Replies

Yours: 1. The defense has no basis to have Nifong evaluated. He would have to behave far worse than he has for such an avenue to be open. They have already asked the court to remove him from the case. That is the best the defense can do.

I do understand this. The lawyers arguing FOR the prisoners at Abu Ghraib have the legal right to do what they are doing, yes, even in a time of war, and clearly against what is morally and factually correct.

Dittos on Nifong's handling of this case. Technically, he's not out of line within all the rules and ettiquette regarding legalese.

2. The right to a speedy trial belongs to the accused. The accused can force this to trial on their schedule. Nifong saying next spring was just spouting off again, which may well be another bit of evidence in your theory about his mental health or lack there of.

Well, being liberal does mean leaving a huge part of your brain unused and unaccessible...

Have a good trip.

Thank you! It was good and productive. (Playing catchup here, now.)

Great show the other day about North Carolina's system for working out trial schedules.

Fundamentally the right to a speedy trial means the accused will do the darndest to get the trail delayed (witnesses die, memories fade, life moves on), and prosecutors will endeavor to hold the trial in the heat of passion.

In NC the prosecutors and defense lawyer(s) work together on the matter under a new system.