Posted on 06/22/2006 2:23:47 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- District Attorney Mike Nifong plans to give defense lawyers at least 300 additional pages of information about the Duke University lacrosse rape case, adding to 1,298 pages of documentation surrendered previously.
Without describing their contents, Nifong said the new documents would be handed over during a preliminary hearing today for three recently indicted lacrosse players: Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans.
The three are accused of raping, sodomizing and restraining an exotic dancer in a bathroom during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
All are free under $400,000 bonds as they await a trial that, according to Nifong, might begin next spring.
None is expected to attend today's hearing.
In addition to a transfer of documents, the hearing will include a request from Seligmann's lawyers that his bond be lowered to roughly one-tenth its current level. The lawyers filed an affidavit in support of that request Wednesday.
Signed by Philip Seligmann, the defendant's father, the affidavit said that Seligmann had been recruited by every Ivy League university to play football or lacrosse, and that he accepted a 90-percent scholarship to be on the Duke lacrosse team.
"This case has taken an unbelievable and horrendous emotional toll on all my family, especially my wife," the elder Seligmann wrote. "We are committed as a family, along with Reade, to do everything necessary to restore our good name."
According to the affidavit, Seligmann's bail money was provided by a family friend whose "loss of income is substantial" as a result.
In a related matter, the News and Observer Publishing Co. moved Wednesday to make public certain documents -- reportedly pertaining to the alleged rape victim's medical records -- that were filed by defense lawyers under seal.
"In this case, the fact that there are charges of sexual assault is unfortunate and controversial -- either because a woman has been sexually violated or because the defendants have been wrongfully accused -- but neither is a justification for sealing a court proceeding," a lawyer for the newspaper wrote.
The lawyer, Hugh Stevens, also said the sealed documents raised questions about Nifong's handling of the case. He said that when the conduct of public officials is at issue, it is an added reason for making the pertinent files public.
Meanwhile, several defense lawyers predicted Wednesday that Nifong's latest 300-plus pages of documentation would do little to help him, since earlier paperwork -- in their view -- was more beneficial to the defense than the prosecution.
For example, attorneys Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon have said the earlier documents showed a "very significant and disturbing deficiency" in Nifong's evidence.
Specifically, there were indications that Nifong began making public statements about the accuser's medical records even before they were in his possession, according to the two lawyers, who represent Evans.
Cheshire and Bannon said the District Attorney's Office subpoenaed the accuser's medical files from Duke Hospital on March 20 -- six days after the alleged rape.
However, the files were not printed out in compliance with the subpoena until March 30, and Police Investigator Benjamin Himan didn't pick them up until April 5, Cheshire and Bannon wrote in court paperwork last week.
But the lawyers said Nifong told a local television station on March 27 that he had no doubt the exotic dancer was raped, based on a "personal review" of her medical records. They quoted the district attorney as saying, "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."
Citing the 1,298 pages of documentation given them by Nifong earlier, various defense lawyers also have contended there were numerous inconsistencies in the accuser's version of events, along with unacceptable omissions in a sworn affidavit prepared by police. The affidavit was used by Himan to obtain judicial permission for his evidence-gathering efforts.
Among other things, Himan failed to mention that a co-dancer had described the rape allegation as "a crock," even though she was with the accuser for all but about five minutes on the night in question, according to defense lawyers.
Nifong has bristled at that and other defense characterizations of his evidence, while attacking the national press corps for -- in his opinion -- blindly reporting the characterizations without checking their accuracy.
"Is anyone surprised that the defense attorneys are spinning this case in such a way that things do not look good for the prosecution?" Nifong wrote in an e-mail to Newsweek magazine last week.
"Their job, after all, is to create reasonable doubt, a task made all the easier by an uncritical national press corps desperate for any reportable detail, regardless of its veracity," the district attorney said.
The e-mail traffic was made public by Nifong on Monday.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-746370.html
In fact, I'm ready for this stinking case to be done with so we can move on to solving the real mystery - why were 3 innocent men indicted?
Because they are white in a city run by blacks. Because a candidate for DA exploited the racial hatred in Durham to lock up the nomination.
