Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nifong to give up more documents to defense (DukeLax)
Durham Herald-Sun ^ | October 27, 2006 | John Stevenson

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


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; durham; lacrosse; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-430 next last
To: xoxoxox
If Nifong were to be defeated in the November 7 election, his successor might choose to dismiss the indictments; but he would probably be deterred from doing so by the likelihood of criticism for “being insensitive to the right of women and African-Americans.”

No idiot Duke PC law prof, other people are not as self constrained by PC concerns as you and a legit DA could and would drop these charges without giving the slightest concern about your idiot concerns.
381 posted on 10/29/2006 9:45:05 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Neverforget01
I don't see her as credible at all.

That is LIEfong's problem, although at this stage I don't think he cares. All he has to do is inflame local racial tensions even further and he has his conviction.

It will be overturned, but I see a conviction in this case, regardless of facts. That's how little I think of the craphole called Durham. I spent the entire month of July there this summer. Been there, seen it, hate it. Godspeed to those lacrosse players. They need it.
382 posted on 10/29/2006 9:49:42 PM PST by Carling (It's Danny, Sir)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox; All
Duke Bombshell -- the second dancer in the Duke lacrosse case shares startling details in an exclusive interview. Monday, only on GMA.

The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be something we have not discussed here earlier. Remember the big news this weekend was Nifong not having discussed the case with Mangum which we have been discussing since at least 1 October.
383 posted on 10/29/2006 9:52:51 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Protect the Bill of Rights

So that is another name for the Church of Secular Humanism? :-)


384 posted on 10/29/2006 9:53:46 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle
These are all good points. Nevertheless, none of them make it OK for the state to destroy someone's financial situation just because they think he committed a crime.

I'm guessing that most FReepers must be pretty wealthy people from what I'm seeing. But for a poor guy like me, 5 grand for a lawyer would pretty much put me in a cardboard box for shelter. The state simply should not get away with something like that due to an honest mistake. It's that simple.
385 posted on 10/29/2006 9:58:54 PM PST by JamesP81 (Rights must be enforced; rights that you're not allowed to enforce are rights that you don't have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

trust me....we'ver not rich.....5 grand would set us back ....


386 posted on 10/29/2006 10:02:03 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: JLS

"The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be
something we have not discussed here earlier."

We have looked many things this past summer
and found much- never yet to be reported in the MSM,
such as ADA Couch, he/she Jakki, and the many
jailings of the FA's friends.

Devastation in this book would be the revelation
that Nikki and Precious were on a DNA collecting
mission from the get go.


387 posted on 10/29/2006 10:10:36 PM PST by xoxoxox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Kim's opinions as to whether there was a rape have flip flopped but I actually think her first handwritten police statement was fairly truthful. She left a few things out - the argument about money for one, but I think it was fairly close to the truth.


388 posted on 10/29/2006 10:27:12 PM PST by SarahUSC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: xoxoxox

Did Nifong's wife speak to the accuser?


389 posted on 10/29/2006 10:35:35 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
I have given up hope that anything could be "devastating" to the prosecution at this point in time. The DNA didn't do it. Judge Stevens didn't do anything about detectives lying in affidavits. And judge Smith hasn't been any better. If Nifong gets reelected I am afraid I am just going to have to step away from this case for a while. I keep waiting for people to do the right thing and end this mess but it doesn't happen. It is really wearing on me.
390 posted on 10/29/2006 10:36:47 PM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
"I believe someone has explained the penalty for perjury"

Perjury applies only during sworn testimony in a trial, not what she tells the press.

391 posted on 10/29/2006 10:41:11 PM PST by El Gran Salseron (The FR Canteen's World-Famous, Resident, Equal-Opportunity Male-Chauvinist-Pig! Got it? :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: JLS
The odds are only 50-50 at best that this will be something we have not discussed here earlier.

I think your right.

392 posted on 10/29/2006 10:42:28 PM PST by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

Perhaps Kim will tell us about Crystal's 12:26 phone call...

That could be devastating info.


393 posted on 10/29/2006 10:42:47 PM PST by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I guess Roberts could reveal that the two of them used drugs or drank in the car before going in? I guess she could reveal what they did between leaving the house and arriving at the Kroger parking lot.


394 posted on 10/29/2006 11:06:51 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Neverforget01

Perhaps she resolved her own criminal case for violation of probation and now has a freer hand - shed Liefong's yoke, so to speak.


395 posted on 10/30/2006 1:15:41 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: Neverforget01

Kim would not be that difficult to rehabilitate as a witness.


396 posted on 10/30/2006 1:16:52 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: JLS

The idiot who wrote that piece made not one mention of any consideration for what these boys and their families have been put through. I know the focus was what will happen next, but he rambled on long enough about PC crap, the election, and so on, such that perhaps he could have squeezed in one note or two about the devastating and life-long impact these boguc charges will have on the boys, their families, and future rape victims.


397 posted on 10/30/2006 1:20:29 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: JamesP81

You'd be entitled to a free attorney, in that case.

Believe it or not, most DAs don't bring charges frivolously or because they "think" someone committed a crime. They bring all manner of evidence to support the charges, and the role of the defense is to test that evidence.

The laws of NC, Liefong's pitiful career and aspirations, racist organizations and weak leadership at Duke and throughout the county made this all possible. The indicting grand jury requirement for threshold felonies coupled with no probable cause/pretrial hearing process and no Sixth Amendment protections are what has allowed this to go on this far. Liefong has no crime to prosecute, and only under such a system as they have in NC could such a non-case get to this point. The real legal issue underlying this that should be discussed separately from the defendants and the anti-white racial biases running Durham and the election and Liefong and Gottlieb and the whole nine yards is the fact that no crime occurred. It isn't that no crime occurred because these boys have alibis, and it isn't that no crime occurred because there is no other evidence against these boys. It's the fact that there is no evidence of a crime occurring at all, and that is the fatal flaw in this entire fiasco.


398 posted on 10/30/2006 1:33:27 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: pepperhead

Same for me.

I think I'm living in America and then I think about this case. I've seen some ugly things happen in the system to be sure, but nothing even close to this. It's astonishing, but NC's system was made to order for this to happen, so I guess I shouldn't be astonished.


399 posted on 10/30/2006 1:36:24 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: El Gran Salseron

True, but it also includes sworn affidavits made under penalty of perjury.

But aside from that, if Kim goes on TV and tells one story and then tells a a completely different story on the witness stand, she can and will be impeached by what she said to the media, so it DOES matter what she says. Kim recently went through her own court case for violationj of probation for not paying her restitution for the embezzlement charge she was convicted of. Looking at her now, my guess is that she got some good legal advice on how to handle this matter as well.


400 posted on 10/30/2006 1:40:45 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420421-430 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson