Posted on 05/15/2006 7:14:12 AM PDT by pissant
DURHAM - A Durham grand jury is scheduled to meet today, and the session could mean new charges in the investigation of a reported rape at a Duke lacrosse team party.
Two of the team's players were indicted in April on charges of first degree rape, first degree sex offense and first degree kidnapping. They are accused of assaulting an escort service dancer in a bathroom of a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. Their lawyers say the men are innocent, and lawyers representing dozens of team members say that no sex or assault occurred at the March 13 party.
But the woman says she was attacked by three men, and Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong said he has been working on bringing charges against a third person.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY? If Nifong decides to submit the case, police investigators and possibly other witnesses will try to convince grand jurors in a secret session that the state has probable cause to bring a case forward. Grand jurors will hear only the prosecution's side of the case. The standard required for a true bill of indictment is far lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required for a conviction.
IF INDICTMENTS ARE ISSUED, WHEN WILL THEY BECOME PUBLIC? On April 17, a judge ordered the indictments in the lacrosse case sealed. The names of the players who were indicted were not released until 5 a.m. the next day when the players surrendered at the Durham County jail. If Nifong again requests that the indictments be sealed, the law allows a judge to keep them secret until the person is arrested or appears in court.
WHEN WILL ALL THE EVIDENCE BE REVEALED? State law requires prosecutors to turn over all of their case files to defense lawyers, but nothing requires the evidence to be turned over to the public. In open court hearings, lawyers often discuss some of the evidence, but the state's case may not be revealed until trial. No trial dates have been set. When a report on the DNA testing is complete, Nifong is required by law to turn it over to all 46 members of the lacrosse team who submitted DNA samples.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The cases against Reade William Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y., are moving forward. Finnerty has a court date in June. Seligmann is scheduled to appear in court Thursday. His attorney, Kirk Osborn, has filed a series of motions challenging Nifong's handling of the case and asking a judge to bar the prosecutor from further involvement.
I've been here for many a year. Please.
I'm betting even money this never gets to court.
Mangum will break from the pressure and confess that she's lying.
"I'm betting even money this never gets to court."
Her father was just quoted tonite saying she's going through with it.
Unless the three can come up with lots of money like Kobe Bryant, I see it going to court.
Does stealing a car and attempting to run down a cop speak to the accuser's character? Let's compare a fistfight to car theft, car chase and attempting to run down a police officer shall we?
Her father was just quoted tonite saying she's going through with it.
________________________________________
Did he say this in court tonight? Did he say it under oath? Is it evidence? Byou your standard YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP.
Does the alleged assaulting of another and claiming he did it because he was gay mean speak as to character either?
These three have more money than all of Durham...They won't pay her off, they want their good names back.
I was witness in a prosecutorial abuse case that didnt have as much evidence as this one would, IMO.
I think you picked the wrong feminist cause celebre to hang your hat on.
Good. I look forward to seeing them testify in Court to clear their good names.
didn't you try to explain away why there was no DNA on or in the dancer?
didn't you impugn the character of the players by bringing up minor charges and a hate crime that seems to bother you to no end.
didn't you explain away why she did not inflict damage on the player that she was foreced to perform a ** job on?
1 2 3 questions: please you have the floor
This would the same father who, in an interview, said she was raped with a broomstick, even though neither she nor Kim Roberts nor anybody else ever mentioned a broomstick.
She will have to testify. If she doesn't, Nifong has no case.
She won't, because this is about a drunk stripper who lied about being raped so her probation wouldn't be revoked and she'd have to spend a few nights in the can.
She deserves humiliation, one way or another.
Sorry, you lost me
What about charging three other boys of gang-rape, giving their names and addresses to police, and never following through? She doesn't seem to realize the ruinous ramifications of simply making these types of claims.
Problem is, may never get to court. No evidence.
Why would the charging of a case of rape, in itself, be that of a feminist cause of celebre?
We'll see when it gets to Court. If she testifies then great. If they testify then even better.
Honestly, I think the woman is unstable. I almost feel sorry for her. I also believe Nifong is using her and damaging her far more than any rape.
Justice Delayed for the Lacrosse Players in the Duke University Rape Case
by Thomas Sowell (May 16, 2006)
If there is a smoking gun in the Duke University rape case, it is not about the stripper who made the charges or the lacrosse players who have been accused. The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.
That makes no sense from either a legal or a social standpoint, whether the players are guilty or innocent. But it tells us something about District Attorney Nifong.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the players are guilty.
What is the point of letting a bunch of rapists remain at large for another year? What about the dangers that they would pose to women on or off the Duke University campus?
Now suppose that the players are innocent. Isn't it unconscionable to have this damning charge hanging over their heads for another year?
The Constitution of the United States includes a right to a speedy trial, to keep people from being jerked around by unscrupulous or vindictive prosecutors who cannot prove that they have committed any crime.
Prosecutors have to put up or shut up.
This is not a federal case, however, and the laws of North Carolina do not require a speedy trial.
Justice delayed is justice denied, whether the players are guilty or innocent.
What purpose does the delay serve? The most obvious purpose is the same as the purpose that delay serves in confidence games.
After a fraud has been perpetrated and it is only a matter of time before the victim finds out, it can still make a big difference whether the victim finds out suddenly or slowly over an extended period of time.
This is called "cooling out the mark."
If the mark (the victim) finds out suddenly and immediately, instant outrage may lead to a call to the police, who can then get hot on the trail of the con man.
However, if the realization of having been taken begins to emerge at first as a sense of puzzlement, then as a sneaking suspicion, and ultimately -- after a passage of some time -- as a clear conclusion that a fraud has taken place, then the emotional impact is not nearly as strong.
The victim of the fraud may even be reluctant to go to the police, having had time to think about what a fool he may look like and how little chance there is now to do anything about it.
If the truth about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had come out the very next day after he made that dramatic declaration -- "I did not have sex with that woman" -- it would have been far more of a shock than it was months later, after more and more bits and dabs of information came out, leading many to suspect the truth long before it all came out.
One of Clinton's press secretaries called these delaying tactics "telling the truth slowly."
The announcement that the trial of the Duke lacrosse players has been postponed until the spring of 2007 may be District Attorney Nifong's way of beginning the process of "telling the truth slowly."
At some point, this case will have to be either prosecuted or dropped. If it is going to be prosecuted, there is no reason not to go full speed ahead right now. But if it is going to be dropped, or if Nifong knows that a judge is likely to throw it out of court, then the time at which that happens is crucial.
It was out of the question for Nifong to drop the case before the recent election, no matter how flimsy the evidence might be or how much of that evidence exonerates the accused instead of showing them to be guilty.
Even after being re-elected, the district attorney cannot let his indictment collapse in public while there is nationwide attention focussed on this case 24-7.
What will be different next year? The public will have either forgotten the case or be tired of hearing about it. The D.A. can even turn the case over to some lawyer on his staff to take into court and see it either get thrown out by the judge or fail to convince a jury.
We will all be tired of hearing about it by then. We are the marks who will be cooled out.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4668
And here I've accused of not following the FACTS of the case.
One of the defendants has had his probation revoked because he alleged assaulted another man saying the man was gay.
"Problem is, may never get to court. No evidence."
They were indicted. Its going to court, until a judge dismisses based upon a motion by defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.