Durham is a racial powder keg. AV's mother is quoted as saying someone manipulated the DNA results to favor the white boys. I would bet the farm her opinion is shared by many, if not most of her peers, the jury pool.
I think the drive to put Cheek on the ballot is an attempt to stop a speeding train. Think about what will happen if this goes to trial. It is a lose/lose situation. If they are aquitted, there will be hell to pay.
If they are convicted, Durham will be the loser.
By now everyone knows that the AV is a liar and no rape occurred. Even in Durham they know this. They also know that the AV and the DA have a scam going and they'll go along with it.
At this juncture in the case, the new phenomenon is Nifong's
charisma. And, I'm not joking.
Before the last hearing date, Nifong was being cooked by many on TV. In the Papers and on TV, the subject was how Nifong was going to extricate himself from this. It was not going to trial. What changed? Why is the consensus in the media today that a jury will hear this?
Nifong changed it all with 90 minutes in court. Journalists came from all over and they listened, they watched, and they followed Nifong around. Suddenly, his supporters in the Media are back. It's back to Shawn Hannity and Abrams versus the world in one sense.
All this from 90 minutes in court.
The only comparison I can think of is Bill Clinton in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even as Clinton was shown lying on National TV and wagging his finger, he was going up in the Polls. The Media people shreiked with Joy. I can remember Chris Matthews showing a clip of Clinton chiding the press and wagging his finger, and Matthew's said, WOW, is he the best or what. This guy is so smooth. He has such great charisma and confidence. This guy communicates on another level, he connects to you emotionally. I've never seen anything like it, Matthews said.
A lack of sympathy of empathy, in the Media, for the white players that are perceived as privleged has allowed them to
emotionally connect to Nifong. It's like a group epiphany occurred and they said, it's okay to disregard the facts. We can just support this woman because we believe her, because she is deserving of our support - after all good people support minorities don't they.
Just like respected journalists, lawyers, and politicians took to the airwaves to boldy tell us that Oral sex wasn't really sex. An indefensible argument if there ever was one.
The media is forwarding the new standard for Justice in this country. The new standard developed out of political allegiance to this alleged victim is if the DA looks in your eyes and believes you, he can do everything in his/her power, including modifying witness testimony with favorable deals, to bring about a conviction at all costs.
It's a dangerous new standard.
I don't think it's a misdemeanor. i think it's an infraction. The article referring to it as a misdemeanor may be wrong, although I haven't looked it up.
Nifong groupies...
What a way to start the day.
You are both correct, but I will go one step further. It is about race, class and power. However, I maintain that the biggest factor is the corruption and crime within the power structure of Durham.
mark
I have thought that if a hungry journalist wanted to make a name for himself, he would use this to expose the corruption in Durham.
from my post 1641
I can just about imagine:
"Billy Bob, your daddy and my daddy worked together roundin' up those moonshiners in Johnston County. You know me. I want you to trust me and indict these boys from Duke. Remember how Duke kicked our butts back when we was in school? Here, sign this indictment!"
It wouldn't necessarily take a hungry journalist, just one who isn't lazy. There is plenty of information out there. All they need to do is lift the rug and watch all the cockroaches run for cover in Durham.
The lazy journalist only needs to read our threads, LOL!
We even supply the documentation.
I don't think they want to admit that they get their news from FreeRepublic, however.
Well done, Ken ~ non-confrontational and to the point.
Some people have wondered if AV and Nifong expected the parents to settle big and then they would have split the money?
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/455800.html
Finnerty gets bond dropped to $100K
What concerns me now is that both Lewis Cheeks and Steve Monks are apparently going to qualify for the November ballot. If both men appear on the ballot, they will split the Anti-Nifong vote, and Nifong will win again. One of them needs to drop out.
They won't split the vote unless they are both democrats. :-)
One is a Republican, but they both may be required to be listed as independents, because they did not run in the Primary. So you have 2 independents, running against a Democrat. If Nifong gets 49% of the vote, the remaining 51% split between the two independents would result in Nifong's winning plurality. Actually, Nifong could win a purality with less, as little as 34% if the two independents each gather 33%. What I'm not sure of is whether a runoff is required if no one gathers one vote over 50%. Anyone know? Researchers?
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.