Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grand jury may consider new charges in Duke case
Raliegh Observer ^ | 5/15/06 | Ben Niolet

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.


TOPICS: Local News
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; wtf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,161 next last
To: GAgal
John Bourlan is an absolute know-nothing "good old boy." He is Nifong's mouthpiece.

He should have been in Midnight In The Garden of Good and Evil.

181 posted on 05/15/2006 10:14:20 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Thanks - I hand't caught up yet. Wow, more fuel on the fire.


182 posted on 05/15/2006 10:14:23 AM PDT by Enterprise (The MSM - Propaganda wing and news censorship division of the Democrat Party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Jrabbit

Judge Nap's book disappointed me and sometimes he is sloppy in his statements. He knows that if a prosecutor took a 90% ID to a Grand Jury and told them that was good enough, they would indicted 99% of the time.


183 posted on 05/15/2006 10:14:46 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: All

The whole chain of evidence on the finger nail is laughable.


184 posted on 05/15/2006 10:14:51 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: RecallMoran

Too late: I was quite graphic in a post some time back, illustrating how impossible it would be for 3 guys to do what FA says they did and within the established time-frame. Yeah, it was an "ewwww" post..


185 posted on 05/15/2006 10:14:57 AM PDT by Alia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

In all fairness, I doubt Napolitano has seen a "Nifong" before. I haven't, except for Les Miserables.


186 posted on 05/15/2006 10:15:02 AM PDT by GAgal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: JLS

Napolitano hasn't been right about a single case that I can remember.


187 posted on 05/15/2006 10:15:23 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

IF the DNA is a distraction, why did NIFONG claim is was going to be "conclusive" in his court filing. and still, not a single talking head has identified one instance in which an extended assault resulted in no transfer of dna.


188 posted on 05/15/2006 10:15:43 AM PDT by streeeetwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

LOL

You warned me about him before....what a tool he is!


189 posted on 05/15/2006 10:15:46 AM PDT by Jrabbit (Scuse me??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: sissyjane

Thanks. Sounds like piling on to make it sound like he has more than we think.


190 posted on 05/15/2006 10:15:57 AM PDT by Darlin' ("You said would I apologize for that?" Bush told him. "The answer is absolutely not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: RecallMoran

I bet there's not a bruise on her.

Remember we all heard that Kate Farber had "bruises" and "vaginal tearing."

The bruise turned out to be half the size of a dime on the side of her face and it was WEEKS old.

And the "vaginal trauma" was there from having sex about six times in five days with four people.


191 posted on 05/15/2006 10:16:07 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Alia; All

This is something I don't know:

Of course, prosecutors can get a warrant and pull phone records. Can defense attourneys also compel telcoms to present phone records? If they can show she was on the phone during the extremely short timeline they're left with, isn't that exculpatory?


192 posted on 05/15/2006 10:16:31 AM PDT by Warren_Piece (Smart is easy. Good is hard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

When did Nifong drop the earlier Robbery charge?


193 posted on 05/15/2006 10:16:33 AM PDT by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: RecallMoran

Wonder if she had bruises on her neck from being choked? I hate to be this graphic but, ewww gross, how would you perform oral sex while being choked? I guess it wasn't at the same time? (b/c it never happened)
-------

You forgot the most important detail--he came up from behind her. So she was forced to perform oral sex on a man standing behind her while said man was choking her.


194 posted on 05/15/2006 10:16:54 AM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

Put yourself on a Grand Jury, what are you going to do. The DA says the woman IDed this person. The DA says he found DNA consistent with this person on the nails. You indict. A Grand Jury is only legally allowed to consider what is presented to them.


195 posted on 05/15/2006 10:17:05 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I know that, but do they just sit there and read some stuff and the GJ just say Yes?

3 hours is 180 minutes; how many minutes per case if you indict 66?


196 posted on 05/15/2006 10:17:07 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: RecallMoran

Exactly but I bet he left out the DNA info. He knows that less than 13 is a "No Match".


197 posted on 05/15/2006 10:17:18 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Carolinamom

Good question.

And there is no sodomy, so no broomstick!


198 posted on 05/15/2006 10:17:41 AM PDT by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: MissEdie
What about suing him for legal malpractice?

I guess you could...but you would be hiring a lawyer to go after another lawyer on a longshot case. I think the deck is pretty stacked against the average Joe.
199 posted on 05/15/2006 10:17:55 AM PDT by P-40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: pissant

BUMP!


200 posted on 05/15/2006 10:18:16 AM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Stop whining! Everyone has their own bear to cross.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 2,161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson