Thursday, March 27, 2014
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.