It is a violation of legal prosecutorial ethics, and legal ethical standards, for a prosecutor to overcharge a case specifically with the intention of coercing the defendant to accept a lower charge plea.

Justice Requires The charge MUST ethically be based on justifiable facts.

Anyone who doubts the severe and radical political agenda(s) behind the Trayvon Martin shooting, and the subsequent State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case, is just being intellectually dishonest.   We have outlined many of the agendas HERE, and HERE, and HERE.  Other people have also recognized the agenda’s HERE.
We have even outlined the prosecutorial challenges and evidenced the over-charging of the case HERE.

Now we’ve had the time to digest the actual affidavit of Probable Cause, and weigh the State attorney statements against her filings,  we can even more clearly see the agenda behind the short-sighted, and highly political, decision of Angela Corey.
Indeed as an insightful comment in the prior thread highlights some really troubling considerations behind the actions and statements of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey.   All of which provides compounding evidence showcasing a political decision, not a legal one.  As Stella points out from a Fox Orlando interview this seemingly innocuous statement is highly revealing:

Special prosecutor Angela Corey says she never promised Trayvon Martin’s parents  that criminal charges would be brought against the neighborhood watch volunteer  who fatally shot their 17-year-old son.
She [Corey] even says they talked  about what they could do in case criminal charges were not filed against George  Zimmerman. That conversation was put to rest Wednesday, when Corey announced  second-degree murder charges against Zimmerman.  (article)

The States Attorney has a legal and ethical responsibility to search for the truth and the facts, this does not include considering what ulterior avenues might be possible if the facts or truth do not provide sufficient credible weight for criminal prosecution.
Obviously Angela Corey was highly considerate for the “optics”, and potential “outcomes” of a non-charge determination.  This mindset should never be present when objectivity in prosecutorial discretion becomes the highest value moral commodity.  After all, a man’s liberty is at stake.  To unjustly prosecute George Zimmerman is to compound the tragedy.

Looking into the probable cause affidavit, the increasing manipulation becomes even more evident.  It is important to remember and understand the legal statutory “hurdles” that must be overcome for any legal indictment.
There are essentially FOUR statutory hurdles for Homicide Murder One:

1. The unlawful killing of a human being…
2. Perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another…
3. Evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life…
4. With a premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.

There are THREE statutory hurdles for Homicide Murder Two:

1. The unlawful killing of a human being…
2. Perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another…
3. Evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life…

The difference between Murder-One, and Murder-Two is the absence of premeditation, or what is also called “Malice of Forethought”.
The Probable Cause Affidavit  (below) for Second Degree Murder must specifically highlight each of the three hurdles, and show what illegal actions the defendant has taken to prove each point the hurdle is crossed in the probable cause for the charge.   In the case of George Zimmerman the State’s Attorney Angela Corey is using the following wording to prove cause:



Hurdle One “The unlawful killing“ –  Both parties admit that Trayvon Martin was killed by the action of George Zimmerman.  So this affidavit of cause has to prove that George Zimmerman was NOT acting in self-defense, and that his actions, specifically shooting Trayvon Martin, were unlawful.   The immunity hearing will cut directly to the heart of this matter.  But in a larger sense there is nothing within the Affidavit of Probable Cause which outlines this with specificity.
This is the hurdle or aspect Alan Derschowitz states is unethically and irresponsibly not evident.
Hurdle Two “Perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another“ – We are to take from this affidavit the prosecutor is stating the phrase(s) “Zimmerman got out of his truck” and “Zimmerman disregarded the police officer and continued to follow“, as evidence of an action imminently dangerous.   Yet there is no evidence within the police transcript of the call to validate or evidence such actions took place.
To the contrary, Zimmerman claims, and is heard upon the 911 call to have said “ok” and not continued to follow Trayvon Martin.   Again, the affidavit does not “prove” he disregarded the police officers instruction, it merely states their opinion he did.   Remember this is supposed to reflect “probable cause” there must be some evidence to show or prove the assertion of the claim from the prosecutor.  It is not present.
The third hurdle “Evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life“ –  This is the one hurdle most disingenuously, and quite possibly unethically proven.   The affidavit attempts to prove this “mindset” with the following phrase(s):  “he [Trayvon] was profiled by Zimmerman“, and “Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the community“, “Zimmerman stated “these assholes” and “they always get away”“.
If the prosecutor wanted to include the witness account via phone “DeeDee”. which she included in the affidavit with a summary of her statement, then the prosecutor is legally and ethically bound to provide the actual substantive statement from DeeDee to authorities to back it up.  It is not good enough in the affidavit of probable cause to state what your opinion is of what she said.  Again, this was a point of contention for Alan Dershowitz, and quite valid.

Here is where it gets really odd.   What is more interestingly included is actually the evidence for the fourth hurdle which they did not charge nor take to a Grand Jury.   The affidavit provides a reasonable attempt at proving “malice of forethought” or statutorally speaking “a premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual”.
How?  Well this is where they have outlined the phrase “he was profiled by George Zimmerman“.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.   Why would you include language to tackle the premeditation hurdle if you never intended to attempt charges using it.?
One might argue, and it would reasonably be inferred, this affidavit was constructed to present probable cause for a First Degree Murder charge.   Yet a Grand Jury was never seated.
Why?  Because there is not a shred of justifiable proof, or evidence, that Zimmerman did indeed “profile” Trayvon Martin.  To the contrary if you look at the 911 transcript for the reason Zimmerman made the call you find this:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. …

Zimmerman: Hey we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

What exactly is Zimmerman profiling here?  

“A real suspicious guy”, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good”,  “It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about”. 

Does that sound like any kind of illegal profiling?   That sounds like describing exactly what anyone might be leery of witnessing within their neighborhood.  What exactly is wrong with  that, and why would that be considered profiling?
What evidence is there of profiling, and more importantly quizzical, if you are not charging First Degree Murder why include language to prove “premeditation” when it’s not being charged?

I strongly agree with Alan Dershowitz’s opinion that any reasonable attorney is going to be able to get this case thrown out, or at least suspended, until such time as the prosecutor is going to actually provide a “proof of probable cause” document that actually proves “probable cause” for Second Degree Murder.
This one certainly does not.

Mark Levin weighs in with his opinion HERE
NRO’s Andrew McCarthy has an exceptional summary HERE
Alan Dershowitz provides his opinion HERE