3 ms·

He did not act properly. He should have informed the prosecutor of his concerns before starting to leak. Of course this may be more the fault of his lawyer that

by hristov 13y ago

He did not act properly. He should have informed the prosecutor of his concerns before starting to leak. Of course this may be more the fault of his lawyer that acted really inappropriately. It seems the lawyer had an axe to grind against the Attorney General so she might have decided to kind of sacrifice her client in order to embarrass her enemy. Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself. There is no dispute that the victim was not armed at the time of the attack. Having died as the result of the attack he did not really have an opportunity to hide his gun afterwards. It being established that he was unarmed at the time of the attack, his relationship with guns before the attack is not really relevant. The fact that he had a picture of a gun on his cell is really irrelevant.

malandrew 13y ago
I'm sorry but it's patently not a leak if the defense attorney should have already had the information. Leaks involve information that is non-public/non-shared. The legal requirement was that this information was shared with the defense. This is the same reason the NSA is not able to hide behind the state secrets clause for programs that are already public. I hope this guys wins a lot of money in a wrongful termination suit. I would hope that this also results in the termination of the person abusing their position to terminate this guy. People should absolutely never be punished when they are aiding justice, after all that is the responsibility of the prosecutor. A prosecutor should only be seeking a conviction for people they have every reason to believe is actually guilty. Padding your prosecutorial résumé by getting a win at the cost of justice should be a career ending move for a prosecutor. It's no different than a doctor breaking the hippocratic oath.
bmistree 13y ago
Another version of the story posted on CNN [1] has a slightly different version of events. > Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. Ie, before contacting the defense through a lawyer, he talked to the prosecutor in charge of the case as well as an investigator with oversight of the attorney's office. Maybe he should have discussed the matter with the attorney general directly after these first two attempts, but his disclosure seems a little more reasonable knowing that he seemed to make an early effort at following the "chain of command." As a side note, this article was fairly confusing for me. I had to read key passages several times and I'm still uncertain of the basic sequence of events. Many useful hn comments on this post seem to be just clarifying what the article should have reported in plain language. Ugh. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/in...
s_q_b 13y ago
"Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself." That's a dangerous justification. First, the prosecutor is not the arbiter of relevance. The evidence should be turned over, and then the judge can make a determination as to its relevance. Allowing prosecutors to decide the relevance of evidence in their care would open the door to myriad abuses. For example, in a DNA case, what would stop a prosecutor from saying a third or fourth sample found that matched other individuals wasn't "relevant" to the case? Second, the notion that the "victim... cannot defend himself" is not only factually incorrect but immaterial. The deceased, who has not yet been proven to be a victim of anything, has the power of the state, armed with billions of dollars, a prison system, and a small army of investigators to defend him. The defendant has only his counsel and his wits. More importantly, damage to that person's reputation is not relevant to the prosecution of another individual. Our justice system is supposed to place a premium on the rights of the defendant, since the harm of incarcerating an innocent person is considered so grave. If the deceased's memory is tarnished by messages regarding previous violent actions, or purchases of deadly weapons, that is a price that must be borne to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial. Finally, the bar to relevance is extremely low. The rules of evidence state that relevant evidence it is any item which makes a fact in dispute more or less likely to be true. Note that it does not set any minimum bar on how much the evidence would influence the case, only that it affect an issue in dispute, even in the most minute fashion. In this case, it is the defense's contention that the deceased acted violently and in fact provoked the confrontation, and that the accused acted only in self defense. It is also their contention that the deceased reached for a firearm. It is certainly relevant that the deceased's conversion indicate that he had knowledge of firearms, that he purchased deadly weapons in the past, and that had an admitted history of violence.

by hristov 13y ago

malandrew 13y ago

I'm sorry but it's patently not a leak if the defense attorney should have already had the information. Leaks involve information that is non-public/non-shared. The legal requirement was that this information was shared with the defense. This is the same reason the NSA is not able to hide behind the state secrets clause for programs that are already public. I hope this guys wins a lot of money in a wrongful termination suit. I would hope that this also results in the termination of the person abusing their position to terminate this guy. People should absolutely never be punished when they are aiding justice, after all that is the responsibility of the prosecutor. A prosecutor should only be seeking a conviction for people they have every reason to believe is actually guilty. Padding your prosecutorial résumé by getting a win at the cost of justice should be a career ending move for a prosecutor. It's no different than a doctor breaking the hippocratic oath.

bmistree 13y ago

Another version of the story posted on CNN [1] has a slightly different version of events. > Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. Ie, before contacting the defense through a lawyer, he talked to the prosecutor in charge of the case as well as an investigator with oversight of the attorney's office. Maybe he should have discussed the matter with the attorney general directly after these first two attempts, but his disclosure seems a little more reasonable knowing that he seemed to make an early effort at following the "chain of command." As a side note, this article was fairly confusing for me. I had to read key passages several times and I'm still uncertain of the basic sequence of events. Many useful hn comments on this post seem to be just clarifying what the article should have reported in plain language. Ugh. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/in...

s_q_b 13y ago

"Regarding the data, it is possible that the prosecutor decided the data is not relevant for the case and that there is no need to embarrass the victim who cannot defend himself." That's a dangerous justification. First, the prosecutor is not the arbiter of relevance. The evidence should be turned over, and then the judge can make a determination as to its relevance. Allowing prosecutors to decide the relevance of evidence in their care would open the door to myriad abuses. For example, in a DNA case, what would stop a prosecutor from saying a third or fourth sample found that matched other individuals wasn't "relevant" to the case? Second, the notion that the "victim... cannot defend himself" is not only factually incorrect but immaterial. The deceased, who has not yet been proven to be a victim of anything, has the power of the state, armed with billions of dollars, a prison system, and a small army of investigators to defend him. The defendant has only his counsel and his wits. More importantly, damage to that person's reputation is not relevant to the prosecution of another individual. Our justice system is supposed to place a premium on the rights of the defendant, since the harm of incarcerating an innocent person is considered so grave. If the deceased's memory is tarnished by messages regarding previous violent actions, or purchases of deadly weapons, that is a price that must be borne to ensure the accused's right to a fair trial. Finally, the bar to relevance is extremely low. The rules of evidence state that relevant evidence it is any item which makes a fact in dispute more or less likely to be true. Note that it does not set any minimum bar on how much the evidence would influence the case, only that it affect an issue in dispute, even in the most minute fashion. In this case, it is the defense's contention that the deceased acted violently and in fact provoked the confrontation, and that the accused acted only in self defense. It is also their contention that the deceased reached for a firearm. It is certainly relevant that the deceased's conversion indicate that he had knowledge of firearms, that he purchased deadly weapons in the past, and that had an admitted history of violence.