Posted on 10/27/2006 5:00:15 AM PDT by abb
Nifong to give up more documents to defense
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun October 26, 2006 9:44 pm
DURHAM -- District Attorney Mike Nifong today will give defense lawyers about 2,000 additional pages of information about the Duke University lacrosse rape case -- the largest single batch of documentation he has surrendered so far.
Nifong turned over some 1,800 pages of information in one previous court hearing and another 615 pages last month.
After they receive today's batch, defense attorneys will have roughly 4,500 pages of documentation about the case that has polarized Durham, brought intense national publicity to the community and sparked a movement to oust Nifong as chief prosecutor.
In addition to paperwork, defense lawyers will receive 3 DVDs from Nifong today. Among other things, they reportedly contain e-mails generated by Duke students and lacrosse players.
The information will be surrendered in a hearing before Judge Osmond Smith, who was specially assigned by the N.C. Supreme Court to shepherd the controversial lacrosse case to completion.
Three suspects in the case, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans, are not required to be present today. They are free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to occur next year.
The three are accused of raping and sodomizing an exotic dancer during an off-campus lacrosse party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
All have professed their innocence.
Other than the surrender of information by Nifong, no major developments are expected during today's hearing.
"I don't think anyone knows exactly what will happen, but I don't believe there will be much to it," said one lawyer, asking not to be identified.
Critical defense motions in the case have yet to be heard, but they will not be argued today.
Among other things, those motions accuse police of misleading a judge to obtain a search warrant, and of devising an unconstitutional photo lineup -- a lineup that allegedly was too suggestive because it included only pictures of Duke lacrosse players.
Several national television pundits, along with a host of Internet chatters, have blasted Nifong for allegedly rushing to judgment in the case and getting the three suspects indicted on insufficient evidence.
In addition, the lacrosse incident is responsible for an anti-Nifong movement in the Nov. 7 election.
Voters are being urged to cast their ballots for County Commissioner Lewis Cheek as part of an effort to recall Nifong.
However, Cheek has said he would not serve as district attorney if elected, meaning the governor would have to choose a replacement for him.
Another anti-Nifong faction is led by local Republican Party Chairman Steve Monks, who is running for the chief prosecutor's seat on an unaffiliated write-in basis.
Monks said in an interview this week that a combined oust-Nifong effort would be better than two fragmented ones.
"It is probable that one of us has to withdraw," he said. "It has to happen. Someone has to be the frontrunner for the anti-Nifong movement. Otherwise, Mike will continue to be DA?. I can't scream from the highest mountain loudly enough that we need a combined effort."
And Charlotte Woods, a campaign leader for Monks, said she had told Cheek "a multiplicity of times" that Monks would withdraw from the race if Cheek agreed to serve as district attorney if elected.
"We have made it plain over and over again," she said. "We've told him and told him."
But Cheek said Thursday that, "Service as DA is not an option for me."
He said he made it clear earlier that responsibilities to partners and employees prevented him from leaving his private law firm
"Nothing has changed," he added.
Meanwhile, Nifong said Thursday that he continued to stand by the rape case, and he denied he was responsible for polarizing the community.
"This particular case has not divided the community," he said. "It has pointed to divisions that already existed. It is a signal to us that we need to address these underlying divisions."
Nifong would not be specific, but he apparently referred to town-gown issues and racial issues, among others.
The accuser in the rape case is black. The three suspects are white.
"Another prosecutor might make the case go away, but he can't make the underlying issues go away," said Nifong.
The district attorney, who has been a prosecutor in Durham for 27 years and head of his office since April 2005, said he wasn't withering under a storm of adverse criticism about the lacrosse incident.
"It's the difference between character and reputation," he said. "Character is what you are. Reputation is what people say you are. As long as you know who you are, you don't have to worry over what people say about you. ?
"I might be better off if I wasn't DA," Nifong acknowledged. "It certainly would be less stressful. But this is a path I have chosen to take in my life. I'm seeing some of the not-so-fun part of the job right now, but you can't take a job and just do it when it's easy and fun. URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-782289.html
Monks counts himself in for DA
By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
October 28, 2006 12:09 am
DURHAM -- Write-in district attorney candidate Steve Monks offered hypothetical statistics Friday to show he might be able to pull more votes in the Nov. 7 election than current chief prosecutor Mike Nifong or County Commissioner Lewis Cheek.
If Cheek threw his support behind Monks, then Monks might capture 52 percent of the ballots compared with Nifong's 46 percent, the statistics indicated.
For such a result to actually occur, Monks would have to get a quarter of the votes that otherwise would have gone to Cheek, he conceded.
In addition, Monks said he would need to draw 15 percent of undecided voters while Nifong drew only 10 percent.
Monks presented the hypothetical situation during a news conference aimed at consolidating two anti-Nifong camps -- his and Cheeks' -- into one.
The oust-Nifong factions are motivated largely by dissatisfaction over his handling of the Duke University lacrosse rape case.
"I have concluded that it is improbable that either Lewis Cheek or I will prevail if both of us stay in the race," Monks said. "The only real question is, who should withdraw?"
Monks said he would step aside if it could be established that Cheek had a better chance of drawing more votes, and if Cheek would promise to serve if elected.
But Cheek, whose name will be on the ballot anyway, has said he would not take the district attorney's job because of responsibilities to his law partners and employees. In an interview this week, he vowed not to change his mind.
So if Cheek won the election, the governor would have to appoint a replacement for him.
"I would not have undertaken this write-in campaign had Mr. Cheek agreed to serve if elected, and I will still withdraw my candidacy if Mr. Cheek publicly agrees to serve if elected," Monks said.
"The idea of 'vote Cheek -- recall Nifong' is interesting," he added. "However, it is unpalatable to me and many other Durham voters. People are very conflicted. Many want to replace the current DA, but they don't want the governor to appoint their DA. They want to vote for their DA."
Monks, a Houston native who has lived in Durham four years, is chairman of the local Republican Party but is running for office on an unaffiliated basis.
A recently released WRAL/News & Observer poll of 600 likely voters showed him at the bottom of the three-way pack, with only 2 percent of the ballots. The same poll gave Nifong 46 percent and Cheek 28 percent, with 24 percent of the people surveyed undecided.
But Monks on Friday unveiled another poll of 1,000 likely voters that he said was conducted by John L. Barker Strategies of Union County.
That poll, reportedly finished before Monks began a media campaign, showed Nifong with 27 percent of the votes, Cheek with 25 percent and Monks with 22 percent. Twenty-six percent of the people surveyed were undecided.
"If the real objective of the Cheek campaign is to replace Mr. Nifong, they will withdraw and support my campaign ...," said Monks. "It is exceedingly important to replace Mr. Nifong. There is reason to get together and unite."
But leaders of the Cheek movement were having nothing of it Friday.
Jackie Brown, a Cheek consultant, said she was so put off by Monks' remarks that she canceled a meeting between the two camps that had been scheduled for Friday afternoon.
"Any further discussions are meaningless," she said.
Beth Brewer, chairperson for the Cheek faction, agreed.
"We're staying right where we are," she said. "I don't think Steve Monks can win. I don't think his campaign will do what our campaign is designed to do."
According to Brewer, too much has been made of the fact that a vote for Cheek would be a vote for an unknown, since Cheek won't serve.
"I believe our governor would not appoint someone who would disappoint us or embarrass him," she said.
Brewer also blasted Monks' hypothetical statistics as meaningless.
"I'm an accountant," she said. "Anybody can go through the numbers and come up with any numbers they want."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-782629.html
Astouding.
And to believe that he did call her to ask her about the Ecstasy and never asked her about the rape is incredulously preposterous.
He is insane. And I am serious. He has a personality disorder, IMO.
I am hard pressed to believe that the citizens of Durham are going to AFFIRM this DA come Election Day.
If they do, in the face of ALL the things we have read and seen published, maybe what people say about Durham is true.
It's ridiculous to say that if you talk to a defendant and he tells you he's innocent you can be called as a witness. First of all, the fact that a defendant tells someone he's innocent isn't evidence. The jury already knows the defendant is claiming he's innocent otherwise there wouldn't be a trial.
Second, discussions between DAs, defense lawyers and defendants go on all the time. For example, plea bargaining is common - even during a trial. According to Nifong one side could call the other - for example the defense could call a prosecutor to the stand and make him tell the jury he offered the defendant a lesser charge. Or the prosecutor could call the defense lawyer to say that he had his client think about pleading guilty to a lesser charge. All plea negotiations are impossible in Nifong's world. The fact is that these conversations go on all the time and they aren't admissable in front of a jury for public policy reasons. The system wants to facilitate cooperation and communication between lawyers.
"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," District Attorney Mike Nifong said."
This is a fascinating statement. Think about it.
Yeah, it's comical. Liefong has been the lead investigator almost since the case began, but he's never spoken to the start witness.
Okay. Sure.
Maybe the Durham natives whose jobs disappeared due to the changing face of industry there should have learned some new skills instead of just standing there like a deer in the headlights watching it happen.
Video:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2134726n
Duke Rape Case Update
H.P. Thomas, an ex-manager at a strip club where the accuser danced, says that two weeks after the alleged rape she performed normally, despite complaining of severe pain to police and hospital staff.
Well I trail you by only a few years and can confirm all you say. And, lord help me, I got the Sgt. Carter reference right away.
"The newspaper does not name people listed on police reports as victims of sexual assaults."
They still can't get it right. Now they're hiding behind the fact that the police listed her as a "victim".
Hoving lived in Durham in the late 70's and early 80's, I have always defended Durham from the critiicism and snobbery from those in Raleigh and Chapel Hill. I've already stopped doing that and if Durham doesn't have the sense to throw out Nifong then I'll have been pushed firmly into the other camp.
ltc, that could explain a lot about the pictures. I just did not remember reading that back in April. It would be hard to believe that with 30 to 40 young men there that at least one video camera would not have been present.
Thank heaven the facts are coming out. These young men will be vindicated but the pain for the families, the community will take a long long time to heal.
My thought when I read that statement was where are her children that someone has to inquire about her seeing them. Sounds to me like she can only see them occasionally. Maybe restricted to certain days of the week and limited hours. Just my thoughts.
And what about the Fonger being a week late in turning over the discovery? What's that all about? Is Smif just gonna sit still and take it?
Forgot the hat tip: Liestoppers.
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.