Posted on 10/01/2006 1:40:53 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM - Anyone who asks why Mike Nifong won't drop the Duke University lacrosse rape case doesn't know Mike Nifong.
In his long career, Nifong has earned a reputation as a prosecutor who charges hard at his opposition and relishes going to trial. Although his unpredictable behavior might puzzle some observers of the lacrosse case, it is vintage Nifong.
For six months, Nifong has been the public face of -- and the driving force behind -- the case against three Duke lacrosse players who are accused of raping a woman hired to dance at a team party. Even after DNA tests came back negative or inconclusive, and evidence emerged that contradicts the state's case, Nifong pressed ahead.
He was so confident in the accuser's story and his case that he refused to meet with lawyers who said they could prove players' innocence. He bickered with the lawyers in the media and needled them in court. The faith in his case was a familiar posture for a man who, with talent and the resources of the state on his side for nearly 30 years, is accustomed to having the upper hand.
In more than 300 felony trials and countless pleas, Nifong's confidence and bluster have served him and Durham County well. For most of his career, he has been sending to prison people who belonged there.
But Duke lacrosse is not just any Durham case. The defense team is well-funded and includes some of the most highly regarded lawyers in the state. In filings and the media, they have counterattacked in an effort to dismantle Nifong's case against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
The case has drawn national media attention, and Nifong's saber-rattling has been on display for the world.
Nifong, 56, is a prosecutor, not a politician. The lacrosse case was the first time he had to be both -- the investigation began a year after the governor appointed him district attorney. And when Nifong's early assurances that lacrosse players raped a dancer didn't jibe with the evidence that became public, his critics accused him of using the case for political gain. The weaknesses in the case have led to an election challenge from a write-in candidate and an organized effort to have voters pick anyone but Nifong on Nov. 7.
If Nifong wins the election, he will face the fight of his professional life when the case goes to trial next year. "He's staked his reputation and probably to a larger extent his career on this case," said Jim Cooney, a Charlotte criminal defense lawyer who is not involved in the lacrosse case but has been involved in many high-profile criminal cases.
Nifong declined to answer questions for this story. The News & Observer interviewed nearly two dozen people, reviewed court files and listened to recordings of him in court. The interviews and documents help shed light on why, when saddled with a case that another prosecutor might have dropped, Nifong has chosen to continue.
Faith in key witness
At the trial, Nifong's key witness will be the accuser, who will presumably testify that she was raped by Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann. Under North Carolina law, her accusation is enough evidence to take the case to a jury.
From the start, lawyers for team members have said her story is a lie. They have highlighted every inconsistency in her account as evidence that she is a "false accuser," as one of Evans' attorneys, Joseph B. Cheshire V, calls her. When the time comes for her to testify, she will be under fire. She can expect questions about a history of bipolar disorder and her career as an exotic dancer, performing for private parties or couples in hotel rooms.
Although Nifong has never heard the woman tell her story, he believes her. He said in court last month that he met with her and detectives April 11 to discuss the judicial process. Nifong said she was too traumatized to speak about the incident. The day after that meeting, Nifong told a judge he was planning to seek indictments.
Even though an accusation is enough, it does not require a prosecutor to pursue a rape case. In general, part of a prosecutor's job is to use judgment, said Robert L. Farb, professor of public law and government at UNC-Chapel Hill's School of Government.
"Prosecutors evaluate cases all the time," Farb said. "They decide whether to go forward or not, offer a plea or dismiss or whatever."
Echoes of '94 case
Twelve years ago, Nifong prosecuted a man in a rape case that bore some similarity to the one he is focused on now.
As in the Duke lacrosse case, Nifong had on his side the word of the woman. And the defense said it had plenty of evidence that no rape happened.
Even before the case made it to trial, Nifong taunted the defense attorneys.
"Poultry," Nifong said when a defense attorney asked a judge to delay the trial date.
"They're a bunch of chickens," he told the Herald-Sun of Durham to explain his comment. "I have the impression sometimes they are afraid to try cases."
The case was State v. Timothy Malloy, and the defendant was a prison guard and convenience store clerk accused of raping a woman at gunpoint. The testimony was preserved on a court reporter's audiotape.
In 1992, the accuser told authorities that after a night of heavy drinking, two friends, who each thought the other had driven her home, left her at a bar. The woman walked to a convenience store where Malloy was on duty.
After the woman used the store phone several times to try to reach friends, Malloy propositioned her. He said that she agreed and they had sex in a storeroom. She said he pulled a gun from his waistband and raped her.
The defense was aggressive. The woman said she was anally raped, but the medical report introduced by the defense showed that there was no physical evidence of injury and that the accuser had not complained of pain during the exam.
Police never found a gun, despite a thorough search of the store and Malloy's car. A newspaper delivery man testified that just after the incident, he saw Malloy and the woman talking and thought they were friends.
If Malloy had a gun that night, the defense asked, how would it have been held up by the flimsy elastic of the sweat pants he was wearing? And after being raped, why would the woman tell Malloy to come see her at the topless bar where she served drinks?
"The one thing this case really boils down to is whether or not this lady's telling you the truth," defense attorney Bob Brown told a Durham County jury Aug. 3, 1994. "There's no other evidence that backs her up."
The accuser had waited a long time for her chance to tell her story. She said in a recent interview that until Nifong got involved, she had thought about dropping the case.
"He believed in me, and until that time, I didn't feel anybody else believed in me," she said. "I felt like the system let me down until Mike took the case."
The News & Observer generally does not identify complainants in sexual assault cases.
She faced a grueling cross-examination. Brown, the defense attorney, found at least half a dozen false statements the woman had made on job and credit applications. He also asked her about written statements given to police that contained inconsistencies.
"That was a false statement?" Brown asked each time. "That was a story," he said.
Brown's questioning lasted several hours. Nifong took just one minute to question her again.
"What you've told the jury yesterday and today has been after you've taken an oath on the Bible to tell the truth?" Nifong asked.
"Yes, sir."
"Have you told the jury the truth, both yesterday and today, in everything that you've said?"
"Yes, I have."
Nifong had no further questions.
After a five-day trial, the jury deliberated two hours and 40 minutes before reaching a verdict: not guilty.
In a recent interview, Malloy, the defendant, said, "I guess once he sets his mind that he's going to prosecute, there's nothing you can really do. What could you do?"
Starting his career
Nifong, a native of Wilmington and the son of a federal Treasury agent, graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill law school in 1978. He interviewed for prosecutor's jobs in Raleigh, Durham and Greensboro but couldn't get a job. Eager for experience, he told Durham's then-district attorney, Dan Edwards, that he would work for free.
Edwards agreed, and two weeks later he placed Nifong on the payroll. Within two years, Nifong was trying cases in Superior Court, where felonies are resolved.
He liked the courtroom. "When you got in there, it was about winning," he said in a 2005 interview with a News & Observer reporter just before he was sworn in as district attorney.
Defense lawyers trying to squeeze a plea out of a prosecutor often threaten to go to trial. Nifong would happily call their bluff.
"How is that a threat?" Nifong said in the 2005 interview.
It took a lot of preparation and sometimes a little luck to beat Nifong in court, said Lisa Williams, a Durham criminal defense lawyer and former Durham prosecutor.
"If I walked into a courtroom and there has to be a DA in there, I would want to see anyone but Mike Nifong," she said. "His expectation is always that he's going to win."
Norman Williams, who is not related to Lisa Williams, started practicing law in 1965. Over the years, he has fought some tough cases against Nifong.
"He has some equals in Durham, but he has no betters," Williams said. "If you had to pick a DA to run this courthouse, you couldn't find a better person."
By the mid-1990s, Nifong was getting assigned to the county's most serious felonies. In the courtroom, he showed not just a command of the law but a certain art about trial lawyering.
In 1995, he prosecuted Walter Goldston, who was accused of killing a convenience store owner. Nifong sought the death penalty.
Brian Aus was one of Goldston's attorneys. He remembers that in closing arguments, Nifong started talking to the jury about the angles of bullets -- the state thought that Goldston fired as he lay on the floor. Nifong said, "I hate to do this in a suit," Aus recalled. Nifong flopped on the floor to describe the shooting.
"It was something," Aus said.
Goldston was convicted and sentenced to life.
"He's always very polished," said Aus, who has known Nifong for 22 years. "He doesn't rely a lot on notes or stuff. He just gets out there, gets to his point and moves on."
In his prosecutions, Nifong opened up his entire file to defense lawyers -- something the law didn't require until 2004. It was a matter of fairness, he said in the 2005 interview, but it also added to the intimidation factor. He would tell a lawyer what he had and what he was going to do, and then in court he would do it.
"I was very good at what I did, but I was kind of cocky," he said.
In 1999, Nifong was diagnosed with prostate cancer. He endured surgery, radiation and a year of hormone therapy.
After missing months of work, he said in the 2005 interview, he returned less convinced that things were black and white. His illness changed the way he thought about the courtroom.
"What you may lose sight of when all you're worried about is winning ... that's not really what the DA's office is here for," Nifong said. "This is really supposed to be about justice."
At the time, the District Attorney's Office was reeling from a scandal in traffic court. A judge, two prosecutors and a defense lawyer were implicated in a back-hall deal to clear a drunken-driving charge against a dentist.
Then-District Attorney Jim Hardin assigned Nifong to negotiate cases in the troubled court -- an important, if unheralded, assignment. Nifong was regarded as highly ethical, and he seemed a good choice to clean up traffic court.
Moody, demanding
On busy days, lawyers would wait outside Nifong's closed door to negotiate speeding tickets or revoked licenses. At times, those gatherings had the feel of schoolchildren waiting outside the principal's office. Behind the door, Nifong always had the power.
"Working with Mike, you never knew from one day or the other who you'd be dealing with," said Glenn Gray, a lawyer who handled a high volume of traffic cases. "He would curse you, scream at you, call you names over nothing."
Nifong's moods became just part of dealing with him.
"He cannot stand unprepared people," said Aus, the veteran lawyer who has known Nifong for two decades. "He'll go off on you like that. He's the first one to tell you, too, 'Don't bother me right now, I'm not in a good mood.' "
Durham lawyer C. Scott Holmes said Nifong's behavior stemmed from his passion about his cases.
"I have seen him lose his temper and berate attorneys in an unprofessional manner," Holmes said. "But I also have seen him dedicate years of service to the Durham public."
Gray remembers asking Nifong to offer his client a plea that would allow him to get his license back so he could drive to work. Nifong asked Gray, who at the time did a volume business of hundreds of clients, where the client worked. Gray didn't know.
"You don't know what he does? He's your client and you don't know?" Gray remembers Nifong asking, loudly.
Gray knew that lawyers on the other side of the door could hear the tirade. He had heard similar outbursts, sometimes profanity-laced, when other lawyers were in Nifong's office.
When asked in 2005 about traffic court, Nifong said he expects lawyers to be prepared.
"I expect them to be able to answer questions about the case," he said.
In 2005, District Attorney Jim Hardin was made a judge by Gov. Mike Easley, who then picked Nifong to fill the job until the 2006 election. For many at the courthouse, the choice made sense; Nifong had devoted his entire professional life to the office and had been chief assistant for years.
At the ceremony where Hardin and Nifong took their oaths, Hardin jokingly warned the new district attorney that his new job was often thankless. He gave Nifong a gift: a white T-shirt with a bull's-eye on it.
The lacrosse case
On March 13, 2006, members of the Duke lacrosse team gathered at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., a home just across the street from the university's East Campus. By early the next morning, one of two women hired to dance there was saying she had been gang-raped.
Ten days after the party, Nifong's chief assistant got a court order that required 46 members of the team to submit to DNA testing and other identification procedures -- and Duke lacrosse became national news.
Four days after the team gave DNA samples, Nifong granted his first of many on-the-record interviews about the case. He told a News & Observer reporter that he planned to prosecute the case himself. He said he would consider charges against bystanders at the party who did nothing to stop a brutal assault. The interview began a week during which Nifong, by his own accounts, gave more than 50 interviews and spent 40 hours responding to media requests.
In those interviews, Nifong said that when the DNA tests came back, the state would have proof of who raped the woman. The interviews were unusual for Durham prosecutors, who normally avoid talking to reporters on the record out of court.
When asked about his frequent interviews in those early days, Nifong said he has always tried to answer reporters' questions because he believes the public should understand how the courts work.
But the media interest in the lacrosse case was different.
"Back in the days when I started and he was going full tilt, before he got cancer, we didn't have the Court TV coverage," Aus said. "I chalk it up to it was a learning experience for him. ... He was trying to be accommodating, and it just got out of hand. It's not his style to do that."
It was not just his media presence that was new. Behind the scenes, Nifong had staked out an unusual role as the leader of an investigation that had yet to even identify suspects. Typically, police investigate cases and turn them over to prosecutors.
On March 31, Nifong sat with the two main Durham police detectives on the case. The accuser was having trouble identifying her attackers. According to notes taken by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, Nifong suggested that the officers have the accuser look at pictures of 46 team members to see whether she remembered seeing them at the party.
The lineup procedure Nifong suggested violated the police department's guidelines, which call for photo lineups to include at least five nonsuspects for every suspect. The guidelines also call for an independent administrator to conduct the lineup, not an investigator in the case.
It was during this lineup, criticized by a defense lawyer as a "multiple choice test," that the accuser picked out Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann and an unindicted fourth player as her attackers.
By early April, Nifong had stopped granting interviews about the case, although he still made occasional offhand, newsworthy comments. Reporters followed him wherever he went through much of April.
Nifong refused to hunker down. Several times, he walked out of the courthouse to a restaurant across the street, braving the gantlet of camera crews that had framed the courthouse in the backdrop of their live shots.
Lawyers for the players also had a hard time getting time with Nifong. Just after Seligmann was indicted April 17, his attorneys tried to show Nifong that they had phone records, sworn statements and photographs that would prove that the player had an alibi. Nifong refused to see them.
Defense on offensive
If the reporters now had to struggle to get a quote out of Nifong, it was much easier with the defense. Lawyers representing the lacrosse players took the offensive. They declared that no rape or sexual assault occurred and marveled at the statements Nifong had made on national television.
Nifong bickered and squabbled with the lawyers.
After lawyer Kirk Osborn asked a judge to remove Nifong from the case, Nifong said, "If I were him, I wouldn't want to be trying the case against me either. ... The best comment I ever heard about Kirk was he was the best-dressed public defender in North Carolina."
At one court hearing, Nifong suggested that attorneys for unindicted team members had put their careers ahead of their clients:
"It looked sometimes over the course of the last few months that some of these attorneys were almost disappointed that their clients didn't get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle."
The tensions between Nifong and the defense boiled over May 15, a Monday, the day Evans was indicted.
Late on the previous Friday -- after Nifong had left town for the weekend -- defense attorneys called a news conference to denounce a second batch of DNA tests that the prosecutor had ordered. The lawyers said Nifong was persecuting innocents on the word of a liar.
That Monday, Nifong stormed out of his office, blowing past the reporters in the hallway. He marched to the judges' chambers, where he bumped into one of Evans' attorneys. He lit into the lawyer, his voice carrying across the sixth floor. He made liberal use of profanity, including the word "mother[expletive]."
By the end of the day, the defense had stolen the story line. Just after Evans was charged with rape, he stood before dozens of reporters and declared on national television that he and his teammates were innocent.
"You have all been told some fantastic lies," Evans said.
On defense: talent
Nifong's opposition in the case is formidable. Rick Gammon, a prominent Raleigh defense lawyer, said the defense includes some of the best legal talent anywhere.
"Joe [Cheshire] and Wade [Smith] are probably two of the best trial lawyers in the state and probably in this country," Gammon said.
Cooney, the Charlotte defense lawyer, predicted that the case will involve more research by lawyers and investigators than many capital murder cases.
"There's a heck of a lot of preparation," he said. "You're going to say something, and somebody is going to be able to pull out ... something that shows it's not true. The first liar loses, and you don't want to be the first liar."
If Nifong is elected district attorney next month, what the people of Durham and the nation think about him -- his media statements, his angry outbursts, his wisecracks in court and his seemingly unwavering belief in the accuser -- will not matter in the Duke lacrosse case.
"The only people I have to persuade will be the 12 sitting on the jury, and if you want to know how I am going to do that, you will need to attend the trial," he told a Newsweek reporter in an e-mail message.
If Nifong's statements and actions in the lacrosse case, and indeed his actions over his 28-year career, are an indication, he is not likely to drop the case.
Lisa Williams, the defense lawyer, said Nifong is sometimes slow to come to decisions -- but then rarely wavers.
"No matter what the tide of public opinion says, if he's made a decision, he's going to stand by it," she said. "People either like him very much or hate him very much, and the other thing about him is he doesn't really care which one you are."
(Staff writer Joseph Neff and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.) Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com. Staff writer Joseph Neff and news researchers Brooke Cain and David Raynor contributed to this report.
MICHAEL BYRON NIFONG
Age: 56
Family: Married to Cy Gurney, a regional administrator of the state's Guardian Ad Litem program, a state advocacy program for abused and neglected children. They have a teenage son, and Nifong has an adult daughter from a previous marriage.
The name Nifong (NYE-fong), often mispronounced by national television reporters, is of German and Swiss origin.
Nifong was born in Wilmington. Both of his parents went to Duke University. He got his undergraduate and law degrees from UNC-Chapel Hill. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY ELECTION
Nifong is the Democratic nominee for district attorney. He faces a challenge in November from write-in candidate Steve Monks and County Commissioner Lewis Cheek.
What's at stake: In 2003, his salary was $87,082. When Gov. Mike Easley appointed him district attorney, he began earning $133,082.
Lacrosse -- and specifically Nifong's handling of the case -- dominated the Democratic primary for district attorney. Nifong faced Keith Bishop, a lawyer, and Freda Black, a former prosecutor. Throughout the campaign, Black and Bishop hammered Nifong on his statements about the case and questioned whether his statements in national news media brought unfavorable attention to Durham.
Nifong won the race with 45 percent of the vote, and with no Republican opponents, it appeared he had won the job. He vowed to move forward with the case.
After the primary, more of the state's case became public, either through defense motions or news reports, and opposition to Nifong grew.
Some who were unhappy with Nifong banded together, circulated a petition and collected thousands of signatures to place Cheek on the ballot.
Cheek announced that if he were elected, he would not serve. A political action committee has been collecting money to have Cheek elected anyway. If Cheek wins but declines to serve, the governor would appoint a district attorney. What that would mean for the lacrosse case is impossible to predict. ON THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE
Nifong believes the accuser's story and believes the indicted players are guilty. He wrote in an April statement to reporters that he had a duty to pursue the case.
"If the prosecutor personally believes in a defendant's guilt, it would be a violation of his moral responsibility to the victim and to his community not to prosecute a case because doing so was not popular, or because he was worried that he might not win at trial," he said in an April news release.
Update on Duke blocking student voter registration at the homecoming game. Monks was apparently allowed to distribute campaign literature inside the stadium. Plus, Nifong campaign deception. Must read.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/durham-da-race-updates.html
Unreal. Monks is allowed to distribute campaign literature inside the stadium but Duke students aren't allowed to register students to vote either inside or outside of the stadium? Ya gotta be kidding me. Somebody needs to explain that one.
Looks like Liestoppers and KC Johnson are hot on this story. Hopefully, the students will use this as a teachable moment, and shame their wayward elders. They've got until Oct. 12 to register more student voters.
Justify or Retract
[snip]
Duke officials should be made to justify their claim that material could come out at trial to disprove allegations that Mike Nifong has violated various procedures of either the city of Durham or the North Carolina Bar. And if Duke officials cannot offer evidence that could rationalize Nifong's conduct, they should retract their claim, and publicly demand that the district attorney apply to Duke students the same procedures that all other citizens of Durham receive.
