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 ...
I'm going to have to go with my own experiences picking juries, but I appreciate your thoughts, too. We disagree.
This is a jurisdiction which elects its DA in the Democrat primary. That's good for black defendants, but not high profile white ones accused of raping a black woman from the community.
This is a jurisdiction in which many who might otherwise help the defense's jury pool will not be part of the jury pool because their permanent address is somewhere else, because they're Duke students.
The Townies are going to dominate the jury, and many will have an ax to grind with the privileged students of Duke. This case will bring out stealth jurors, determined to have their moment. I think the defense does better if it moves the trial to another jurisdiction.
Good defense jurors in this case will be the same as good jurors in a big civil case. Give me white men who are professionals, business owners, and such.
My mistake. I thought from your posts you did.
I think Durham is the worst place in the state for the trial. Think about it yourself for a while and see if you don't agree. Ask yourself "is the jury pool going to be better or worse in other similarly sized or larger cities in the state?"
I think this jurisdiction will have a lot of blacks in the jury pool, a disproportionate number, and some will likely be trying to get on the jury stealth. They'll know to show no flags. Even the Dukies who are in the pool may have their own grudges with the athletes. Imagine the liberals arts department, the profs, the TAs, the grads.
This is strictly a personal opinion, but I'd sure want the case out of this jurisdiction, where you never know the politics. Get it somewhere that Nifong is powerless.
No, I opt for none of your choices, as I already said.
I have given my opinions after reading and listening to the press conference and other statements.
I believe Cheshire knew exactly what he was saying.
I stand by my opinions.
Old people who will be on the jury are ones who want to, since they can get out. Wealthy people aren't going to do that. Retired pensioners are. And those people could have some deep resentments about young, rich, privileged, white boys from Duke Athletics acting like they own the town.
How many will have known a local girl who fell for one of them and was dumped or worse? Or be kin to one such girl?
The jurors I would want most are the ones least likely to get on the jury. Wealthy, white, male, successful, smart.
Well, how about rich and middle-class, white limousine liberals? Surely it assuaged their bleeding heart white guilt to vote for a guy who was railroading three of their own kind in favor of the blacks they oppressed for so many centuries, in sort of a sacrifical lamb mentality? :>
I understand the events as being there was one semen sample in her that they were looking for the source of, and found it to be the boyfriend after swabbing all three, meaning the BF and the two "drivers."
Hopefully.
A fine riposte, streeeet!
I agree. Mangum bit off more than she could chew this time, but it always worked in the past - say whatever it takes to get the situation moved your direction, making it up as you go along, and then back-pedal. Hey! Now I understand why she's a registered Dummycrat - exact M.O.!
Ping
New article from the Durham Herald-Sun
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-738696.html
Lacrosse case complaint filed by attorney
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
May 25, 2006 10:40 pm
DURHAM -- Constitutional lawyer Alex Charns says a police poster unfairly sullied the names of 46 Duke University lacrosse players, implying all were guilty of raping an exotic dancer before the district attorney announced he had sufficient evidence to indict only three.
Charns, representing one of the unindicted players, has requested a police internal investigation in connection with the poster that declared the alleged victim "was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."
Charns said he believed the poster, which offered cash rewards for assistance in solving the case, was displayed around the Duke campus and adjoining neighborhoods.
According to Charns, the poster "impugned the entire lacrosse team."
In an e-mail sent May 18 to City Manager Patrick Baker and shared with The Herald-Sun on Thursday, Charns asked "how is it that our police force offered to pay money to anonymous witnesses in order to solve a crime that it claimed to know for a fact had occurred? What happened to investigating a crime before a blanket accusation of guilt is made? Wasn't it 'Alice in Wonderland' in which the verdict came before the trial, and the accuser acted as jury and jury?"
The e-mail was copied to Police Chief Steve Chalmers.
Baker did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.
Without elaborating, police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said the poster "was amended on April 10 at the request of the Police Department after it was brought to our attention."
Asked if her department would comply with Charns' call for an investigation, Michael said only that, "We have already handled this matter."
She said CrimeStoppers, which produced the poster, was "not covered" by general orders that govern many Police Department activities.
In related business Thursday, lawyers for indicted rape suspect Collin Finnerty filed a routine court motion seeking "the complete files of all law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies" involved in the case, including any statements made by the alleged rape victim. They said state law entitled them to that information.
Meanwhile, in his call for an investigation, Charns asked whether the recent CrimeStoppers poster was in keeping with rules and regulations of the Police Department, and whether the department and the city had authorized it.
In addition, Charns filed a Public Records Act request for all news releases, e-mails, drafts, memos and chain-of-command authorizations -- if any -- that pertained to the poster.
"I expect a response to my request," the lawyer said in an interview. "The law gives me as a citizen part ownership of these records. They are public records. They don't have to explain things to me, but they certainly have to provide the records."
The poster in question came before District Attorney Mike Nifong obtained rape, kidnapping and sex-offense indictments against three Duke lacrosse players accused of assaulting an exotic dancer during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
The suspects are Finnerty, 19, and Reade Seligmann, 20, both Duke sophomores at the time of the alleged incident, and David Forker Evans, who graduated this month.
After the final indictment was handed down last week, Nifong said he had no evidence to prosecute anyone else -- even though he previously hinted that others might be accused of aiding and abetting the alleged rapists.
In an initial round of scientific testing, the State Bureau of Investigation found no DNA from Finnerty, Seligmann, Evans or any other lacrosse players in or on the dancer's body, on her clothing and belongings or under her fingernails -- even though she said she clawed at her attackers to fend them off.
A subsequent round of tests by a private laboratory, DNA Securities of Burlington, also detected no incriminating DNA from any lacrosse players.
However, DNA Securities did find genetic material showing the dancer had sex with someone other than lacrosse players. Defense lawyers believe he was the woman's boyfriend.
Meanwhile, Seligmann has claimed to have an airtight alibi: cell phone, taxicab and bank ATM records indicating he was otherwise occupied during the only time defense lawyers think a rape could have occurred.
And Evans passed a private lie-detector test indicating he knew nothing about a rape and did not participate in one, according to his lawyer, Joe Cheshire of Raleigh.
On a related topic, several Durham attorneys -- not connected with the lacrosse case -- downplayed a hint by the NAACP that it would seek a judicial gag order to prevent defense lawyers from talking publicly about the situation.
The hint came Wednesday from lawyer Al McSurely during a Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of our Culture.
"A freedom-of-speech issue is involved here," said attorney Mark Edwards. "I don't think he [McSurely] has any standing to ask for a gag order. Good luck to him."
According to Edwards, prosecutor Nifong would be the only person with standing to request that defense lawyers be muzzled.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-738696.html
Today's editorial about a gag order
http://www.herald-sun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-738548.html
Gag order cannot ensure a fair trial
The Herald-Sun
May 25, 2006 4:53 pm
Because of all the publicity surrounding the Duke lacrosse case and defense attorneys' unrelenting assault on the alleged rape victim's credibility, the state NAACP plans to ask for a gag order to ensure the alleged victim receives a fair trial.
Al McSurely, an attorney who chairs the legal redress committee for the state chapter of the National Association of Colored People, contends that defense attorneys are violating the State Bar's rules of professional conduct, which frown on comments outside of court that could prejudice a case. If that is the case, then the State Bar ought to police the behavior.
"We are seeing powerful forces trying to remove that right from her," McSurely said Wednesday during the inaugural Durham Conference on the Moral Challenges of Our Culture held at First Presbyterian Church in downtown Durham.
Over the past month or so, the impact of defense attorneys' constant chipping at the alleged victim's credibility has been clearly evident on these pages. Many of our readers are absolutely convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the alleged victim is lying about what took place March 13-14 at 610 Buchanan Blvd. And it's probably pretty safe to say that many of them formed their opinions about the case after hearing persuasive defense attorneys do what they are paid well to do -- defend their clients.
We acknowledge that there certainly exists the possibility that the alleged victim, who was hired to strip at a wild lacrosse party, isn't being truthful about what happened in the bathroom. (She contends that she was raped, robbed and beaten that regrettable night.) But how anyone who was not present in the bathroom can claim to know for certain that three lacrosse players accused of rape are innocent isn't being honest.
With that said, we don't believe that a gag order, no matter how well intentioned, will help the alleged victim one bit. In fact, the more we learn, the better are her chances of getting a fair hearing. Seldom, if ever, has anything good come from the squelching of free speech.
And we don't believe that District Attorney Mike Nifong would be best served either if a judge muzzled defense attorneys. Nifong, through no fault of his own, is under a cloud of suspicion for pursuing this case in light of what his critics view as flimsy evidence.
There are some who believe that he only pursued the case to win over black voters -- the alleged victim is black, the players are white -- in the recent election. Imagine the outcry if defense attorneys were all of a sudden gagged.
No, the best way to ensure fairness is through the unfettered flow of information.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-738548.html
And if CGM turns up dead before trial who will they try to blame?
Maybe Nifong sent it to the private lab rather than the SBI lab because he wanted to give the impression that there was something important there that needed finer testing, thus implying that there was a "there" there and the matter was not over even though the DNA on the players was negative. There were no indictments at that time, so Nifong had no real obligation to notify the defense that there was unidentified semen found in her.
Obviously, the state lab got a semen specimen from the vaginal swab and could not match it to any of the samples from the team, which apparently was a surprise to Nifong, so he hauled her in, gave her hell and got the names.
The N & O had one teeny little article today. I guess they're already obeying the "gag order" on their own, lol...
Nifong had no obligation to relate anything to defense counsel except the results as they pertained directly to their clients, so if Cheshire said that the SBI lab found nothing to indicate that Mangum had had sex recent to the alleged event, that was true as far as he knew. He just didn't have the whole story from Nifong. The more I think about it, the more surprising it would be if Nifong had given the defense that information at that point in time.
Then, a miracle happened!!! Mangum remembered what the three looked like!!! Halleleujah!
Thelma and Louise they ain't.
The Durham blacks who see through Mangum, and who may be somewhat traditional and moral in their own right, nevertheless may not be willing to take the heat from Shabazz and the boys and the rest of their ilk if they voted to acquit. I just don't see them standing up for what is right in favor of white defendants and against a black "victim." If they weren't on the plantation, they wouldn't be voting Dummyrat in the first place and Durham wouldn't be a solid Dummy town.
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.