news conference when she announced the charge against Zimmerman.

Brother Robert Zimmerman, Jr., announced the new painting on twitter. Details about when and where he will offer it for sale will be announced today.


Court denies Dunn’s request to delay trial in Jordan Davis murder case

January 22, 2014

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Good morning:

Judge Russell Healey yesterday denied the defense motion to continue the trial date in the Michael Dunn case. The trial will commence on Monday, February 3rd.

Judge Healey next considered the media’s motions to release discovery to the public. By media, I refer to The Florida Times-Union, First Coast News and WJXT TV-4 (AKA: the intervenors). They previously petitioned to intervene on behalf of the public seeking the release of discovery that Judge Healey improperly withheld in violation of the Sunshine Law. They obtained an order from the 1st District Court of Appeal last Friday directing Judge Healey to release the evidence no later than this Friday, unless he determines at an evidentiary hearing to be held held no later than today that some of the withheld discovery, such as names, addresses and telephone numbers of witnesses should be blacked out.

Judge Healey waded into those waters at yesterday’s hearing with both prosecution and defense lamenting the appellate court’s order. Their major complaint was that the release of the discovery this close to trial may prejudice the defense and make it impossible to select a fair and impartial jury.

Of course, if the discovery had been released to the public when it was released to the defense, as required by the Sunshine Law, the late-publication problem would have been avoided.

The primary concern of the prosecution and defense is Dunn’s 740 phone calls from the jail. The Florida Times-Union at Jacksonville.com has the story:

But Corey said the media would still have to pay for the staff time it would take to produce the phone calls. Lawyers for the State Attorney’s Office have said it would take 180 hours of staff time to review the phone calls before they could be released to the public, and the media would have to pay over $6,000 for the staff time it would take to do that.
George Gabel, an attorney representing the Times-Union and First Coast News, said the media shouldn’t have to pay for the calls because the State Attorney’s Office has already reviewed them.

Corey acknowledged that they’d been reviewed, but said her staff had been looking at using them during the criminal trial, and had not reviewed them for release to the public.

Assistant State Attorney Lisa DiFranza said the office would have to review the phone calls again to redact anything that could be seen as a confession on Dunn’s part, and would also have to take any social security numbers or bank numbers that might come up during those calls because public records law prohibit those things from being released to the public.
Prosecutors estimated there were about 740 phone calls made by Dunn since he was in prison. Corey said about 10 of those calls are being looked at by her office to use against Dunn during his criminal trial.

Corey did not volunteer what was said in those phone calls.

Judge Healey said he would issue an order later.

Given the appellate court’s order, I believe Judge Healey has no choice. He has to order the release of the recordings by Friday at the close of business, so Angela Corey better git ‘er done.

I don’t know about you, but I am looking forward to reading transcripts of those calls.


Florida Court of Appeal again orders trial judge to release evidence to public in Michael Dunn case

January 18, 2014

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Good morning:

Storm clouds brewing in the Michael Dunn case.

Yesterday, the 1st District Court of Appeal in Florida ordered Judge Russell Healey to comply with its earlier order to release discovery to the public and to hold a hearing no later than Wednesday of next week to do it.

On December 19th, I wrote about the earlier order.

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee reversed Judge Russell Healey’s order that prohibited the release of evidence to the public for a period of 30 days after the prosecution discloses it to the defense. The Court held that Judge Healey’s order violated Florida’s Sunshine Law that requires the prosecution to immediately release the evidence to the public after it releases it to the defense.

Judge Healey issued the order after he experienced a Yikes! moment while watching a local television news report about racist letters that Dunn had written in jail.

I wrote about the letters on October 27th in Let’s play the who-said-this game.

Judge Healey was concerned about the possible impact the letters might have on jury selection and Dunn’s right to a fair and impartial jury. He decided to impose the 30-day delay to give him an opportunity to preview the discovery and decide whether to release it.

/snip/

Judge Healey’s dilemma was how can we seat a fair and impartial jury now that everyone knows that Michael Dunn, a middle aged white guy, is an unrepentant racist who dares “to not be a victim” of four unarmed black teenagers sitting in a parked SUV with the music turned up. That he’s predisposed to “kill these (expletive) idiots” would appear to lessen the prosecution’s burden to prove premeditation to convict Dunn of murder one or to prove Dunn acted with a depraved mind indifferent to human life to convict him of murder two.

Hence, the Yikes moment.

However, as I also mentioned,

The problem is the jury will get to see them since the letters are relevant and admissible pursuant to Evidence Rule 404(b) to prove Dunn’s intent when he pulled the trigger and that he did not shoot due to a mistake he made about the situation or accidentally shoot at the teenagers. The letters also are admissible under Evidence Rule 801(d)(2) as admissions by a party opponent.

Therefore, there was no good reason for Judge Healey to have created an exception to the Sunshine Law, which requires the simultaneous release of the discovery to the public when it is released to the defense. Expressed another way, the proper publication of the letters pursuant to the law could not serve as a justification to create a new 30-day-review rule.

The news media appealed Judge Healey’s order creating the new exception to the law and the appellate court said, Nyet! Thou shalt follow the law.

Nothing happened, however, so the news media returned to the appellate court and asked it to spank the naughty judge, which it did.

The Florida attorney general’s office, which represents Angela Corey’s office on appeals, has asked to continue the hearing to Friday.

Meanwhile, Dunn’s attorney, Cory Strolla, wants a continuance. He claims he needs more time to get ready for trial. Angela Corey objects to the continuance.

I doubt Judge Healey will grant the continuance because the defense has had more than one year to get ready and it has waited too long to ask for more time. The trial, which is scheduled to start two weeks from Monday, will be a big event. The Florida Times-Union @ Jacksonville.com explains:

The delays mean further burdens on others awaiting some resolution.

Lucia McBath, who lives near Atlanta and is the mother of Jordan Davis, has rented a house in Jacksonville for all of February in anticipation of the trial. Attorney John Phillips, who represents McBath and Jordan’s father, Ron Davis, said they would have no comment on Friday’s events.

Police and media also are well into preparations for a trial that is expected to attract nationwide attention. An area near the courthouse will be set up as a media city, and police will be issuing daily credentials to attend. Courthouse personnel have said they will restrict where the media can conduct interviews.

Dunn will be the first high-profile trial at the new Duval County Courthouse. Unless plea deals are made, he will quickly be followed by Marissa Alexander and Donald James Smith, both also expected to generate national attention.

We certainly will be paying attention.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This is our 857th post in 26 months. We had 422 visitors yesterday and zero donations.

Fred


%d bloggers like this: