Nifong: Every Member Of Duke Lacrosse Team A Potential Witness

WRAL.COM ^ | July 17, 2006

[Howlin]

Every member of Duke University's men's lacrosse team is a potential witness in the case against three players charged with rape, Durham's lead prosecutor said Monday while arguing for access to their student ID card records. "We want to be able to confirm what they tell us about where they went afterward," District Attorney Mike Nifong said of the uncharged players.

---

Titus also formally reaffirmed the state's rules governing trial publicity and disclosure of information to the public and the media. The order does not prevent attorneys in the case from talking publicly, but does prohibit statements that have a "substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" the case. "The rules of professional responsibility require us to be very careful of what we say," said Wade Smith, one of Finnerty's attorneys. "We'll do that. We've been doing that. And we'll continue to do that."

[SarahUSC]

I don't think cable news has lost interest in the story. Hannity and Greta were doing stories on it regularly. I think events in the middle east have come to the front right now and frankly, there isn't alot to report on Duke. Titus didn't issue any major rulings. He basically did nothing and put everything on hold. The only thing coming up is the ruling on the subpoenas on friday.

[CondorFlight]

I hope maybe the letter is directed not only at the Duke students, but to provide some fodder for the talking heads. They need to know on what grounds to attack Nifong--well, here are some specific legal grounds.

[Locomotive Breath]

So I wonder if Duke will roll over and give up the personal information (card swipe records) on its students or will Duke stand on principle and support the privacy of its students. I'm afraid I know the answer.

I can't figure out why Duke was not represented in court. At whom, exactly, were the subpoenas directed? The lax team members don't have the card swipe records. If Duke intended to comply would they not have done so already?

Since there are three entities (DA, Duke, and lax team members) involved, I can't figure it out. Can someone explain?

[bjc]

Good points. The subpoenas must have been directed at Duke. The absence of a Duke lawyer att he hearing is troubling. But the silence of almost all the Duke Law Faculty is deafening.

[gopheraj]

mark

[I want to know]

In post 175 of this same thread, I posted a document concerning the Durham County Case Management Schedule (I forget how to link to a post). If you refer to the July 17, 2006 schedule on page 2 and 3, it lists the defendants in the motion to quash, and their lawyers. I see no Duke representation, however, maybe there is a hearing at a later date.

Of course, Duke could have already complied with the card swipe requests and the players were there to protest against the address request. There were 36 of the players represented at the hearing on Monday for the motion to quash. Are those 36 only ones Nifong wanted subpoenas for?

[Locomotive Breath]

So I agree that the players have an interest in quashing the release of their own records. IOW, if Nifong wanted their childhood immunization records I suppose it would be the players responsibility to quash the subpoena which would be directed a their pediatrician (c.f. Rush Limbaugh's medical records). I'm just thinking now that Duke will comply and not attempt to defend the students on their own grounds.

[CondorFlight]

"But the silence of almost all the Duke Law Faculty is deafening."

After this, I'm going to insist that they have no moral grounds to say anything--about any issue--in the future. Period. This is in their own front yard, and they are trying to remain piously aloof. I don't care what the legal customs are, if these were AA students they would not have remained silent. That they do so now does not validate whatever excuses they are going to offer.

[ladyjane]

I'm just thinking now that Duke will comply and not attempt to defend the students on their own grounds.

What parent in his or her right mind would send their child to a school that voluntarily gave up the swiping information to the DA?

How many here would want that DA to know every time your child entered or left the dormitory, everything they ate and everything they bought on campus for the past year?

That is one huge invasion of privacy. Why is Duke not fighting this?

[JLS]

Well Judge Titus has tried to establish this tough guy reputation. He took judicial notice of the NC bars rules of ethics concerning out of court statements.

Then Nifong gets up in his court and makes such a statement putting it in Titus' face. And Titus does nothing upon hearing such a statement in his court.

We shall see if Titus does anything about Nifong in his next hearing. I certainly don't hold out much hope and when he does not please spare me the articles on how firmly he runs his court room.

[ladyjane]

The card swipes may also include information on every visit to the campus infirmary, not to mention purchases made at the campus drug store.

Duke better brace itself for a 50% decline in applications.

[Locomotive Breath]

Absolutely correct. Unfortunately, among universities, I'll bet Duke would not be alone in that regard.

If they really wanted to come off as the "good guys" they would wrap themselves in the Constitution and refuse to turn over the records, come what may.

[JLS]

I wonder what the CourtTV idiots that thought there was a gag order think now. Oops they don't think so no reason to go over there to see.

[JLS]

If they really wanted to come off as the "good guys" they would wrap themselves in the Constitution and refuse to turn over the records, come what may.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Duke could really step up here and say that they are not giving Nifong this information no matter what. What could he do then? I guess he could serve a search warrant and look for this information at Duke. Would he have the nerve.

The problem with this is that it might further prejudice some members of the Durham public against the defendants.

[abb]

This just in...

Susan Estrich: Out of Control
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=16245

[maggief]

IIRC, during the recent hearing Osborn mentioned there were 49 names on the list.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

Ping pretty please???
I should have a ping list, but I don't :-(
Thank you! :-)

Came across this today-nothing new, but a good source
http://www.bluelineradio.com/listentoshow.html

(Blue Line Radio)
This pages has links to audios of:
NCCU April 11th Forum audio (Listening to nifong explain the lack of DNA, barf, barf, barf)

Other links among them:
911 calls
Now listening to kimmy saying "the guy just called out nigger to me." Listen to her 2 sobs after that. Toddlers can fake it better.

[I want to know]

IIRC, during the recent hearing Osborn mentioned there were 49 names on the list.

That's what I had heard or read, not sure which. On Monday, though, according to the case management schedule, there were only 36 represented. All 36 were lacrosse players, 13 were not represented in the motion to quash (among those not listed were the 3 defendants, the AA player, Matt Zash and 6 other players, and I guess 2 non-lax players). Maybe the other 13 have a separate hearing later?

[maggief]

I can't answer that. BTW, thanks for that link.

[maggief]

Unrelated story???

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/462039.html



Published: Jul 19, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Jul 19, 2006 02:58 AM

Durham slaying witness missing
Mug-shot ID called pressured



DURHAM - The key witness in a double homicide last year now says he was pressured by police to make an identification. Authorities say the man, whom they cannot find, is afraid of a defendant who has escaped charges before when witnesses recanted.

(snip)