Posted on 11/04/2006 1:31:54 AM PST by abb
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/506264.html
Why do cops need loophole?
Dennis Rogers, Staff Writer
Now we know why the statue of justice is blindfolded. Some things are too painful to watch.
Raleigh defense attorneys Tommy Manning and Duncan McMillan won two more high-profile cases this week.
No surprise there. They're among the best defense attorneys in this city, veteran lawyers who have made their bones in the rough and ragged world of criminal justice.
But is "justice" the right word for what happened at the Wake County courthouse Monday?
Former Durham police Officers Gary Lee and Scott Tanner were charged with assaulting Rene Thomas, a cook at a Glenwood Avenue restaurant.
They appeared before Wake District Court Judge Debra Sasser. But instead of the community, the defendants and the alleged victim receiving justice, what happened was a shining example of why so many people are cynical about the law and those who practice it.
Charges were dismissed against the two former officers because the prosecutor did not present adequate evidence that the alleged assault took place in Wake County. He talked about the alleged assault taking place on Glenwood Avenue but he never specifically said the restaurant was in Wake County.
For the record, it is.
If the alleged crime did not take place in Wake County, why was the trial held in the Wake County courthouse before a Wake County judge and prosecuted by a Wake County assistant district attorney? Why did the Raleigh Police Department conduct the investigation?
Common sense, you think? Who cares. The rules must be obeyed. All hail the rules.
This was another one of those times when the legal system seemed more about good lawyering than good justice.
Manning said he has used the same legal technique 20 or 30 times in his 30-year-career and it works "every time."
The loser in this case was the public. We were robbed of our chance to know if two rogue cops assaulted a guy or if two innocent officers were being railroaded. That's something a community needs to know.
Judges and lawyers sometimes forget that we desperately need to believe in them. We need to know our court system will be there to protect us from those who would do us harm. We need to believe that truth is the only weapon we need. The alternative is vigilante justice where the strong survive and the weak are destroyed. A society that loses faith in its court system lurches dangerously toward chaos.
Lawyers Manning and McMillan did nothing wrong. They gave their clients the aggressive defense to which all of us are entitled. If I were in a jam, I'd want either -- or better yet, both -- of them in my corner.
But while such maneuvers may make for effective lawyering -- if "effective" is defined as winning -- they do little to bolster our trust. Rather, they serve to hold the law, those who practice it and those who administer it up to ridicule.
All the judge had to do was ask whether the restaurant was in Wake County. Or look it up in the telephone directory. Or check a map. Instead, she sacrificed justice and truth to the Great God Procedure.
If the law supposes what happened Monday was justice, then as one of Charles Dickens' characters said, "the law is a ass, an idiot."
Columnist Dennis Rogers can be reached at 829-4750 or drogers@newsobserver.com.
Question :
If millions in federal grant money, and probably millions mor in traffic court fines, payoffs, drug profits, prostitution money, etc., has been made in the last decade or so in Durham--where has all this money gone?
Have any of the principals there got offshore accounts in the Bahamas?
Are any of them liable for an IRS investigation, maybe under the RICO statute?
Can any of them prove where/how they got their money, or if there is no cash to be found, how they got enough income to support their current lifestyle?
(Anyone want to drop a dime on them to the IRS?)
Thanks for the ping! You are awesome!
I am watching a game. Let us know what he says.
Some girls do the naughty dance at the pole....
He was worthless, but it was good to see him and here him talk.
Sounded more like an island accent to me.
Does the 17th mean after midnight on the 16th, the day Gottlieb says she was in bad shape?
Jarriel finally heard back from Crystal on the 16th. Did she call him for a ride to The Platinum?
Did she dance just after her interview with Gottlieb?
Protect: Thanks for the report
ltc8k6: Good questions about the date. This has continually been a source of confusion this year.
Who knows. I just keep hearing Olatoye say "the naughty dance" in my head over and over and over.
"the naughty dance" "the naughty dance"...make it stop!!!!
Jarriel must work for, or at last get paid by, the escort service for transporting escorts. This is why he has records, so he'll get paid properly.
Tammy knew his number, because she called him the night of the party to ask him if he was Crystal's driver.
