# Fired employee to file lawsuit against Zimmerman prosecutors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 17, 2013, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725 "2013-07-17T04:13:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/21 "2013-07-18T18:12:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Main problem I would have with that - off the top of my head - is the very expansive FL laws on disclosing discoverable evidence to the public. > > [I think both TM & GZ got a raw deal on with that.] Then those laws would need to change, or at least clarify – material viewed by the special master is not (yet)discoverable. ---
**Author:** ![magnusblitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@magnusblitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magnusblitz)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/22 "2013-07-18T18:15:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not for the State’s Attorney to decide that the text messages cannot be attributed to a given author. That’s a challenge for the defense. There is certainly no _per se_ inadmissibility concerning text messages on a phone. > > The text messages were Brady material, and should have been turned over. I totally agree with you on your analysis here, but to hijack a bit, what would you think if the rule wasn’t “prosecution has to turn over any evidence that is potentially exculpatory” and instead “prosecution has to turn over any evidence it has, period”? Seems to me it would at least partially help the issue by making such prosecutor misconduct more obvious by removing the squirrelly “well it wasn’t relevant” defense. I’ve worked in DA’s offices where the conventional wisdom was “turn it all over” and not only did it make my job a lot easier, but it also helped me sleep better at night. Then again, I was lucky to work for offices where “get the conviction at any cost” wasn’t the rallying cry like it was in some of these DA offices. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/23 "2013-07-18T18:43:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I’m going to disagree with this analysis. The text messages about fighting were at least reasonably likely to lead to the development of admissible evidence. The prosecution’s narrative (to the extent a narrative could be discerned) was that Martin was not any likelier than the average teenager to engage in fisticuffs. Text messages about engaging in fighting, to the degree they could be reliably attributed to Martin, are relevant to rebut this general narrative. > > It’s not for the State’s Attorney to decide that the text messages cannot be attributed to a given author. That’s a challenge for the defense. There is certainly no _per se_ inadmissibility concerning text messages on a phone. > > The text messages were Brady material, and should have been turned over. But the issue is not whether the evidence was admissible or not. (I’ll note here that the judge found the evidence inadmissible, and nobody is challenging that ruling. It is now law of the case, and attempts to bring it into dispute will be estopped in a whistleblower action.) What is at issue is whether Kruidbos is entitled to relief as a whistleblower when Kruidbos raised these concerns to the State’s Attorney, the State’s Attorney considered them and determined, in good faith, that there was no basis for exchanging the evidence (it is to establish the existence of a good-faith rationale that I provided the relevancy analysis and the judge’s ruling; outside of that limited purpose, the evidentiary ruling is not being controverted). Not being satisfied with the State’s Attorney’s exercise of her judgment on the matter, Kruidbos, an employee of that office, then undermined an active prosecution. For this, he was terminated. In short, the case is not about evidence law but whistleblower law. You’re barking up the wrong tree by focusing on the evidentiary ruling. Whistleblower law does not protect subordinates who disagree with their employer’s discretionary decisions unless a showing can be made that the discretion was abused. Those facts aren’t present here. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/24 "2013-07-18T18:46:04Z")
> [@magnusblitz](#): > > I totally agree with you on your analysis here, but to hijack a bit, what would you think if the rule wasn’t “prosecution has to turn over any evidence that is potentially exculpatory” and instead “prosecution has to turn over any evidence it has, period”? Then the prosecutor is going to have to turn over every piece of paper and electronic document in its office, whether or not relevant to any pending charges or even to the case. Want to narrow that down a bit? I agree that in general, the presumption should be in favor of the party seeking disclosure. Isn’t there some sort of privilege log equivalent in criminal procedure? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/25 "2013-07-18T18:48:41Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But the issue is not whether the evidence was admissible or not. (I’ll note here that the judge found the evidence inadmissible, and nobody is challenging that ruling.) I’ve addressed this. THe inadmisssability (of the text messages) was itself a result of the prosecution failing to disclose them to the defense in time. > [@](#): > > What is at issue is whether Kruidbos is entitled to relief as a whistleblower when Kruidbos raised these concerns to the State’s Attorney, the State’s Attorney considered them and determined, in good faith, that there was no basis for exchanging the evidence (it is to establish the existence of a good-faith rationale that I provided the relevancy analysis and the judge’s ruling; outside of that limited purpose, the evidentiary ruling is not being controverted). I would question whether you could consider that to be “in good faith”. That was a very self-serving decision. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/26 "2013-07-18T18:55:19Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But the issue is not whether the evidence was admissible or not. (I’ll note here that the judge found the evidence inadmissible, and nobody is challenging that ruling. It is now law of the case, and attempts to bring it into dispute will be estopped in a whistleblower action.) The judge decided it was inadmissible at that time because there was an authentication issue. The authentication issue was there BECAUSE the evidence was turned over to defense very late and the defense didn’t have the time to work up all the authentication documentation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/27 "2013-07-18T19:02:45Z")
