Gag order sought in lacrosse case (NAACP Wants Gag Order)

Durham Herald-Sun ^ | May 25, 2006 | PAUL BONNER

[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.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Shaking my head....

Do they inbreed in Durham?

[cherry]

"The NAACP's demand for a gag order indicates that there's something "

funny that they had no problem with the black panther agitator threatening the defendent in open court......nope, pretty silent on that one.....

[cherry]

"Are they still involved in the call girl ring as they were back in 1992?"

first I heard of that....

[ltc8k6]

Well, we'll just have to disagree. I can't see any other way to interpret Cheshire's statements.

[ltc8k6]

That would mean the SBI did find DNA, just not enough to work with, but that doesn't match Cheshire's statements.

[ltc8k6]

I can believe the SBI lab didn't have enough to work with on the fingernail.

I can't believe a vaginal swab wouldn't give them enough to work with.

[JLS]

You can not disagree with the basic fact that LABS DONT FIND DNA ON ANY LIVE PERSON. Labs test what is sent to them. Labs might find DNA on a dead body sent to them. Live persons are not sent to Labs for testing.

We can certainly disagree on how to read Cheshire's statement. I think he was sandbagged by Nifong. You seem to think the state lab could not find and DNA on the swabs from within the woman, but Nifong someone got a message from above to send them to a private lab?

How do you figure Nifong knew there was DNA material on those swabs? The only way he could have known was from the state lab. So we are left with either the state lab could not match the material to anyone or the state lab could identify the material but could not do the type of test the private lab could.

[JLS]

I can believe the SBI lab didn't have enough to work with on the fingernail.

Neither lab had enough to work with to find a match. Cheshire said that the private lab found no new evidence to indict Evans. So the state lab had the inconclusive results on Evans and another Duke lacrosse player.

[Ken H]

if you were on the jury, would you believe that she was never asked that again?

And even if the jury did buy it, it points out a glaring flaw in the investigation.

Q: Sir, you are aware that rape victims are severely traumatized, and may be able to recall nothing about the attack in the first few hours, correct?

A: Yes sir.

Q: Why didn't you ask her again at a later time?

A: (in Spicoli voice) I don't know.

[F.J. Mitchell]

LOL! Very fitting.

[ltc8k6]

What is sent to the lab may certainly be from a live person. In that case the lab found DNA on a live person, word games notwithstanding.

Yes, I still think the state lab found nothing at all on CGM.

Cheshire also said the SBI found nothing that would indicate CGM had sex recently.

To me, that means the SBI found no male DNA on the vaginal swabs.

Cheshire's statements are pretty strongly worded. No DNA at all, and nothing to indicate recent sexual activity.

[cherry]

well, I agree that a rape can be traumatizing to the point where some details are incorrect.....BUT, every detail seems out of whack in this case....

Just how much can be forgiven from the accuser?.....

her history....her changing stories...her profession....her lack of LAX dna....when does this stop?

my brother once said that the differance between girls having early sex with boys having early sex is that girls are MARKED forever by society.....

in this case, one can not avoid this woman's profession.....and I use that term loosely....and her history......she is a very MARKED woman for sure....

and then we're also supposed to forgive her now for not giving correct details?......don't think so...

[cherry]

"unless they just happen to get all the jurors from the OJ trial."

and all those jurors were black except one very weak, mousey woman who admitted she thought Simpson guilty but couldn't stand up to the others.....if she had, it would have been a hung jury and Simpson would have been tried again...

[stands2reason]

I honestly don't know.

I'm very afraid for these boys.

[David Allen]

Jury pools vary according to the jurisdiction. Juries are made up of people who couldn't get out of jury duty, or didn't want to. That means a lot of good jurors for these defendants will beg off if they can, because they run businesses and such.

This jury, which will have to commit for some time, will likely be stacked with women, the old, government workers, and the unemployed. That probably helps the prosecutor in this case.

[JustaCowgirl]

My sense of things is that CGM is in grave danger

Is there another kind ? ;)

Yes, there's hospital danger and there's grave danger, aka cemetery danger. Crystal's in grave danger, and it's coming to get her as soon as her protection (Mike Nifong and the Durham hangers-on, race pimps, victim propper-uppers, not to mention her father) no longer find her useful. That would happen the instant she recants.

Also, if our own Mike Nifong is right, Crystal and the DA Mike Nifong (this is so confusing) may be extorting the city manager and/or various other city officials with what they know about their relationship to Crystal or Kim or other hos. That could be another source of some danger for poor little C, the universal extortionist/victim/ho. And maybe to Kim, too, who is so obviously a snake not even the most sympathetic observer can convincingly paint her as a victim.

With what's looming out there, Crystal may have decided that's her story and she's sticking to it. The girl is between a rock and a hard place, I'm telling you.

[JLS]

This jury, which will have to commit for some time, will likely be stacked with women, the old, government workers, and the unemployed. That probably helps the prosecutor in this case.

Let's see:

1. Women, take a look at this thread. The prosecution is not often that excited by women particularly older women who were raised in eras of more morals on the jury in rape cases. There are not that many feminazis out there and like the woman on this thread women jurors often can often figure out another woman.

2. The Old, As I said above people raised in more moral days than today are not the prosecutors friend. And if it is an older person who worked hard there entire life and did not stoop to "dancing" to get ahead, the prosecution may really be in trouble. And an older person will know what "dancer" means.

3. Government workers, this might be a group that cuts the prosecutors way. Of course they also might know how inefficient and tyranical government agencies they work in can be.

4. The unemployed, this group might work for the prosecution, but then they often feel the system including the DA is against people like them.

I personally do not see the jury pool in Durham as bad for the defense as many do here. There are many many respectable African-Americans who would see right through Mangum and would not be very sympathetic to her.

[Ken H]

http://www.wral.com/news/9276876/detail.html

I just read the article. So CGM apparently DID give an initial description of her attackers, and that is what the defense wants. Would Nifong have withheld it if it even vaguely matched the lacrosse players? Would the defense be pressing the question if they didn't already know the answer?

[darbymcgill]

Yes, there's hospital danger and there's grave danger, aka cemetery danger. Crystal's in grave danger,

I'm sorry, I wasn't challenging you, it was a feeble attempt at humor...

From A Few Good Men:

JACK: he was in danger

TOM: grave danger?

JACK: Is there another kind?

.....snip....

TOM: You said he was in danger, I asked grave danger?, you said, "is there another kind"

JACK: I REMEMBER WHAT I SAID.....

[JLS]

What is sent to the lab may certainly be from a live person.

Certainly. This is often the case.

In that case the lab found DNA on a live person, word games notwithstanding.

Certanly not. That is why in court the person who collected the material will testify and then the person who tested the material at the lab will testify. The person who collected the material establishes where it came from. The person from the lab testifies what was on the in this case swab.

There are no word games here. A lab determines what evidence sent to them is. A technician of somekind collects the evidence. For example a lab does not FIND blood, it may determine a blood type.

Yes, I still think the state lab found nothing at all on CGM.

Right neither lab found anything on her. They did not look at her.

Cheshire also said the SBI found nothing that would indicate CGM had sex recently.

Right and as I said before our choices are:

1. Nifong sandbaged Cheshire and the defense by giving them only the part of the DNA results associated with their clients and only gave them the complete DNA results when he was required to by discovery rules.

2. Cheshire got it wrong when he spoke originally.

3. The state lab could not find DNA from the swab on her, but somehow Nifong knew this microscopic material was there and that he should send it to another private lab?

I opt for number 1. You opt for number 3. Give the evidence I have available to me, Nifong sandbagging someone looks more likely than the NC state lab being this bad. You and Nifong may know something about the NC state lab that I don't know giving you a reason for selecting number 3. To me, that means the SBI found no male DNA on the vaginal swabs.

Cheshire's statements are pretty strongly worded. No DNA at all, and nothing to indicate recent sexual activity

Certainly if you have reason to believe the NC state lab is not very good or corrupt or something. Personally, I have seen enough evidence that Nifong is corrupt to suspect him of sandbagging Cheshire and the defense. But then I know little of the NC state crime lab.