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.