Good question. If he could show that his county had chosen to not proscute him until the DOJ forced their hand, he might have a case. But I think it would be very hard to prove.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Prosecution must have the belief that they can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt to conform to ethical standards of prosecution. At the conclusion of the trial and before the verdict came in the only legal analysis I saw come from any corner was that the prosecution didn't even come close to that standard. One commenter said that there was so much reasonable doubt in the case a truck could have been driven through it.
Let's call a spade a spade instead of a shovel, shall we? What the prosecution had to do was prove a negative. They had to prove that Zimmerman didn't feel that he was in danger of great bodily injury or death when he shot Martin. They knew that going in and chose to proceed without any evidence at all which substantiated that belief. What they were hoping for was a compromise verdict from the start. What they were hoping for was a jury who would take the tack that Zimmerman must be guilty of something or he wouldn't be on trial.
Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard University since the age of 28, has opined that Angela Corey violated the law, and Zimmerman's civil rights, by filing a false affidavit with the court. Allegations have been made that she withheld exculpatory evidence, another breech of her professional duties. It might be better for Corey if the State of Florida decides to go ahead and pay Zimmerman's legal bills if it will keep the unethical conduct of Corey out of the courts where there might be a civil case which costs the State of Florida a whole lot more than paying this bill will.
George Zimmerman's wife Shellie pleaded guilty Wednesday to a perjury charge in a plea deal that sentences her to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. Shellie Zimmerman lied to a Florida court about her family's finances during a bail hearing for her husband, who six weeks ago was acquitted of second-degree murder in the 2012 shooting death of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fl.
Yeah, maybe after pleading guilty to lying about their finances, the court will feel like reimbursing him for his legal expenses... :rofllol lol
What does her behavior have to do with malicious prosecution when there wasn't evidence to support the charge? What does her behavior have to do with the "special" prosecutor" deliberately witholding exculpatory evidence that she is bound by law to divulge?
Absolutely nothing, of course, but don't let reality invade your echo chamber.
If the Florida DA's original ruling that this was a good shoot, the alleged perjury would have never have happened. Instead the DA was pressured by the DOJ.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
What does her crime have to do with Zimmerman's legal expenses that are recoverable under Florida law? Zimmerman isn't entitled to have the State pay for his lawyers' fees, but the other costs associated with a legal defense are recoverable under Florida law - law which has absolutely nothing to do with anything his wife did.
Here's a good explanation for you - it might serve to educate you a whole lot better than that echo chamber you hole up in:
The total tab for Zimmerman's defense includes expenses for things like expert witness fees, travel, depositions, transcripts and exhibits. Florida law allows acquitted defendants to recoup expenses, not counting lawyers' fees. These are expenses that someone has to pay no matter what -- for example, expert witnesses must receive compensation for their time, travel and expertise -- but the idea behind statute 939.06 is that defendants who are found to be "not guilty" shouldn't necessarily be on the hook for those costs.
