Posted on 07/17/2006 2:08:51 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Yeah, I have never seen a system where everyone in an entire state seems afraid of a local DA?
Q: What is the difference between the above, and a University of Southern California athletic team?
A: One is PAC 10 Trojans, and the other is packed in trojans.
I have learned to love Spurrier.
I totally agree. I think we just heard from Chicken Little!
Sounds as credible as magic condoms, IMO.
"The poster made several questionable assumptions and stated them as certainties. He then asserted, with no explanation, that he has a better legal strategy than Cheshire and Co."
The problem is that in Durham nothing works as it ought.
The judges who should have thrown this case out (starting with Stephens and the warrants) have all failed the test.
When the justice system appears to have been corrupted,
how can you make any assumptions which are not questionable?
Again, Everytime the LAX players go to court - Judges give deference to the District Attorney.
EVERY TIME in court they get shafted.
This time Judge Titus has a backroom meeting before the court setting. The Defense lawyers have made it known they would like everything above board - and RECORDED. I believe this meeting was requested by Nifong. I'd be willing to bet Titus chided and warned the Defense lawyers - and Nifong may have berated the Defense lawyers in the meeting too.
In the name of Justice, why would there be a non-public meeting? It could all be discussed in court, there is a public interest in having Justice done in the open.
Titus inexplicably ruled in favor of Nifong in not provided Nifong a line of demarcation in which he must comply with discovery. At this point, Nifong has an open ended, Judge-sanctioned, option to hide evidence - including evidence damaging to the alleged victim.
Judge Titus' ruling on the no public prejudicial statements. How can a Judge speak on that subject and not specifically call out the District Attorney - in a case where his prejudicial public statement have eclipsed all others.
It seems Nifong rules in court - and that, in this case, logical reasoning will take a back-seat to public/media pressure. Like the Finnerty fiasco in crime ridden D.C.
Your main paragraph is absolutely spot on!
This morning's news stories...
Writer ignored Duke's commitment to athletics
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/index.html#754002
Too late to put a sock in it (Ruth Sheehan Barf Alert)
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/462358.html
Group: Duke 'Cowered' in LAX Case
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4382414
Duke DID cower when it happened. They ran for the hills and ALL but declare the Duke Team GUILTY before any facts were known. Thank you for pinging me to this article, abb. And the others. You are wonderfully on top of this. I appreciate it.
Barf alert is right. Now that it's clear she was wrong and her support of the whore was misplaced, all she can do is write cutesie tripe heckling the lawyers to shutup.
And what gives me the screaming red a$$ is that she thinks this is some sort of joke...
Activity on Ruth's blog...
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/ruth/index.php?title=getting_young_folks_to_vote&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments
Interesting set of letters in the Herald Sun. There are two pro Nifong letters from apparently Durham residents and one anti-Nifong letter from Ohio. The two pro-letters are campaign endorsements, pure and simple. They emphasize Cheeks lack of experience and Nifong's "27 years of public service." It seems to me that local Durhamm residents need to get organized for a letter writing campaign and prevent Nifong from arguing that Cheeks is a tool of outside forces. Even if Cheeks decides not to run, Durham residents need to express their outrage at Nifong's handling of this and other cases to keep the dor open for a sticker or write-in candidate.
mark
I think Ruth has far more to worry about than her son saying "shut up." Her early rush to judgment against the lacrosse players ala "We know you know" makes me wish I had encouraged Ms. Sheehan to "shut up" before she put both feet in. Sometimes one should recognize the advice one gives to others ala telling the lawyers to "shut up" is advice one should heed oneself. IMHO
And thanks for the links as always abb!
Sheehan is just inane and pathetic.
Ditto
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.