I think Crystal had another gig the night of the party. I think the 12:26 call was about that, and Tammy was trying to find a driver for Precious whenshe called Jarriel.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/sunday-roundup.html
DA race unlikely to require runoff
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
November 4, 2006 9:37 pm
DURHAM -- Voters need not worry that the verbal contortions, mayhem and acrimony of Durham's district attorney campaign might continue beyond Tuesday.
A margin of only one vote could decide the race and end an election contest that, largely because of controversy surrounding the Duke lacrosse rape case, has been like no other in memory.
Except in the unlikely event of a tie, there is no chance a runoff might prolong the virulent campaign.
A 40-percent rule that applied to the May primary has no effect on Tuesday's general election. The rule requires a runoff when any given candidate doesn't pull at least 40 percent of the primary vote.
The choices facing voters on Tuesday are current district attorney Mike Nifong, a 27-year veteran prosecutor who has received widespread criticism over his handling of the lacrosse case; County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, who has said he would not serve if elected; and local Republican Party Chairman Steve Monks, who is running on an unaffiliated write-in basis.
If Cheek won, the governor would appoint someone to serve in his place.
Under other circumstances, the contest for district attorney would likely have been over in May, when Nifong beat out challengers Freda Black and Keith Bishop in the Democratic primary.
But dissatisfaction over Nifong's handling of the lacrosse rape case sparked the last-minute candidacies of Cheek and Monks. In fact, the Cheek campaign is officially billed as a "recall-Nifong" effort.
If a tie occurred on Tuesday, there would first be a recount of votes, according to Durham elections director Mike Ashe.
If the recount still showed a tie and more than 5,000 ballots had been cast, another election would be held, Ashe said Friday.
But if fewer than 5,000 voters participated in a tied election, the contest would be decided by lot, Ashe said.
"It might be done by drawing a short straw, drawing a card or something like that," Ashe said. "I'm not sure exactly what we would do. That would be probably a one-in-a-zillion possibility. It's never happened."
As the heated district attorney campaign entered its final days last week, Monks blasted Cheek as a "spoiler" in the contest and emphasized what he called the foolhardiness of allowing the governor to select Durham's chief prosecutor.
"I reject the caretaker mentality of letting someone else, in this instance the lame-duck governor, decide who will be our district attorney," Monks said Friday. "Giving the power to the governor to again appoint our DA solves none of our problems and reinforces the perception of incompetence in Durham."
For his part, Cheek has urged voters to follow their consciences, while insisting he did not believe a write-in candidate could win the election.
In another last-minute twist on Friday, former Assistant District Attorney Freda Black threw her support behind Cheek and asked those who voted for her in the May primary to do the same.
Black was a senior prosecutor in Durham for more than a decade, but was asked to leave when Nifong received a gubernatorial appointment as district attorney last year. The reasons were not made public.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-785014.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/506706.html
Voting takes a spirited tone
Volunteers put on a party in Durham
Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writer
DURHAM - As early voting drew to a close Saturday afternoon, Durham's elections chief, an unabashed booster for democracy, was even more exuberant than normal.
"Democracy is having a pretty good morning," said Mike Ashe, director of Durham's Board of Elections. "Hot dogs, music, voting and democracy. It doesn't get much better than this."
All over the state, Saturday was the last day people could vote early in person. At Durham's Board of Elections, a modest building on West Corporation Street just west of downtown, a line 100 people long waited to vote. The scene was more like a tailgate party where candidates shook hands and a nonpartisan group of volunteers served food, coffee and music.
Just after 1 p.m., the last voter in line cast the 650th ballot of the day and the 4,775th since Durham County began early voting Oct. 19.
Ashe said that some were voting for the first time and that many were prompted to vote by the district attorney race. The bitter campaign has focused on incumbent Mike Nifong's handling of the rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players.
On Saturday, boosters held up their signs and plastered stickers on voters. Campaign volunteers were cordial if a little icy to each other.
Nifong is on the ballot as a Democrat, while County Commissioner Lewis Cheek appears as an unaffiliated candidate. Cheek has promised he will not accept the job, and if he gets the most votes, the governor would appoint a district attorney for a two-year term. Republican Party Chairman Steve Monks is also running as a write-in candidate.
Felicia Walton, 19, had a Cheek sticker on her purse.
"Having a fresh pair of eyes look at the case is of utmost importance to us at Duke University," said Walton, a biology and chemistry senior at Duke.
