Duke rape case set for 2007

Toronto Star ^ | May 19, 2006. 07:02 AM | staff

[Perdogg]

DURHAM, N.C.—One of three Duke University lacrosse players charged with rape wants the case resolved in time for the next school year, his lawyer said in court yesterday. But the judge warned he will not fast-track the proceedings.

The case "is not going to jump ahead of the line and be handled any differently," Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens said at a hearing for sophomore Reade Seligmann.

After the brief hearing, District Attorney Mike Nifong said he does not expect any trial to begin before next year.

[Locomotive Breath]

True enough but loss of earnings on that $400,000 and getting all $400,000 back still beats the hell out of paying $40,000 to a bail bondsman and getting nothing back.

I think the bail is unjustly high. These guys are going to make their court dates even if bail were set at zero. I think at this point, given all the publicity, they could be released on their own recognizance.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

DOCKSIDE DOLLS! That is one of the signs on 85!

Just think, next time we drive to Richmond, everyone in the car will hear from me more about this topic than they ever wanted to know!

"Okay Mom, we've heard enough"
Hubby will just tell me to shut up in that loving way only a spouse can do...

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

They only get the orginal amount back, correct? So if they paid a cash bond of 400,000, Durham is making interest on the money?

[luv2ski]

I think the bail is unjustly high. These guys are going to make their court dates even if bail were set at zero. I think at this point, given all the publicity, they could be released on their own recognizance.

No kidding! I read somewhere that they released a guy accused of murder on $75,000 in Durham recently.

[Mad-Margaret]

Who gets the interest on the 1.2 million dollars?

[Publius22]

LOL. He should appreciate your wealth of knowledge about the local community.

[toldyou]

How interesting!

[JLS]

Actually the calculation might be something like this:

1. 10% of $400,000 to a bondsman or $40,000.

2. 6% forgone earnings on $400,000 or $24,000.

Now you might make even more than 6%. And if the return you are giving up on the money is greater or you borrowed on your second mortgage and are paying a higher interest rate than 6% and you compounded the interest daily, pretty quickly one could get to the $40,000 if the trial really takes a year or maybe more to happen and the bond is not reduced.

[secret garden]

That's a provocative question for Nifong when it's phrased like that, isn't it? It makes one wonder why the amount was set so high.

[toldyou]

LOL!

[RecallMoran]

I was laughing (LOL) like Crystal. ;)

[GAgal]

I read all three paid the $400,000 by certified check.

[TommyDale]

You said that, I didn't. I made a statement earlier last week, and I said that "I wish I could play stupid and get selected on this jury." You are 100% correct in your assessment -- those who get selected for jury duty these days are those who aren't smart enough to get out of it.

[Tarheel]

Thanks for the ping!

[RecallMoran]

Got it. :)

[NeonKnight]

True enough but loss of earnings on that $400,000 and getting all $400,000 back still beats the hell out of paying $40,000 to a bail bondsman and getting nothing back.

I still don't know. In a years time, you should be ablt to make more than 40K with that money.

[TommyDale]

This has never occurred to me before, but if there is actually $400,000 cash being put up as bail, does the state or county get to float the cash and earn the interest? If that is the case, it might explain why the county is in no hurry to prosecute cases such as this.

[Dukie07]

Can't get onto this page even tho' have been accepted to join DD and am logged in. Is this a premium part of the board?

[Perdogg]

No it's the free board.


http://mb18.scout.com/fdevilsdenfrm3.showMessageRange?topicID=3399.topic&start=321&stop=325

[Locomotive Breath]

Yeah, but if they paid in cash then they don't pay the 10% to the bail bondsman and that's a guarantee. Is that 10% tax deductible? And all the calculations on earnings don't include that tax that would be paid on those earnings which, if you can round up $400,000 on a moment's notice, then is probably going to be in the highest bracket. And the lost earnings also depend on how long the $400,000 is unavailable.

Look, I agree with everyone about the foregone earnings and/or interest if they had to borrow the money, I was just trying to figure out how the system works and the answer is that if you pay in cash then you get all your cash back.