Posted on 05/25/2006 5:04:51 AM PDT by abb
The taxpayers voted the bastard into office. I feel sorry for those who voted for Freda Black. beyond that, I don't have any sympathy for the rest of the taxpaying electorate getting hosed.
That's certainly possible, but I'd sure like to see a decent source.
That's exactly what Cheshire said. He was reading from the just released SBI report, and didn't know he wasn't seeing all the results of all the evidence collected by the SANE. He was seeing only the results of tests run on the players' samples, which showed no contact of any kind.
What he didn't know was there were other results showing the accuser had contact with persons unknown.
That doesn't appear to be true.
Here is the kind of reference I'm talking about, which states clearly there IS a right by the defendant to waive a jury trial and have a bench trial.
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers/A~1020204~LDS/NORTH+CAROLINA+CRIMINAL+PROCESS.html
Trial
Many prosecutors will consider "plea agreements," although it's not legally required. If you don't reach a plea agreement with the prosecutor, your proceedings will move toward the trial stage.
Usually, if you are charged with a crime punishable by six or more months of imprisonment, you have the right to a jury trial. This right may be waived by:
Pleading guilty; or
Choosing a bench trial (a trial in front of a judge only)
"He said in this case, the report states there was no DNA on her to indicate that she had sex of any type recently."
Again, from Fox news after the first DNA tests. No DNA on her indicative of recent sex.
I am convinced that the SBI found no DNA from anyone anywhere on CGM.
Where was their concern about the professional conduct on display with Nifong's almost daily press conferences? I suppose the spin, favorable to the accuser, was fair game.
The recently released DNA tests showed a match between the "boyfriend" and DNA found on a vaginal swab which was part of the rape kit gathered at DMC. Don't you think that swab was tested by the SBI? I certainly do.
The problem was it wasn't until the boyfriend was swabbed on May 3 that there was a sample which matched the vaginal swab collected by the SANE.
I know i am sound too much like a lawyer, but the right to waive is not the same thing as having the right to have a bench trial. One side can waive a right but they other side can assert it. but i hope i am wrong.
No, I think it's clear that the SBI found no genetic material of any kind on CGM. I have read the statments many times now and they are clear to me.
As far as I am concerned, the SBI found no DNA at all from anyone other than CGM, on or in CGM.
It is the defendant's right, not the state's, to have a jury trial.
If an accused has the right to waive a jury trial, he has that right. I don't see why there should be any issue. It is the accused, not the state, which has a right to a jury trial.
I trust the source, Martindale-Hubbell, and it clearly states the defendant can waive and opt for the bench trial. And that sounds right.
A sample that did not match the LAX players is exculpatory evidence. It would have been in the first report, imo.
What is the point of leaving it out, anyway? It will only look bad in court when it comes out that you left that out of the report.
Okay, but aren't you relying on the "statements" read by Cheshire from the SBI report provided to him concerning his client/s? Why would the SBI be required to tell him about evidence related to others found on the accuser?
How will it look in court?
So, you admit that you knew all along that CGM had lied to the SANE? You admit that you knew all along that CGM had in fact had sex recently? You admit that you had evidence favoring the defendants and you left that out of the report? You admit that you did not inform the SANE that CGM had in fact had sex recently. Did you ask the SANE if that would change the report?
Doesn't sound good to me.
On the other hand, revealing that the SBI couldn't find DNA even though CGM had sex recently wouldn't look too good either.
I hope you are right. While I don't know the law well in North Carolina, it is not the universal view. And Martindale-Hubbell is not a source, but a summary put together by non-practicing lawyers.
"....that the SBI couldn't find DNA even though CGM had sex recently wouldn't look too good either."
it might be as simple as SBI is only set up/certified to do RFLP and the private lab could do PCR; the latter being the process which grows or amplifies small amounts of DNA imto quantities adequate for full-scale testing.
The corollary to this is, if the accused are eventually found not guilty, then this "proves" that the "white man's" justice is invalid.
Nifong didn't "know all along" she'd had consensual sex earlier, because I think she lied to investigators. It wasn't until the SBI results released April 10 showed no match to the players that it was obvious she lied.
I think Nifong knew days earlier from someone in the SBI lab, and that's why the line-up was arranged on April 4. With no DNA or ID, Nifong couldn't deliver his promised indictments in time for the May 2 primary.
Is a bench trial in Durham going to be any better than a jury?
What judge in Durham is going to risk the wrath of the NBBP and the black establishment in Durham and declare the players not guilty? Or dismiss the case, and risk a riot?
(Pontius Pilate is always the role model for judges in that kind of situation.)
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.