What authentication documentation? The evidence came from the state. Their experts could authenticate it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/28 "2013-07-18T19:05:32Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The judge decided it was inadmissible at that time because there was an authentication issue. The authentication issue was there BECAUSE the evidence was turned over to defense very late and the defense didn’t have the time to work up all the authentication documentation. Huh? What’s that? I’m sorry but you’ve been … ESTOPPED! The evidentiary ruling in the criminal case is not going to be revisited in a whistleblower action. The judge in the whistleblower action is not going to allow it to be relitigated, it will be taken as law of the case, and any attempts to bring it into controversy will be summarily shut down. If your case turns on “The judge in that other case should have decided something else!”, you are effed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/29 "2013-07-18T19:20:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What authentication documentation? The evidence came from the state. Their experts could authenticate it. The text mesages were all authentic messages. That was not the question. The problem was that the phone did not belong to TM - it was not in his name - even though he used it as a practical matter. So the question was whether he had sent/received the messages or whether it was some other user of the phone. The state could theoretically have made an investigation and authenticated the messages as being from/to Trayvon. But considering their content, they had little incentive to do so. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The evidentiary ruling in the criminal case is not going to be revisited in a whistleblower action. The judge in the whistleblower action is not going to allow it to be relitigated, it will be taken as law of the case, and any attempts to bring it into controversy will be summarily shut down. If your case turns on “The judge in that other case should have decided something else!”, you are effed. It’s not “The judge in that other case should have decided something else!” it’s “The judge in that other case would have decided something else!”. Or even “might have decided something else” would suffice to remove the “law of the case” aspect, I would think. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/30 "2013-07-18T19:35:17Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The judge decided it was inadmissible at that time because there was an authentication issue. The authentication issue was there BECAUSE the evidence was turned over to defense very late and the defense didn’t have the time to work up all the authentication documentation. No. If you suceed in showing that the prosecution withheld evidence and now you know about it on the eve of trial and you’d like to use it, but you need time to authenticate this eleventh-hour evidence, the judge will give you a continuance. The judge did not give a continuance, because she determined that the evidence, should it be authenticated, was not relevant (or alternatively, and an equally acceptable basis for finding irrelevance, more prejudicial than probative). And therefore granting a continuance to authenticate not-coming-in evidence would be a waste of time. Knowing that the evidence wasn’t coming in, she did not grant leave to get it authenticated. Because the evidence was not authenticated, there was no need to reach the relevance question (even though this obviously entered the calculus). ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/31 "2013-07-18T19:48:31Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > No. If you suceed in showing that the prosecution withheld evidence and now you know about it on the eve of trial and you’d like to use it, but you need time to authenticate this eleventh-hour evidence, the judge will give you a continuance. > > The judge did not give a continuance, because she determined that the evidence, should it be authenticated, was not relevant (or alternatively, and an equally acceptable basis for finding irrelevance, more prejudicial than probative). And therefore granting a continuance to authenticate not-coming-in evidence would be a waste of time. > > Knowing that the evidence wasn’t coming in, she did not grant leave to get it authenticated. Because the evidence was not authenticated, there was no need to reach the relevance question (even though this obviously entered the calculus). CORRIGENDUM: The objection that evidence is more prejudicial than probative concedes its relevance, but contests the evidence’s admissibility. Harmless error on my part (as the ultimate question was on admissibility, not merely relevance). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/32 "2013-07-18T19:50:51Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > The judge did not give a continuance, because she determined that the evidence, should it be authenticated, was not relevant (or alternatively, and an equally acceptable basis for finding irrelevance, more prejudicial than probative). And therefore granting a continuance to authenticate not-coming-in evidence would be a waste of time. > > Knowing that the evidence wasn’t coming in, she did not grant leave to get it authenticated. Because the evidence was not authenticated, there was no need to reach the relevance question (even though this obviously entered the calculus). That’s not consistent with what the judge said [here](http://www.clickorlando.com/news/judge-denies-motion-to-delay-george-zimmerman-trial/-/1637132/20325166/-/dtyrkkz/-/index.html) > [@](#): > > Nelson said she won’t prevent the defense from bringing in the evidence to the trial, first getting her approval with the jury out of the room. > > “My ruling is it will not be mentioned in opening statement and if and when it comes in if the defense is able to authenticate it and get past the hearsay, evidence or testimony regarding the fighting would be allowed in,” Nelson said. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/33 "2013-07-18T20:08:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s not consistent with what the judge said [here](http://www.clickorlando.com/news/judge-denies-motion-to-delay-george-zimmerman-trial/-/1637132/20325166/-/dtyrkkz/-/index.html) Here’s what your link says: > [@](#): > > Nelson, who quickly went through more than a dozen motions in two hours, \*\*also ruled that the defense can’t mention Martin’s past marijuana use, his school suspension and school records in the opening statements. \*\*Zimmerman did not attend Tuesday’s hearing. > > . . . > > **Nelson also said that the defense can’t mention Martin’s involvement in any fights previous to his encounter with Zimmerman**. > > “I don’t think any evidence of being a spectator of a fight would come into evidence, that would mean anybody who guys and watches any fighting match can have that brought against them as a chapter reference in a trial,” Nelson said. > > O’Mara said Martin wasn’t just a spectator, but being involved in taping one where “two buddies of his are beating up a homeless guy.” > > **Martin’s social media postings also cannot be mentioned in opening statements, Nelson ruled.** > > Nelson said the defense must prove that Martin wrote his social media postings himself. She also ruled that Martin’s text messages before Feb. 26, 2012, can’t be used in trial **unless the defense shows they are relevant and probative and not outweighed by prejudice**. > > . . . > > “How could you keep us from arguing our theory?” O’Mara asked Nelson. > > “Because the rules of evidence keep you from doing it,” Nelson fired back. > > “As long as you don’t preemptively suggest and keep the burden on us to present competent, relevant evidence,” O’Mara responded. > > Nelson said she won’t prevent the defense from bringing in the evidence to the trial, first getting her approval with the jury out of the room. > > “My ruling is it will not be mentioned in opening statement and if and when it comes in if the defense is able to authenticate it and get past the hearsay, evidence or testimony regarding the fighting would be allowed in,” Nelson said. Let me be honest with ya. A lot of what I was saying above was just riffing off stuff I remembered reading in _Emanuel’s Evidence_. Now that I read the actual transcript (I mean, it says, almost verbatim, the same things I did!), I am extremely convinced that the prosecutor was easily within her discretion in not turning over evidence that Judge Nelson clearly had genuine concerns as to admissibility and probative value. Kruidbos is screwed. The lawyer made a very defensible trial/discovery decision, the IT dork didn’t like it and injected himself into a case his boss was arguing and on the wrong side to boot. Now he’s out of a job. Ain’t no whistleblower law gonna get him his job back. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/34 "2013-07-18T20:15:04Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > CORRIGENDUM: The objection that evidence is more prejudicial than probative concedes its relevance, but contests the evidence’s admissibility. Harmless error on my part (as the ultimate question was on admissibility, not merely relevance). Leaving aside other issues, is this true altogether? Is the state allowed to not turn over evidence to the defense because the state has determined that it’s more prejudicial than probative? I would have thought that they would be required to turn it over and fight it out with the defense before the judge. And if it’s not true, then it’s not a harmless error on your part. > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Here’s what your link says: > > Let me be honest with ya. A lot of what I was saying above was just riffing off stuff I remembered reading in _Emanuel’s Evidence_. Now that I read the actual transcript (I mean, it says, almost verbatim, the same things I did!), I am extremely convinced that the prosecutor was easily within her discretion in not turning over evidence that Judge Nelson clearly had genuine concerns as to admissibility and probative value. It doesn’t look like that to me. ISTM that the judge’s concerns about prejudicial versus probative were primarily about evidence that he watched other guys fight or stuff of that sort. She seemed to be saying that evidence that he actually fought himself would be allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/35 "2013-07-18T20:43:47Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Here’s what your link says: > > Let me be honest with ya. A lot of what I was saying above was just riffing off stuff I remembered reading in _Emanuel’s Evidence_. Now that I read the actual transcript (I mean, it says, almost verbatim, the same things I did!), I am extremely convinced that the prosecutor was easily within her discretion in not turning over evidence that Judge Nelson clearly had genuine concerns as to admissibility and probative value. > > Kruidbos is screwed. The lawyer made a very defensible trial/discovery decision, the IT dork didn’t like it and injected himself into a case his boss was arguing and on the wrong side to boot. Now he’s out of a job. Ain’t no whistleblower law gonna get him his job back. I echo **F-P** ’s thoughts. To the extent that the material was inadmissible because it was more prejudicial than probative, that at least concedes probative value. Other remedies, such as a limiting instruction, could have been requested. The only reason this is settled law of the case is because Zimmerman was acquitted. It’s beyond cavil that a manslaughter conviction (to say nothing of a murder two conviction) would have been appealed, and one of the grounds for appeal doubtless would have been the evidentiary rulings at issue here. So I admit I’m no expert on whistleblower laws in general, or Florida’s law in particular, or civil law at all. But as I read Fl. Stat. 112.3187(5)(a), it includes both a violation or a “suspected” violation – help me see where I’m wrong about that covering the guy. Does he have to be right, or is his good-faith suspicion sufficient to invoke the protections of this law? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/36 "2013-07-18T20:48:12Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > No. If you suceed in showing that the prosecution withheld evidence and now you know about it on the eve of trial and you’d like to use it, but you need time to authenticate this eleventh-hour evidence, the judge will give you a continuance. > > The judge did not give a continuance, because she determined that the evidence, should it be authenticated, was not relevant (or alternatively, and an equally acceptable basis for finding irrelevance, more prejudicial than probative). That’s not what she said, in open court. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/37 "2013-07-18T21:30:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But as I read Fl. Stat. 112.3187(5)(a), it includes both a violation or a “suspected” violation – help me see where I’m wrong about that covering the guy. Does he have to be right, or is his good-faith suspicion sufficient to invoke the protections of this law? Have you read the State’s Attorney’s account of what happened? [Kruidbos Letter | DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/726524-kruidbos-letter.html) Do you question the veracity of the account given therein? Do you think an SAO staffer who has concerns about the discovery conduct of an attorney who raises those complaints not to the State’s Attorney, nor to the judge or the AOC, but rather opposing counsel directly, before attempting to resolve it internally or via the judge, is credible that he had a good-faith suspicion and just had nowhere else to turn? Going to the opposing counsel directly, rather than supervisory personnel or the Inspector General also appears to take it out of covered disclosures. The Whistleblower Law doesn’t protect any disclosure whatsoever, regardless to whom made. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/38 "2013-07-18T22:23:17Z")
> [@magnusblitz](#): > > I’ve worked in DA’s offices where the conventional wisdom was “turn it all over” and not only did it make my job a lot easier, but it also helped me sleep better at night. Then again, I was lucky to work for offices where “get the conviction at any cost” wasn’t the rallying cry like it was in some of these DA offices. Yeah, the beauty of this is that you are doing the right thing but with enough crap dropped on them, you make the Defenses job harder. It’s a win-win for the prosecution. And better yet, you wont get in trouble for it, whereas withholding evidence can be bad. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2013, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/39 "2013-07-18T22:29:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But as I read Fl. Stat. 112.3187(5)(a), it includes both a violation or a “suspected” violation – help me see where I’m wrong about that covering the guy. Does he have to be right, or is his good-faith suspicion sufficient to invoke the protections of this law? I don’t think it will get that far. F.S. 112.3187(7) requires that protected communication be “a written and signed complaint.” Kruidbos notified the assistant de la Rionda via e-mail. A non-signed writing has to be directed to the employee’s supervisor, which would appear to be Corey. At least, I can’t find any decisions where an e-mail was held to satisfy the signed writing requirement. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2013, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725/40 "2013-07-19T01:30:55Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Have you read the State’s Attorney’s account of what happened? [Kruidbos Letter | DocumentCloud](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/726524-kruidbos-letter.html) > > Do you question the veracity of the account given therein? Do you think an SAO staffer who has concerns about the discovery conduct of an attorney who raises those complaints not to the State’s Attorney, nor to the judge or the AOC, but rather opposing counsel directly, before attempting to resolve it internally or via the judge, is credible that he had a good-faith suspicion and just had nowhere else to turn? > > Going to the opposing counsel directly, rather than supervisory personnel or the Inspector General also appears to take it out of covered disclosures. The Whistleblower Law doesn’t protect any disclosure whatsoever, regardless to whom made. Quite frankly, I _do_ question the veracity of the letter. Having listened to Alan Dershowitz’s account of Angela Corey’s failings, and having seen for myself the incredibly bare affidavit that supposedly supported probable cause for the second degree murder, an affidavit which I was convinced would be fleshed out by the trial and which was not, I now believe Corey to be completely untrustworthy. However, your points about the direct contact with opposing counsel and RNATB’s point about the defective form have proved the main point well: this is a meritless case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fired-employee-to-file-lawsuit-against-zimmerman-prosecutors/663725.md?page=3)