Richele James, 39, recently moved to the Chicago area, but not in time to vote there. She came to Durham on Saturday for N.C. Central's homecoming and because she couldn't imagine not voting, especially with the district attorney race on the ballot. She voted for Nifong, she said.
"There are times when we have to give people support and give them an opportunity to see things to the end," she said.
Hot dogs, veggie burgers, chili and coffee were available at no charge thanks to Traction, a Durham nonprofit that works to get young people involved in the community. Traction also arranged for the Water Callers, a duo who played acoustic folk, country and roots music for the crowd.
"We think politics shouldn't be boring, it should be fun," said Lanya Shapiro, 36, the group's founder and director.
Soon after he arrived, Nifong approached three members of Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, a group that has worked against Nifong. The prosecutor told the students that since they were working against him, they might as well meet. Nifong held out his hand. No one shook it. After an awkward moment, Nifong shook hands with the head of another anti-Nifong group, then went to work the line of voters.
Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 919-956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com.
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
No credit due
With all due respect to Amanda Smith, she's missing her own point. Whereas the first part of her Nov. 1 column documents real, problematic, and unjust issues with the way that rape cases have been handled historically, particularly in the south, her argument is flawed, and asks society to do what she rightfully identifies as hateful: pervert justice.
I must assume the editors at The Herald-Sun chose the headline "Give Nifong credit for believing accuser." However, our governor-appointed DA, Mike Nifong, has recently admitted that he has not once personally interviewed the accuser regarding the facts of the case. Previously, he has also admitted that he and his investigators have never interviewed or interrogated the three accused lacrosse players. So give him credit for being willing to believe third parties, the media, and hyperbole. Do not give him credit for doing an honest investigation, seeking justice, or being sure of the facts of the case.
DAVID BYNUM
Durham
November 5, 2006
LieStoppers responds to Nifong's unsuccesful effort to get a picture of himself shaking hands with the SFED group:
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/shake-hands-with-your-uncle-mike.html
You mean like the Governor? Several of us have been saying this for years.
Hello, stranger!
Decker Identifies Black as 'Co-Conspirator' in Scheme
AP
(11/01/06 - RALEIGH) - Former state Rep. Michael Decker testified Wednesday that House Speaker Jim Black was a "co-conspirator" in Decker's scheme to receive $50,000 to switch party affiliations in a move that helped Black remain chamber leader in 2003.
Decker made the comment under oath during a federal court hearing to consider a potential conflict of interest in his case. Decker is awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty in August to one count of conspiracy.
The statement was the first in open court to identify Black by name for possible involvement in the conspiracy. Black has not been charged with any crimes.
"Was one of your co-conspirators Speaker Jim Black?" U.S. District Judge James Dever asked Decker.
"Yes, your honor," Decker responded.
Other details about the conspiracy weren't discussed during the half-hour hearing, and Decker's lawyer David Freedman declined after the hearing to discuss Black's role in the case.
"You'd have to ask the government that question," Freedman said.
Decker acknowledged in his plea that he solicited and took $50,000 in campaign contributions and cash to switch from the Republican Party to the Democrats in 2003. The switch gave Black, D-Mecklenburg, leverage to remain co-speaker during the 2003-04 session.
Black has denied promising Decker money to change parties. Black's office didn't immediately respond to Decker's comments.
Black's campaign gave Freedman's law firm $5,000 in June 2005 to represent Decker after the former lawmaker had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury. Decker has been paying for attorney Freedman's law services himself since earlier this year, Freedman said.
Dever ruled at the close of the hearing that the payment from Black's campaign didn't result in a conflict of interest for Freedman.
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=central&id=4716386
* Yes the Governor currently has his hands full at the state capitol. This was how the LOTTERY$$$ was rammed down the state's throat. A former DA chum of Nifong and NCCU law graduate. Gets lots of campaign donations from strip clubs.
http://www.insidelacrosse.com/page.cfm?pagerid=66384&author=140127&blog=140129
Standards of Justice
11/13/2006
On April 13, 2006, Duke University student Reade Seligmann was indicted for crimes stemming from allegations that a woman had been kidnapped, raped and sodomized by three men on the morning of March 14. Because there was no DNA evidence or corroborating witness linking him to the alleged attack, a positive identification by the accuser on April 4 serves as the linchpin to this indictment.