Accordingly, I invite readers of this blog who attended Duke to email Duke Alumni Association president Tom Clark (whose email, according to the DAA website, is tcclark100@aol.com ), with a cc to BOT chairman Robert Steel (whose email, according to the Duke website, is boardchair@duke.edu ). I urge asking the following:
In light of repeated statements from administration and alumni officials that the university must wait until a trial to demand that the district attorney uphold the due process rights of all Duke students, could you please tell me what material could possibly appear at trial to disprove allegations that:
District Attorney Nifong violated city procedures and statewide norms in the April 4 photo ID array;
District Attorney Nifong violated Rule 3.8, comment 2, of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that "a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case or aid the accused," when he refused to meet with Reade Seligmann's attorney to consider Seligmann's alibi evidence;
District Attorney Nifong violated Rule 3.8(f) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which states that a prosecutor must "refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused," in his public relations spree of late March and early April.
I will post any replies that are received.
[end excerpt]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 04, 2006
Duke lacrosse: A letter to the Chapel Dean.
Dear Dean Wells:
I'm a Duke alum. I publish the electronic daily, www.johnincarolina.com.
[snip]
As you know, the Durham Herald Sun recently reported statements it said you made. ("Duke leaders discuss 'toll' of lacrosse," Sept. 30)
Newspapers often get things wrong.
That allows me to hope you didn't make the statements the H-S attributes to you. Or if you did, that the H-S so misrepresented the actual import of your statements that you are taking steps to publicly correct the misrepresentation(s).
[end excerpt]
Some Duke students say school discipline is 'double jeopardy'
By Ray Gronberg, The Herald-Sun
October 4, 2006 9:22 pm
DURHAM -- Student leaders at Duke University might lodge a formal protest against the campus administration's attempts to discipline classmates for violations of Durham's noise ordinance and the state's underage-drinking and fake-ID laws.
A draft resolution debated a week ago in Duke's student senate asked that Duke's Office of Judicial Affairs "cease all prosecutions" of such offenses pending a review of the rules on its jurisdiction over off-campus behavior.
Sponsors said the office's attempts to police alcohol, ID and noise laws in parallel with state courts amount to double jeopardy and a violation of students' privacy rights, and in response to pressure from campus neighbors have engaged Duke in an enforcement effort that's of no benefit to its own constituents.
The resolution and an accompanying PowerPoint presentation also included a disputed line that indicated sponsors didn't see compliance with the laws in question as part of "the standard we set for ourselves and our peers."
Duke's "philosophy should in no way assert the university's right to duplicate the judicial process of civil authorities, nor should it claim that these types of minor infractions threaten the [undergraduate] community in any way," the resolution said.
But after a lengthy discussion, senate members tabled the resolution. Student Government President Elliott Wolf said it's now being reworked and might resurface next week.
Wolf said he thinks the revision will ask the university to return to what students saw as its practice before the fall semester of 2005, "where we would only adjudicate infractions considered a direct threat to the university community."
He added that the senate balked at endorsing "a statement that said let everybody use fake IDs and drink off campus."
Duke Student Government spokesman Kevin Troy said the "standard we set" line was susceptible to being read several ways, including as an endorsement of underage drinking, a problem that contributed to the decision to rework the resolution.
"There would be arguably grounds for concerned discussion and potentially condemnation, were that the language adopted by Duke Student Government as the institutional view," Troy said. "The fact it was discussed and set aside for negative reasons shows the value of the deliberative process. We were able to recognize the flaws in the language and reasoning, and hopefully we're going to correct them by addressing the change in student affairs policy without sending an unfortunate message about Duke Student Government and Duke in general."
For Wolf, the issue centers on the proper limits to the university's control over students.
"Right now, they're asserting that they can adjudicate any violation of Duke policy or the law prior to graduation, whether they occur on campus or off campus -- and 'off-campus' includes thousands of miles away," he said. "As a student, I object to such a broad jurisdiction."
Duke tightened its policies on off-campus behavior more than year ago and again this fall. Associate Dean of Students Stephen Bryan acknowledged Wednesday that the moves were, in part, intended to answer complaints from campus neighbors.
But they also stemmed from the failure of lesser measures to have much effect on off-campus problems, he said.
