Posted on 05/01/2006 7:51:52 AM PDT by don'tbedenied
Accused Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann's attorneys want Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong thrown off the case.
Today, they filed a legal motion specifically asking for it.
"DA Mike Nifong neglected his duty as a prosecutor to seek the truth and a fair prosecution," the defense's motion reads.
The motions were filed just 24 hours before Nifong's Tuesday election in which he's fighting to keep his seat. Nifong is being challenged by former prosecutor Freda Black and private lawyer Keith Bishop
Well, presumably by now the police have identified the restaurant (IIRC wasn't it a Mexican restaurant on or near Ninth Street?) and have interviewed the wait staff, checked the credit card receipts for the name of CF or other names on the lacrosse team roster, established when the restaurant stops serving food on a Monday night, etc. So the DA may by now have his own sense of the timing details of CF's alibi.
On the various comments while I have been down at the beach today:
1. I agree LB that the defense has made enough noise that at least nationally the players are not all being convicted in the publics mind. So now they are behaving a bit more traditionally and the DA now must decide what he thinks the evidence proves. [Heck it would be that neither of the indicted arrived until midnight and once the DA claims the "rape" was between 11:30 and midnight it is game set and match.
2. What the father said was completely worthless. I doubt he even talked to her that night. I will not even be surprised if the story of taking her and the kids for ice cream or something was also completely made up.
3. I agree that establishing when they arrived does not establish when they went into the house. I wonder if the defense has found some Kroger or liquor store or some other surveillance tape of the two of them going to buy something to get the up for their performance or even just using something you can not buy easily in a parking lot.
Scratch item #1... we have a photo of RS sitting on the couch at 11:09:25...
The police do not cease investigating a case when indictments are issued.
The fact that Nifong was uninterested in exculpatory evidence before the indictments were issued does not mean you should assume that the police and Nifong will never investigate the alibis or other defenses offered.
However, I am not "counting on it" to support any particular argument I am making.
Exactly right... can you imagine the next time someone is arrested on a DUI or DWI based on a field sobriety test conducted by DPD... He stated the medical report said nothing about her being intoxicated... He didn't care what anyone else said... he was going by the medical report...
"Ummmm, yer honor, how can I be guilty, if the DA hisself don't believe his own policemen, why should you... A course, I may a had 10 or 12 beers, but I weren't drunk, that policeman don't know drunk when he sees it..."
Actually it appears the best bet for beating a DUI rap in Durham is to not be able to speak English:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570887/posts
"DURHAM -- A language barrier between the police and some of the drivers they pull over is blocking prosecutors from using one of the most important pieces of evidence in drunken-driving cases -- the breath test results. Durham defense lawyers are successfully arguing that Spanish-speaking suspects do not understand the rights that officers are required to give verbally and in writing before administering breath tests. The results are often presented as proof that a driver was too drunk to drive."
Ladyjane stole my thought.
These people aren't doctors making housecalls. I can see them not entering the house immediately.
I agree with Sirjohnb on the father having no motive; however, have you listened to him? I can see someone asking him for help and after 2 minutes saying - nevermind we're there as as excuse to get him off the damn phone.
I did some research and no one ever used their lifeline to call her Father from 'Who wants to be Millionaire' (smile)
I agree with Snarky in that this case was handled totally backwards. The investigators should've investigated and checked out stories, gathered evidence, done interviews and handed it to the DA. The DA jumped in right off the bat and inserted himself (he's not an investigator) in the case.
IMO, I don't think the investigators appreciated it or liked it. I base that on the strange fact that the News&Observer was told that Nifong directed them to not follow their normal procedures, or, more accurately they violated their own policies in the lineup (investigator presented the info and no fillers were utilized) because Nifong directed them to do that. I have to think that information came from the police or the investigators. They didn't want it said on National TV that they were bungling the case and a Judge could throw it out due to the Stupid investigators not following procedures - so they leaked or told the N&O off the record that was all Nifong.
A DA (NY, Jeanine P.) on Greta said she was concerned by Nifong being involved so early and to such an extent. Mark Furhman (Fox H&C) said he's never seen a case handled like this.
I think the Police were handling things like they do, using their judgement and discretion and determining who is credible and who's not.. like they do everyday.. And Nifong found out about the case.. Nifong was a former social worker for Social Services and his wife also works in the area to aid victims. These people are trained to see victims when they report. Take the victim's word and then proceed and someone else will make a judgement down the line to settle the case (like a Judge).
Nifong didn't treat this as other felonies. He didn't pause when he found out the women's criminal past. Apparently, it didn't ring alarm bells when Kim Roberts lied to him once, or when he found out she was lying to him again.
Sure, a prostitute can be raped.. BUT, there are certain witnesses that you can't convict people on their word.
Yeah, you can bring up the DNA, etc. But Nifong had already done 50 interviews saying these guys were guility BEFORE he had any DNA results. Another bungled piece by Nifong, look at what he wrote in the Court Order to get the DNA samples..
The DNA will clearly show who commited this crime and exclude innocent parties. That's coming in and that's going to haunt him.
I'll tell you another thing that JUST JUMPS OUT as blantly polictical by this bad southern politician (Nifong);
He tells Susana ?/Newsweek and she reports this on FOX that
suppose I have a toxicology report that says the victim was drugged.
Okay, this is extremely troubling.
1) The DA is prohibited by law from releasing test results. 2) That toxicology report would've been back in less than 48 hours. If that's the case, 30-48 hours after she's in the hospital, Nifong knows a drugging agent was used, THEN he shouldn't had put faith, credence, or credibility in her eyewitness ID. He should've put the energy and effort into the DNA results and the testimony of others. If we believe him when he suggests to Susana/Newsweek that he has a toxicology report that says she was drugged, then why didn't he test the 47th Lacrosse player - the black player?
All you would be doing is due diligence, eliminating all possibilities, and excluding everyone at the party using genetic material. HOWEVER, in a purely political act he doesn't ask the court to get DNA from the black team member.
So it stinks either way. If he's suggesting to a major News Organization (Newsweek) that there's a test result that incriminates the players when there is none, which I suspect, then he's breaking the law, acting unethically, slandering the reputations of people, and violating basic legal tenets of our justice system.
If he has such a toxicology report, then he broke the law, acted unethically, and played politics by pandering to the black community and the liberal media. If DA, Nifong, had way back on March 15th, a toxicology report indicating the victim had been drugged, then the prudent thing to do would be to test all the Lacrosse players, including the black player - And not to indict based on a drugged woman's eyewitness account or testimony.
Which one was it?, they both implicate Nifong.
You are. so. right. whoa..
And also about the "social worker" approach to law by Nifong.
It's Susannah Meadows/Newsweek, in print, she reports:
Nifong "hinted to NEWSWEEK that blood and urine tests of the woman would reveal the presence of a date-rape drug."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/
Susannah was more emphatic and definitive on FOX - giving an actual quote from Nifong. She said on FOX that Nifong said, suppose I have a toxicology report showing the woman was drugged.
As I said, if true, this makes the way he handled the case even more troubling. It raises another whole host of questionable acts by the DA.
I know absolutely nothing about standard investigative procedure, but this does seem strange since the defense will not be able to place Nifong on the stand and asks him questions.
I suppose Nifong is confident the lead investigator in this case is going to step up to the plate and go to bat for him. I hope that cop has a nice portfolio because taking responsibility for this investigation would appear to be career suicide.
Yes, and I did verify the Lineup procedures used were "leaked"
to the media.
Someone involved in investigating this case is not happy with Nifong.
I'm just curious how much responsibility he'll take while under oath.
Have you heard anything further on the story that Larry Elder discussed last week?
For those who are not familiar with this -- apparently a white U of Richmond coed alleged that she was raped by 3 black Virginia Union University students in January of this year.
I'm not sure if there have been indictments, or what the current status of the case is. I couldn't find a thing about it on a search.
Well, it's been reported in Major pubs that (a source good enough to run with the story - without attaching a name or having them go on record) that Nifong Directed the investigators to use the lineup (of only lacrosse players) and for the investigator on the case to administer the lineup process.
So, that gives the Defense attorneys many options. The investigator would have to be comfortable with perjury and stupid. The defense attorneys probably would supoena information and maybe have the journalists supoenaed. If they choose to answer or give up the goods, his goose is cooked. Anyone in the courtroom often, like an investigation, has to know that.
Notice how Nifong is passing information, big time, in off-camera interviews, yet, he hasn't denied that he ordered them or said that's simply untrue.
Good summary of how this case is fubar. Throw in the photos as the icing on the crap cake.
Nifong said he would be trying this case. But since he is also the lead investigator, his testimony is crucial.
Is it common for the prosecutor trying a case to be questioned under oath by the defense? I'm not a lawyer, but that seems out of place.
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.