Procedurally speaking, the silver bullet to the case against Seligmann, which will ultimately prove fatal, is how the accuser was shown his picture three times before finally identifying him as one of her attackers. Along with every other misstep Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong has made in this case, he will bear the blame when Seligmann’s identification is suppressed and his case dismissed.
IDENTIFICATION ATTEMPTS
On the afternoon of March 16, two and a half days after the alleged incident, police officers showed the accuser the lacrosse team photographs of approximately 25 of the 46 white players. Rather than obtain a court order to take “evidentiary” photographs of any potential suspects, the officers had downloaded from the team’s website the pictures of Duke players fitting the accuser’s general descriptions of her three assailants. Seligmann was among these 25 players; co-defendants David Evans and Colin Finnerty were not.
After looking at the pictures, the accuser reportedly said Seligmann and three other players were at the party. She did not, however, identify any of them as her attacker. According to Durham Police Detective Benjamin Himan’s contemporaneous notes, the accuser commented, “This is harder than I thought.”
Five days later, on March 21, officers again showed the accuser team photographs, this time of approximately 37 players. Seligmann, again, was among them. Detective Himan noted at the time, “She was unable to remember anything further about the subjects.” Another investigator, Richard Clayton, wrote, “She again stated the photos looked the same.”
On April 4, officers showed the accuser, in one officer’s words, “mug shot-style photographs” taken 10 days earlier of every white player. Rather than follow Durham police procedure where photos of non-suspects are interspersed with potential suspects, Nifong instructed officers to show only these photos to the accuser.
As Durham Police Sergeant Mark Gottlieb later wrote, “We [were] under the impression the players at the party were members of the Duke Lacrosse Team and instead of doing a lineup or photographic array, we would merely ask the victim to look at each picture and see if she recalled seeing the individual at the party.”
Before viewing the photos, the accuser was told by Sergeant Gottlieb that she would be “look[ing] at people we had reason to believe attended the party.”
On the seventh photo, she identified Seligmann: “He looks like one of the guys who assaulted me."
“How sure of that are you?” Gottlieb asked.
“100%”, she said, then described what he had made her do to him.
DEFENSE STRATEGY
Under North Carolina law, and across the country, identifications are suppressed when the procedure is “so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Seligmann’s attorneys will argue that this is exactly what happened between March 16 and April 4. In order to be successful, they must convince Judge Osmond Smith of two things.
First, they must prove that the three identification attempts improperly suggested certain persons, including their client, over others.
They’ll likely do this by detailing how the officers downloaded Seligmann’s team photo and showed it to the accuser on March 16 and 21 and waited until March 23 to obtain, and later use, a court-ordered photograph. Furthermore, they’ll point out that on the first two identification attempts, Seligmann’s photo was shown to the accuser along with two or three dozen other players’ pictures, while other players, known to be at the party, were excluded, along with potential non-suspects.
Second, they must convince the judge that the D.A. and the officers made it substantially likely that certain persons, not just Seligmann, could be picked over others.
While Seligmann’s attorneys will continue to highlight that the officers only showed potential suspects to the accuser on each occasion, they’ll explain how the officers included Seligmann’s photo each time they increased the number of players and then informed the accuser before her third try that she was “look[ing] at people we had reason to believe attended the party.”
Paraphrasing David Evans’ attorney Joseph Cheshire, the accuser had the comfort of taking three multiple choice tests knowing there were never any wrong answers.
SUPPRESSION AND THEN DISMISSAL
Woven throughout the defense attorneys’ arguments will be the strong proposition that the three identification procedures, taken as a whole, offended “standards of decency, fairness and justice.” They’ll make a compelling argument that the D.A. and police officers suggested certain players, including Seligmann, unnecessarily through their arbitrary selection and improper use of team photographs, gratuitous statements to the accuser and failure to include non-suspects on each occasion. By doing so, they created a scenario ripe for mistaken identification.
If Judge Smith agrees, under North Carolina law and that of the U.S. Supreme Court, he will suppress the accuser’s identification of Seligmann and any later attempt to identify him in court.
If that happens, Nifong will have no other choice but to dismiss this case.
For more info on the Duke case, and Paul Caulfield’s stories on co-defendants Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans, check out www.insidelacrosse.com.
Stranger than what? LOL!
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.