Last year's change -- launched at the same time Durham police were cracking down on off-campus party houses -- called for the university to consider disciplinary action any time a student was arrested or ticketed for criminal violations, or became the target of complaints about repeated misbehavior, he said.
The result was a lopsided crackdown that played out mostly in the fall semester of the 2005-06 academic year. All told, 221 students had to meet with administrators or the Undergraduate Judicial Board during the year to answer charges.
Drinking figured in many of the cases. Policy violations were found -- usually producing a warning -- in 96 of the 159 underage-drinking cases the university pursued, and in three of the five alleged noise-law cases, according to Office of Judicial Affairs statistics.
The office didn't report numbers specifically for fake-ID violations, but it did pursue seven "falsification/fraud" cases and found students responsible for violations of campus policy in six of them.
A committee of administrators, faculty and students has suggested further tightening Duke's "community standard" to stress that integrity is indivisible -- something that creates "behavioral expectations ... in all aspects of an undergraduate's life and in all places," it said in an Aug. 15 report to Provost Peter Lange.
Bryan said that's the point his office has been trying to get across.
"It does still puzzle me why students don't think the university should concern itself with off-campus behavior," he said. "To me it's an indication of where students are at, developmentally, at this stage. They seem able to compartmentalize their lives. For example, they agree that cheating is wrong, but a fake ID is not. Deception in the classroom is not viewed the same way deception outside the classroom is. I'd argue that both reflect one's character."
Bryan added that the double-jeopardy argument has been heard at Duke and other schools before, litigated even, and consistently rejected because university sanctions don't affect a person's basic liberty. Remaining enrolled at a college, especially a private college, "is not an inalienable right," he said.
Wolf acknowledged that student government has little real say in the matter.
"We have absolutely no control over the university judicial process," he said. "Our job is solely to articulate our best guess as to what the aggregate of Duke students want. It's unfortunately the case that as a private school, the university can punish us for anything they feel like."
Campus neighbors have welcomed Duke's harder line on off-campus misconduct, and on Wednesday one of their leaders said she'd wants that to continue.
"I wouldn't be happy to see them not held accountable by the university," said Alice Bumgarner, president of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association. "That's been the position all along. They're accountable for their off-campus behavior just like if they cheat on an exam."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-775749.html
Dear Greta,
This concerns the voter registration drive by the two Duke students you interviewed several weeks ago. Duke officials apparently prevented their group (DSED) from registering voters at the homecoming football game, yet allowed Steve Monks to hand out campaign literature. The deadline for signing up voters is October 12.
"DSED representatives did make several requests, however, and so seem to have supplied prior notice. It also is still unclear to me what rationale existed for stopping attempted registrations from outside the stadium. John Burness has promised to look into this issue for me; I have also emailed him with two additional questions, and will post on this issue as soon as I receive information back from him."
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/black-panthers-welcome-duke-students.html
"LieStoppers has learned that Nifong opponent Steve Monks and his campaign manager, Charlotte Woods, were allowed to distribute campaign material at a pre-game tailgate party and within the stadium during the game."
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/durham-da-race-updates.html
"For example, they agree that cheating is wrong, but a fake ID is not. Deception in the classroom is not viewed the same way deception outside the classroom is. I'd argue that both reflect one's character."
This is the same "They must have done something" attitude.
It comes from people who do not live in the real world, imo. They think that if you use a fake ID to buy alcohol or get into a club, that it means you will do other things like cheat on a test or shoplift.
It's the same out of touch with reality logic that says the LAX players might have raped Crystal because they behaved badly in other ways.
Peeing off your porch while buzzed means you will jump right in to a gang rape.
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=the_nifong_profile&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Read the blistering replies by Joan Foster and NDLax84, among others.
Good work, Ken. I think I'll e-mail Greta too.
Wow. They are really hammering her. She deserves it.
It looks like Monks is hell bent on ruining the election.
Slightly OT update
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=061005&cat=news&st=newsd8kinb700&src=ap
A judge dismissed child pornography charges Thursday against former JonBenet Ramsey murder suspect John Mark Karr after prosecutors said they didn't have enough evidence to take the case to trial.
