Posted on 05/15/2006 7:14:12 AM PDT by pissant
DURHAM - A Durham grand jury is scheduled to meet today, and the session could mean new charges in the investigation of a reported rape at a Duke lacrosse team party.
Two of the team's players were indicted in April on charges of first degree rape, first degree sex offense and first degree kidnapping. They are accused of assaulting an escort service dancer in a bathroom of a house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. Their lawyers say the men are innocent, and lawyers representing dozens of team members say that no sex or assault occurred at the March 13 party.
But the woman says she was attacked by three men, and Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong said he has been working on bringing charges against a third person.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TODAY? If Nifong decides to submit the case, police investigators and possibly other witnesses will try to convince grand jurors in a secret session that the state has probable cause to bring a case forward. Grand jurors will hear only the prosecution's side of the case. The standard required for a true bill of indictment is far lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required for a conviction.
IF INDICTMENTS ARE ISSUED, WHEN WILL THEY BECOME PUBLIC? On April 17, a judge ordered the indictments in the lacrosse case sealed. The names of the players who were indicted were not released until 5 a.m. the next day when the players surrendered at the Durham County jail. If Nifong again requests that the indictments be sealed, the law allows a judge to keep them secret until the person is arrested or appears in court.
WHEN WILL ALL THE EVIDENCE BE REVEALED? State law requires prosecutors to turn over all of their case files to defense lawyers, but nothing requires the evidence to be turned over to the public. In open court hearings, lawyers often discuss some of the evidence, but the state's case may not be revealed until trial. No trial dates have been set. When a report on the DNA testing is complete, Nifong is required by law to turn it over to all 46 members of the lacrosse team who submitted DNA samples.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? The cases against Reade William Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., and Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y., are moving forward. Finnerty has a court date in June. Seligmann is scheduled to appear in court Thursday. His attorney, Kirk Osborn, has filed a series of motions challenging Nifong's handling of the case and asking a judge to bar the prosecutor from further involvement.
No it doesn't. There are crimes committed every day in this world that don't make it Court. That doesn't mean they didn't happen.
Is that poster for real on this thread?
Um yes his indictment in Durham is what triggered the case in DC.
Bottom line is because of the involvement in this case, it is pulling the trigger for him to be charged in an assault case.
________________________________________________
Why are you talking about this? By your standard there has been no court testimony and thus it is only prosecution spin. Just like OJ is innocent by your standard.
Is that poster for real on this thread?
__________________________________________
Yes one of the aggressively uninformed on this case a past cases.
I'm bowing out of this conversation, but I can't help but think that you're either not up on the case, or you just wish to be contrarian by throwing a bone in Crystal's defense.
you're right.....this wouldn't make it to trial, because I think the DA has to consider whether or not the case is winnable....
but, it seems we have zeolot DA's all over the country now.....over prosecuting people just like in Rush's case....
I couldn't help think though, that one great thing that might happen with this case is that we'll get a new bunch of highly educated and passionate REPUBLICANS.....because really, this whole case is about PC and how to get elected by smacking down "the man".....its a democratic thing.......
I'm so uninformed you missed my post below yours with a link.
She appears to be, but I'm beginning to think she's just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
"It doesn't cause you just a bit of concern, that this woman makes the same accusation, involving the same number of people twice in thirteen years?"
Are you asking me my personal opinion? Yeah, honestly, I thought it was kinda freaky.
But not to the point where I will swear up and down she is lying about it and willing to perjure herself in court about it.
A 90 percent DNA match for a man with a MOUSTACHE, which Dave Evans does not nor ever had.
Which brings that 90 percent to 0.
BTW, since Nifong has such a tight case, any ideas why he announced today that there will be no more indictments -- since she identified a fourth player?
Any idea why there wasn't any DNA on her OWN fingernails since there was some "matter" on the one found in the trash can, which the "guilty" boys turned over to the police obviously so they could bring this down on themselves.
BTW, the "matter" was on the TOP of the fingernail, not underneath it.
I can't believe you still believe her.
BINGO Not too many Freepers use "towleroad" as a source
I've worked for many prosecutorial charging attys and the fact that a case is likely to bring to a conviction is just one of many factors they consider.
