Posted on 09/18/2006 5:19:53 PM PDT by abb
DURHAM - One of three people who saw the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case at the crisis center where she first reported being sexually assaulted kept notes of her observations, defense lawyers said in a motion filed in court today.
In the early hours of March 14, the accuser was taken to Durham Access Center because she reportedly met the criteria for involuntary commitment, defense lawyer Brad Bannon wrote in the motion filed in Durham County Court today.
While there for 40 minutes, the accuser interacted with three women on the center's staff, the motion says.
Gerri Lomuriel Wilkes, who was working at the center the morning the accuser came in, took hand-written notes of her observations, according to the motion.
Kirk Osborn, the lawyer representing Reade Seligmann, one of three lacrosse players accused in the case, found out about the notes while interviewing Wilkes, the motion says.
Defense lawyers are asking that the notes be turned over to them.
District Attorney Mike Nifong has told defense lawyers during discovery hearings that no notes were made at the center, that only a log existed from there.
In previous documents handed over to defense lawyers, there is no evidence that police tried to contact Wilkes about that morning.
Also, defense lawyers are asking the state for a bill of particulars in which they hope to get a more precise timeline of the alleged offenses and find out which bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan the gang-rape allegedly occurred.
They also are asking the state to specify which "sexual act" each defendant is accused of committing. Staff writer Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@newsobserver.com.
This is all about his election, not the trial. He is playing to the "know nothings" and is hoping the MSM will support his "when did you stop beating your wife" headline and that the defense is doing something illegal. He needs to keep up the mirage that he is a competent DA facing the forces of unmistakable evil and fighting the rich white power structure that has victimized the poor defenseless victim - until the election.
Really. You're not related to Nifong, are you? ;-D
Thanks, Howlin.
Thanks, abb. Geez, it all seems so obvious to me. I just can't understand how it keeps on and on. If the political motivation is the case, Nifong's going to lose eventually. When this all comes out in the wash, he'll be lucky to keep his license, or more to the point, stay out of jail. If he's sandbagging evidence, it makes him look more and more evil. How does he expect it to turn out when the foundational issues are so flawed?
Duke lacrosse case lawyers back in court
9/22/2006 10:11 AM
By: News 14 Carolina Staff
DURHAM, N.C. -- Defense attorneys and the prosecution in the Duke lacrosse rape case are heading back to court on Friday.
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is asking the judge to stop a survey polling the mood of potential jurors about the case. Lawyers for the three men charged say they not only approved the polling but they notified the DA and the court beforehand.
They believe it will show whether pre-trial comments made by Nifong will prejudice the jury.
Defense attorney Tom Loflin, who is not related to this case, believes the players' attorneys are looking for some other critical information.
“That could be used either to support a motion to change venue if they got a certain answer or it could be used in jury selection,” Loflin said.
He said surveys like that are commonly used and even Nifong could conduct one of his own.
btt
District Attorney Mike Nifong said the questioning should stop immediately, even if the defense lawyers aren't funding the telephone surveys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001856.html
*Snicker*
court tv:
beth karas reporting:
on item 2 of 5 now. breaking for lunch
defense wants more discovery.
prossies gave them 200 pages today
nifong saying some items don't exist - records of conversation, etc.
BOP argument - spent lots of time on this motion. Judge denied motion for bop!
Can't even be told which bathroom it took place
Judge will revisit BOP issue. will let defense file another motion for bop
defense won motion on dna. ALL reports must be turned over. even from BF
second DNA other than boyfriend?
i'm thinking multiple peeps...
court tv th's opining nifong ain't got shit for evidence.
"Boyfriend" is vague too ... how many "boyfriends" did she have? Do here drivers qualify?
Kuby pissing me off---"Does this have to do with defendants having dough to pay lawyers and PI's and PR firms?"
I'm thinking the only qualification is "functioning male."
I didn't know until today there were two male DNA samples--thought there was only one. I guess only one that's been identified.
Agreed. It is an "ex post acte" designation.
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.