9/1/06
Duke revamps voter registration efforts
David Graham
Coming soon to a mailbox near you: a North Carolina voter registration form, compliments of the Office of Student Affairs.
Forms will be placed in student mailboxes starting Wednesday as part of a University effort to better comply with the federal Higher Education Act.
The law mandates that institutions of higher education "make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form" to all students.
Associate Vice President for Federal Relations Chris Simmons said a speaker series and "Get Out the Vote" advertisements in student-targeted media will be part of a concerted push during the election season.
In previous election years, the University placed forms in high-traffic locations such as the Bryan Center, and links to the form were posted on the Community Service Center website.
He met with Elaine Madison, director of the Community Service Center, in late June to discuss compliance with the HEA.
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/10/wicked.html
[snip]
Make no mistake, the evil Wizard is well entrenched.
Our heroine, Beth Brewer, is heartened by the support the Recall Nifong -Vote Cheek campaign is receiving from the good people of Durham. The stench of previous cases, like the one of Leon Brown, are reminding Durhamites what reckless justice means for ALL of them, not just the three Duke defendants. But when apathy, agenda, and the local newspapers seem arrayed against the effort... we need to push harder. We know we are preaching to the choir here, but necessity demands it once again. Friends, please wave any magic wands you have, call upon ALL forces of Good and recruit anyone you know, and see if we can produce any of the following for Beth Brewer and the campaign:
[end excerpt]
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/index.php?title=march_25_interview&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
March 25 interview
March 25 interview
Our March 25 article that included an interview with the woman who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape has been the subject of questions and speculation on blog posts. There is a mistaken assumption that the N&O conducted an extensive interview with the woman and deliberately withheld a substantial portion of the interview.
Those assumptions are false.
The reporter’s interview with the woman was brief, an encounter that lasted a few minutes outside the woman’s parents’ home in Durham. Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night. The latter was clearly an opinion, offered without any substantiation. Omitting from published news articles unsubstantiated opinions is a standard, normal part of the journalistic process. The description of the second woman proved to be accurate when Kim Roberts exposed herself at a later date. That description was withheld in March, not because of doubts about its accuracy, but because it was deemed irrelevant since we had no other information to tell readers about the second woman.
The decision made prior to the March interview to limit it to the information in the police report was the correct decision and I stand by it. Our purpose was to hear from the woman in her own words the accusation she made to the police. We also wanted to know if she would say anything that contradict the police report. In the brief interview, she repeated the information we knew to be the gist of the police report that we had access to at that time.
The fairness issue we discussed was that we would not allow her to use the interview for unlimited comments about the men she accused. That would have been the governing decision in any situation where we were interviewing a subject about formal charges made against another person and that other person is not immediately available to respond.
Recent postings have also included inaccurate information about the N&O’s Voters Guide. The Voters Guide for the fall election does not exist. Reporters and editors are currently in the process of preparing the guide to be published on November 4. It is not true that N&O editors did not know what information was on news&observer.com. The site contains material generated for the guide published for the 2006 spring primary election. That is where some people commenting on this blog found the Mike Nifong candidate profile. While the material was accessible from news&observer.com, it was merely serving as a template for the staff to complete the online guide for the fall election. Now that we know that people may be reading the information as if it were a live document, we will block access to the information untill the fall guide is complete.
10/05/06 at 21:19 Atrocious and arrogant post, Ms Williams.
After months of hiding behind Melanie Sill, we have clearly now discovered the editorial source of most of the bad, bigoted and malicious journalism done at the N&O in the early days of the story.
It was the work of Linda Williams.
Ms Williams, your personal decision to hide CGM's statement to your reporter that she felt that Kim Roberts had robbed her that night was on-it-s-face a wrong decision.
Depriving your readers of a very important part of the story. it was likely motivated solely by your own agenda, Ms Williams.
Bad enough.
But worse is your arrogant unwillingness to own up to your mistakes. That is a very bad sign, Ms Williams. It makes people wonder what else you are hiding.
On this story, you rate an F. Poor show.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=326&st=0&#entry4273946
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.