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 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 721-727 next last
To: TommyDale

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.


241 posted on 05/25/2006 3:57:14 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

That's certainly possible, but I'd sure like to see a decent source.


242 posted on 05/25/2006 4:01:28 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath

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.


243 posted on 05/25/2006 4:03:25 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

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)


244 posted on 05/25/2006 4:07:11 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

"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.


245 posted on 05/25/2006 4:11:21 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: abb
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.

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.

246 posted on 05/25/2006 4:15:37 PM PDT by StarFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
Like I told GAgal (#77 in this thread) The citizens who elected Nifong have a combined IQ of about 12.
247 posted on 05/25/2006 4:16:58 PM PDT by TommyDale (North Carolina looks forward to the disbarring of Mike Nifong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

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.


248 posted on 05/25/2006 4:20:25 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

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.


249 posted on 05/25/2006 4:24:45 PM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

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.


250 posted on 05/25/2006 4:29:41 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: streeeetwise

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.


251 posted on 05/25/2006 4:31:48 PM PDT by David Allen (the presumption of innocence - what a concept!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

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.


252 posted on 05/25/2006 4:34:35 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

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?


253 posted on 05/25/2006 4:34:47 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: GAgal

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.


254 posted on 05/25/2006 4:41:09 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: David Allen

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.


255 posted on 05/25/2006 4:57:15 PM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

"....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.


256 posted on 05/25/2006 4:59:47 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: libstripper
By calling her "the victim" the NAACP is stating the accused perpetrators of this alleged crime are guilty and is doing its level best to see that they get judicially lynched.

The corollary to this is, if the accused are eventually found not guilty, then this "proves" that the "white man's" justice is invalid.

257 posted on 05/25/2006 4:59:50 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (Freedom isn't free, but the men and women of the military will pay most of your share)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

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.


258 posted on 05/25/2006 5:09:36 PM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
This is where the jeopardy for Nifong lies in my opinion. He had to know during the presentation to the second GJ for the 3rd indictment that he was presenting false information. He knew the FA had lied to the police and the SANE nurse. As an officer of the court presenting false information to a GJ must present serious issues. I think he has a difficult time backing out of this one and it would not surprise me if this is the issue that has been brought to the Bar Assoc.
259 posted on 05/25/2006 5:33:17 PM PDT by Hogeye13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Hogeye13

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.)


260 posted on 05/25/2006 5:36:00 PM PDT by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 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