It is not the only fact they consider. If that was the case Nifong wouldn't have brought the case before a grand jury would have he?
All you can do is attack people personally.
I don't know what your issue is. I saw a rap sheet that included assault on a police officer and a statement that the AV was on probation and was curious about her status for voting legally.
You, on the other hand, routinly trash anyone with an opinion on this case while claiming not to have one of your own.
Don't forget that she claimed her ex-husband threatened to kill her.
So are you claiming that link says his PROBATION was revoked? Otherwise, no I am not interested you catching up with this case. I know what happened in DC. I was merely pointing that you dont.
And just because he didn't murder her, does that mean that her husband didn't really take her into the woods and try to murder her?
Because she said he did that.
BTW, her "boy friend" and her daddy both said there was no rape in that false accusation.
Thomas Sowell: At Duke, Justice Delayed?
Creator's Syndicate ^ | May 16, 2006 | Dr. Thomas Sowell
Posted on 05/16/2006 12:06:21 AM CDT by RWR8189
If there is a smoking gun in the Duke University rape case, it is not about the stripper who made the charges or the lacrosse players who have been accused. The smoking gun is the decision of District Attorney Michael Nifong to postpone a trial until the spring of 2007.
That makes no sense from either a legal or a social standpoint, whether the players are guilty or innocent. But it tells us something about District Attorney Nifong.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the players are guilty. What is the point of letting a bunch of rapists remain at large for another year? What about the dangers that they would pose to women on or off the Duke University campus?
Now suppose that the players are innocent. Isn't it unconscionable to have this damning charge hanging over their heads for another year?
The Constitution of the United States includes a right to a speedy trial, to keep people from being jerked around by unscrupulous or vindictive prosecutors who cannot prove that they have committed any crime. Prosecutors have to put up or shut up.
This is not a federal case, however, and the laws of North Carolina do not require a speedy trial.
Justice delayed is justice denied, whether the players are guilty or innocent.
What purpose does the delay serve? The most obvious purpose is the same as the purpose that delay serves in confidence games.
After a fraud has been perpetrated and it is only a matter of time before the victim finds out, it can still make a big difference whether the victim finds out suddenly or slowly over an extended period of time. This is called "cooling out the mark."
If the mark (the victim) finds out suddenly and immediately, instant outrage may lead to a call to the police, who can then get hot on the trail of the con man.
However, if the realization of having been taken begins to emerge at first as a sense of puzzlement, then as a sneaking suspicion, and ultimately -- after a passage of some time -- as a clear conclusion that a fraud has taken place, then the emotional impact is not nearly as strong.
The victim of the fraud may even be reluctant to go to the police, having had time to think about what a fool he may look like and how little chance there is now to do anything about it.
If the truth about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky had come out the very next day after he made that dramatic declaration -- "I did not have sex with that woman" -- it would have been far more of a shock than it was months later, after more and more bits and dabs of information came out, leading many to suspect the truth long before it all came out.
One of Clinton's press secretaries called these delaying tactics "telling the truth slowly."
The announcement that the trial of the Duke lacrosse players has been postponed until the spring of 2007 may be District Attorney Nifong's way of beginning the process of "telling the truth slowly."
At some point, this case will have to be either prosecuted or dropped. If it is going to be prosecuted, there is no reason not to go full speed ahead right now. But if it is going to be dropped, or if Nifong knows that a judge is likely to throw it out of court, then the time at which that happens is crucial.
It was out of the question for Nifong to drop the case before the recent election, no matter how flimsy the evidence might be or how much of that evidence exonerates the accused instead of showing them to be guilty.
Even after being re-elected, the district attorney cannot let his indictment collapse in public while there is nationwide attention focussed on this case 24-7.
What will be different next year? The public will have either forgotten the case or be tired of hearing about it. The D.A. can even turn the case over to some lawyer on his staff to take into court and see it either get thrown out by the judge or fail to convince a jury.
We will all be tired of hearing about it by then. We are the marks who will be cooled out.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632881/posts
We've been down this road before and we believe differently.
Until we hear all evidence on both sides, then I will tell what my gut believes.
And like I've stated before we've really only heard the defense side of the argument as it is in every other criminal case.
I'd like to see what she says.
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.