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 ...
Oh man, that entire clip (starting at 4:58) shows Nifong wound tighter than a drum. His teeth seem to be clenched, he is blinking in an unatural pattern and the muscles around his mouth are tight, tight, tight.
One more observation, look at his chest. Not a relaxed breathing pattern either.
GMA (Good Morning America) is going to be in Raleigh for the grand re-opening of Main Street. I would not be opposed to suggesting to them that they take a little side-trip to Durham.. However, I sure would like to know what the defendants' attorneys in this case feel about "keeping the pressure on." Our first priority should be to assure the freedom of Collin, Dave and Reade. Only then, do we need to keep the pressure on to expose the Durham crap. One night, some time ago, in frustration, I emailed Cheshire's office asking, "What can we do?" I received no response, which, of course, was the appropriate thing. I don't want this to be forgotten. I don't want to hurt the defendants. I'm conflicted and unsure..... OK, JLS, what think ye?
Sorry, meant to include you in my last post "To"
Also apologizing here to anyone I may have missed that has legal experience.......
Wow. The CTV board has no fewer than eight locked or closed threads. They are really stifling discussion over there.
"This guy gives lawyers a bad name. As if they had a good one..."
Man stands up in a bar: "All lawyers are a$$holes."
Another guy stands up: "I resent that remark."
Man: "Why, are you a lawyer?"
Other guy: "No, I'm an a$$hole."
During the last hearing, Nifong had frequent, exaggerated blinking-- which disappeared when he was talking. He did not have this "tic" in any footage I saw from his early public appearances or interviews. Keep an eye out for it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1664769/posts?page=103#103
Regarding the joke...
Sorry, Jez....I really like you and I love your posts!
Certainly THE issue right now is the falsely accused not get railroaded.
You are right the Defense was right not to respond to e-mails from people they do not know.
Thanks for posting a link. I missed the hearing on the actual case.
What a disaster Titus is for NC. He came across to me as an ill-prepared bully.
"At first I thougth it was that stupid smirk, but as the camera moved closer it seemed it was a frozen smile."
Thanks for the link. I just watched the whole thing. Nifong has an ugly grimace and his breathing is somewhat labored. He also talks like his dentures don't fit right. Did you notice that?
I just got to the part where Nifong has explained the purpose of FERPA-federal funding-
back to the video to see how he makes federal funding relevant, LOL!
I did learn Titus may not be the trial judge-may be a good thing, but who knows? They all may be of the same mindset.
He talks as if his tongue is too large to fit in his mouth.
I just realized that as outraged as we are with the way Nifong has handled this, the defense is fighting one long uphill battle.
These boys are going against the way things are done. They are fighting the staus quo. I can almost hear the judges say "I won't have any outsiders tell me how to conduct a fair trial."
It is so scary.
I think there is a chance that a judge will throw out the final line-up on grounds it was unduly suggestive but I don't think any judge is going to prevent the accuser from IDing the defedants in court. If that happens it would basically be dismissing the case because there is no evidence other than the accuser's say so.
No judge is going to want to take responsibility for that ruling.
Pinging with Tuesday Morning's crop of stories...
Judge orders publicity restraints in lacrosse case
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-753443.html
Corrigan withdraws from Duke search
http://www.heraldsun.com/sports/duke/39-753483.html
Watch your words, lacrosse case lawyers told
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/461685.html
Durham police chief search set
http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/461673.html
Coach pulls out of Duke search
http://www.newsobserver.com/736/story/461594.html
"Wow. The CTV board has no fewer than eight locked or closed threads. They are really stifling discussion over there."
Does any other CTV board get treated like that?
Are too many people starting to become critical of the judges/prosecution in Durham?
After all, this is probably the first time that judges Stephens, Bayly, Bushfan, and Titus have ever been exposed to such public scrutiny; and the public doesn't like what it is seeing. Cockroaches like to hide in the dark.
"No judge is going to want to take responsibility for that ruling."
What's worse--this case badly needs a change of venue to a place where race is not an issue. That is the defendant's RIGHT--to have a trial in an impartial setting, not where there is a lynch mob outside pressuring anyone on the jury who votes not to convict (with the Black Panthers muttering threats in court) and the judges fearful of public reaction.
But no judge in Durham is going to move it.
If this case were tried in any jurisdiction where race is not an issue, the jury would come back in five minutes with a "not guilty" verdict and criticize the court for wasting their time.
In fact, this reminds me of another case they had in Durham sometime around 2003 (sorry, running on memory here from another thread some time ago). A man was accused of rape.
There was some evidence to tie him in to the crime.
He turned state's evidence and accused another man of helping him. Because he was given immunity, the state did not try him, it tried the other man. The other man was jailed, held in custody for a year; then tried, and the jury found him not guilty at once, and the jury foreman criticized the court for wasting their time (highly unsual).
There was absolutely no evidence against the second man at all, just the accusation. And the theory goes that the entire thing might have been a ploy by a friend of the man first accused to get him off without a sentence (and have him granted immunity). So the second man--totally innocent--went through hell as a part of the scheme.
But that's Durham.
And there's no reason to think anything has changed there since.
This case has certainly changed my opinion of judges, the courthouse system, prosecutors, and everything else. I now trust none of them.
Your point #1 was absolutely spot on. I said from the beginning that Nifong's public statements about the "wall of silence" and its justification for the Non-Testimonial Order was outrageous because it omits the Fifth Amendment in its consideration. In essence, what he did was say (in the affidavit in support of the application for the NTO), "Because you won't confess we don't need any other evidence for an NTO. If you weren't guilty, you wouldn't be silent." (even though they weren't silent, so that, too, was a lie)
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.