Here is an odd announcement:
SANFORD, Fla. -
State Attorney Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, announced on Tuesday night that she will hold a news conference sometime within the next three days.
In a memo from her office, Corey said she will release new information regarding the investigation into Martin's death, but no specifics were provided.
The new information might be charges, and yes, she might well announce in advance the timing of that ppress conference. And since it would ruin the suspense, she might label the press conference as being devoted to 'new information' rather than to 'charges'.
On the other hand, this might be just what she would do if she were announcing no charges.
TIMING IS EVERYTHNG: Commenter 'cboldt' notes the deliberate uncertainty about time and place and suggests it is flash mob management:
The media will be notified three hours in advance of the news conference as to when and where it will be held -- either Jacksonville or Sanford.
That strongly suggests that Friday won't be the day, although reasoning inductively can get tricky here.
And in response, 'Chubby' wonders whether she would be worried about flash mobs if she planed to announce charges.
BE COOL: Writing at CNN, Alan Dershowitz reviews the publicly available evidence, caveats that with the point that the forensics may support or rebut Zimmerman, and urges calm:
(CNN) -- On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.
Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.
All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don't yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.
All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?
That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.
Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is "immune from prosecution," that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.
So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The special prosecutor indicts; the judge does or doesn't grant immunity; if he doesn't, the jury acquits.
Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.
So much authority lowering the public's expectations! Yesterday it was the Times explaining that an ethical prosecutor really ought to clear the "reasonable doubt" threshold in her own heart, even though the law requires the lower "probable cause" to charge.