Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gag order sought in lacrosse case (NAACP Wants Gag Order)
Durham Herald-Sun ^ | May 25, 2006 | PAUL BONNER

Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb

DURHAM -- A lawyer with the state NAACP said the civil rights organization intends to seek a gag order in the Duke lacrosse case, and a journalist who participated in a forum with him on Wednesday said media coverage of the alleged rape may deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.

Al McSurely, an attorney who chairs the Legal Redress Committee for the state National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he generally respects the defense attorneys in the case as colleagues. But they are violating the State Bar's rules of professional conduct that discourage comments outside court that are likely to prejudice a case, he said.

The NAACP will try to intervene in the case to file a "quiet zone/let's let justice work" motion. That is otherwise known as a gag order, he acknowledged, although he said he doesn't like that term.

McSurely's comments came amid the first-ever Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of our Culture at First Presbyterian Church downtown. The session gave the approximately 150 people who attended a chance to hear a series of talks and discuss among themselves sexual and domestic violence, racism, class distinctions and the media.

(Excerpt) Read more at herald-sun.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: crystalgailmangum; duke; dukelax; durham; lacrosse; naacp; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 721-727 next last
To: Locomotive Breath

I don't think he did wait. He got the samples from the three and sent those for testing to the second lab along with the additional testing request done on the fingernail.


201 posted on 05/25/2006 2:59:00 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

Did the tests identify 3 separate sources of DNA or is there one DNA source and 3 possible sources?


202 posted on 05/25/2006 3:00:08 PM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: bjc

The boys could end up stuck between a runaway jury and a corrupt judge....


203 posted on 05/25/2006 3:00:39 PM PDT by stands2reason (You cannot bully or insult conservatives to support your guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: bjc

It's a different dynamic. In a civil case, it's about money and the standard is preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, it's about getting ONE juror to swing your way. If the facts favor you, then you want smart jurors, who will see what happened.

Civil defense lawyers hate jurors, but criminal defense lawyers love them.

A civil jury typically only requires a 10-2 or a 9-3 vote, so winning one of those is easier than getting 12-0 in a criminal case.


204 posted on 05/25/2006 3:01:58 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: bjc

Sorry that was unclear. Did the DNA tests suggest 3 separate and independent sources of semen, or did it suggest one source and Mangum identified 3 possible providers.


205 posted on 05/25/2006 3:03:43 PM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

I agree - but if I was one of these young men's parents I would sure want an unequivocal finding and not have to go through life with a split jury vote. I know not guilty is not guilty, but it is not the same as being declared "innocent".


206 posted on 05/25/2006 3:08:15 PM PDT by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: streeeetwise

I have looked at NC law now, and I suspect I know what you read. Some jurisdictions refer to their lower level trial court as "district," where other states use that term for major trial matters, felonies in particular. In NC, it appears there may not be a right to jury trial for misdemeanors tried in their "district" court. But there is a right to a trial de novo (anew, or new trial) in the higher level trial court as the appeal from that lower court, and such trial is subject to the right to a jury.

There is a rule that is confusing, and it does seem to say there is no right to a jury trial, but you have to read the other materials to see it's an inferior court, probably not a court of record.


207 posted on 05/25/2006 3:09:04 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Not necessarily. There are several reasons why the other two guys' semen wasn't picked up.


208 posted on 05/25/2006 3:09:15 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

bttt


209 posted on 05/25/2006 3:13:06 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

These rules require the consent of the "parties", plural to waive a jury. The right to a jury trial does not mean the right to waive. Again, I could be wrong, but this is the plain language of the rule.


210 posted on 05/25/2006 3:14:14 PM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

New defense motion filed:

http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2951379p-9389971c.html


211 posted on 05/25/2006 3:16:28 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Constitutions Grandchild
According to Mangum's own statement to N&O, they had to have been prostitution encounters. She told N&O in an interview a couple weeks after the alleged rape that she had worked for the escort service for two months going on one-on-one dates and that the night of the incident was her first private dance engagement. I think that rather than admit that she went on eight "dates" that weekend before the alleged rape and wouldn't know their names anyway, and they probably used protection, she decided to just give the three names and hope that one of those would be a match and suffice for the inquiry.
212 posted on 05/25/2006 3:20:39 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Guenevere; JLS; Dukie07; Howlin; Locomotive Breath; Jrabbit; investigateworld; maggief; TexKat; ...

New Defense Motion Ping....

Duke lacrosse players lawyers ask prosecutors for more evidence

The Associated Press

Duke lacrosse players lawyers ask prosecutors for more evidence

NC lawmakers consider prohibiting teen driver cell phone use

Easley appoints Brunstetter to N.C. Senate

House approves treasurer training; panel outlaws partial checks

DURHAM, N.C. -- Lawyers for one of three Duke University men's lacrosse players charged with rape say in a motion filed Thursday that they want the accuser's descriptions to police of the men she says attacked her.

"At some point in their interviews and investigations, one or more of these officers asked (the accuser) to describe the men who she claims sexually assaulted her, and (she) provided some answer to that question," the motion filed by lawyers Bill Cotter and Wade Smith said. Her "response to that question is critical to the defense of the case and the state may not withhold that evidence from the defendant."

Cotter and Smith represent Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y., who is charged along with Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md., and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., with raping a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a March 13 team party.

District Attorney Mike Nifong gave defense lawyers nearly 1,300 pages of evidence last week, saying it was his complete case file.

Smith and Cotter argue in their motion filed in Durham Superior Court that can't be true. They say that there's only one instance in the evidence they've been given when the accuser is asked to describe her attackers.

The response is contained in what appears to be an investigator's note, they said.

"I asked her questions trying to follow up on a better description of the suspects, she was unable to remember anything further about the suspects," the note from Durham police investigator B.W. Himan says, according to the motion.


213 posted on 05/25/2006 3:20:57 PM PDT by abb (If it Ain't Posted on FreeRepublic, it Ain't News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: streeeetwise

You may be right, that once both parties have demanded a jury, both have to consent to change it to a bench trial. That makes sense, IF, the rule in NC so provides. Rule 39 (a)(1) does seem to say that.

I would like to hear from someone who knows the practice and the law in NC. I really don't, and for the law we find, there's all the law we haven't seen yet.


214 posted on 05/25/2006 3:24:13 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: darbymcgill

But I think that's what they mean by "single" source. I think there was one semen sample found in her and she gave three names to account for it. I think if there were still two outstaning (unidentified) the defense would know about it - it would have to have been included in the discovery - and be touting that as evidence of her promiscuity.


215 posted on 05/25/2006 3:24:38 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Wild Irish Rogue

They took the samples from all three, and one was a match.


216 posted on 05/25/2006 3:25:43 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: abb

""I asked her questions trying to follow up on a better description of the suspects, she was unable to remember anything further about the suspects," the note from Durham police investigator B.W. Himan says, according to the motion."

The defense is claiming there should be more to go along with this note about this discussion between CGM and Himan.


217 posted on 05/25/2006 3:26:36 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

IIRC, the defense asked for all notes, etc from the Durham PD in the hearing last week...


218 posted on 05/25/2006 3:28:04 PM PDT by abb (If it Ain't Posted on FreeRepublic, it Ain't News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: abb

Thanks for the ping. Uh-huh, on the New "gag" push by the Alleged Supporters of the Alleged Victim.


219 posted on 05/25/2006 3:28:37 PM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: abb

Looks like Nifong forgot a few papers....


220 posted on 05/25/2006 3:29:11 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 721-727 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson