Was Pam Bondi contacted or consulted by prosecutors in the Trayvon Martin case?

1. Bondi’s institutional role — appointing and endorsing a special prosecutor

When the handling of Trayvon Martin’s death drew national attention, Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi jointly moved to assign a special prosecutor, and Bondi is explicitly named in contemporaneous reports as involved in that appointment and in endorsing Angela Corey to oversee the investigation ^{[2] [5] [1]}. News accounts note that Scott and Bondi “appointed a special prosecutor” and that Bondi was involved in recommending or supporting the executive assignment of Corey, demonstrating she was consulted at the level of who would lead the prosecution rather than acting as a local charging attorney herself ^{[2] [5] [1]}.

2. Public support and communications — Bondi spoke with family and defended the process

Bondi publicly commented on the case, saying she had “spoken to Martin’s parents” and describing the family’s lawyers as “friends of mine,” while urging patience and defending the integrity of the special prosecutor’s investigation; CNN reported she stood “staunchly behind” Angela Corey and that both Scott and Bondi expressed “full faith” in Corey to handle the matter ^{[4] [6]}. Those statements show Bondi was not only involved in selecting personnel but was actively communicating about the case to both the family and the public ^{[4] [6]}.

3. Formal legal action and appeals — Bondi’s office filed briefs

Beyond public remarks and appointments, Bondi’s office intervened in court processes: reporting records that Bondi filed a legal response with an appeals court arguing against allowing defense questioning of Trayvon Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump before trial, indicating a direct prosecutorial posture on pretrial litigation matters coming from the attorney general’s office ^[3]. That filing is a concrete example of Bondi’s office being consulted and taking an active legal position in the litigation surrounding the case ^[3].

4. What the sources do not show — limits on Bondi’s hands‑on prosecution

Contemporaneous reporting and the documents cited do not portray Bondi as conducting the day‑to‑day prosecution at trial; instead, Angela Corey and her office handled investigative and prosecutorial work once assigned ^{[6] [5]}. Available sources document Bondi’s role in appointment, public support, and at least one appellate filing, but they do not show Bondi acting as the trial prosecutor or making tactical decisions in open court on a continuous basis ^{[6] [3]}.

5. Alternative narratives and partisan readings — contested interpretations

Conservative and partisan commentary later framed Bondi’s involvement as either decisive or politically motivated, with some authors accusing her of consulting in ways that shaped a “political prosecution” ^{[7] [8] [9]}. Those interpretations are opinionated and editorial in nature; the contemporaneous mainstream reporting in CNN, CBS and other outlets documents her appointment role, public statements and legal filings but does not substantiate claims that she personally led the prosecution at trial or covertly controlled prosecutorial decisions beyond institutional appointments and interventions ^{[6] [2] [3]}.

Conclusion: the factual record in these sources supports that Pam Bondi was contacted and consulted at the institutional level — she helped select and endorse Angela Corey as special prosecutor, she communicated with the Martin family and the public about the investigation, and her office filed legal briefs in related appeals — but the reporting does not support portraying Bondi as the trial prosecutor conducting day‑to‑day casework ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}.