Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb
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.
Did the tests identify 3 separate sources of DNA or is there one DNA source and 3 possible sources?
The boys could end up stuck between a runaway jury and a corrupt judge....
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.
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.
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".
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.
Not necessarily. There are several reasons why the other two guys' semen wasn't picked up.
bttt
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.
New defense motion filed:
http://dwb.newsobserver.com/news/ncwire_news/story/2951379p-9389971c.html
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.
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.
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.
They took the samples from all three, and one was a match.
""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.
IIRC, the defense asked for all notes, etc from the Durham PD in the hearing last week...
Thanks for the ping. Uh-huh, on the New "gag" push by the Alleged Supporters of the Alleged Victim.
Looks like Nifong forgot a few papers....
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.