Will Nifong go after bloggers?

"We need a FAQ for this"

That's a good idea. It's a place we could direct newcomers or others not familiar with the case.

Actually, it is probably true that some significant fraction of Monk voters turned out to vote for Monks and would not have voted were the choice Nifong v. Cheek. So while the numbers appear to say that Monks clearly allowed Nifong to win, that may not be true.

There is DNA evidence that supposedly identified 3 of the accused as the perpetrators...

What are you basing this on?

Consider the possibilities:

1) The rumor's true and Nifong thinks he has the power to assault the 1st amendment in this fashion. He's a loon and he loses.

2) It's partly true, in that he wants the rumors out there to have a chilling effect but doesn't really have a way to enforce it.

3)It's partly false: He leaks the rumor knowing he's got squat but just to bait someone from making a statement that could be considered a violent or death threat. He goes after that (or the site that hosted it) either really or just for the press.

4)It's totally false: Not even this arrogant jerk would consider assailing the 1st amendment.

I think the last sentence of #1 pretty much says it.

Disgusting and disturbing. Par for the course.

The first ammendment bars a law prohibiting private sector individuals from publishing the name of any involved in a public case. What the rape shield law terminology means is shielding the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness from being evidence in a rape case.

Some states include in their "rape shield" law an order for the courts to redact the name of the complaining witness in a rape case from public court documents. Thus, you can still publish Mangum's name if you want, but they legal system is not going to give her name to you.

(And for my money, Reynolds makes the best foil.)

That crap is aluminum, not tin.

For aluminum foil to work, the outer, shiny, side MUST be coated with a film of mercury.

Saw that security box. I closed it. Didn't pop up again. But, it was odd to see. Anyone find out where it came from?

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/11/nifong-and-black-vote.html

Very very sad, but I wonder what percentage of the voters in those precincts voted straight Dim?

Lawyers: Nifong right pick for DA

By John Stevenson and Tara McLaughlin : The Herald-Sun, Nov 9, 2006 : 12:45 am ET

DURHAM -- Several lawyers linked to the Duke lacrosse rape case -- ground zero in the bitterly contested Durham County district attorney election -- offered conciliatory remarks about Mike Nifong the day after he bested two challengers.

And a UNC expert in political behavior said Nifong didn't create racial tensions with his handling of a case that involved gang rape accusations by a black N.C. Central University woman against three white lacrosse players from Duke.

"Rifts are rarely created," said sociology professor Andrew Perrin. "They're just exposed."

The issue, he said, reveals something about the way Durham works and the relationship between Duke and Durham.

"It's a problem in all kinds of places where you have elite universities in the midst of working class cities," he said.

Perrin said the overwhelming support Nifong got in majority black districts -- he swept them all -- is likely a matter of roots.

"People see the news and they see the world very differently based on the experiences they've had," Perrin said.

"The understanding for those who think the accuser is mostly a victim is that she has been railroaded and been given a pounding by the white community and the media," he said. "And [they think] the right thing to do is to support her and to take her accusation seriously."

Despite the two-pronged effort to oust him, Nifong won with 49.1 percent of the vote, beating County Commissioner Lewis Cheek at 39.2 percent and write-in candidates -- notably local Republican Party Chairman Steve Monks -- at 11.6 percent.

Meanwhile, lawyers were nearly back to business as usual in the county courthouse Wednesday, discussing the district attorney race and the national congressional elections with equal enthusiasm.

"I believe the right person won," attorney Kerry Sutton said of the local campaign. "While I disagree with Mike's handling of the lacrosse case, he had a right to take the stance he did, and he is doing his job. If I ever mess up a case myself, I hope people won't judge my entire career based on that case alone."

Sutton, who has done some work for lacrosse rape defendant David Evans and who also represents an unindicted Duke lacrosse player, said she thought outsiders had meddled too much in the district attorney race.

"The fact that people from around the nation put their noses and money into the politics of Durham kind of skewed people's perspectives on what goes on here and what should go on here," Sutton added. "I don't think that's appropriate."

Lawyer James D. "Butch" Williams, representing another unindicted lacrosse player, said Wednesday he thought Nifong's election was "a good thing." "The citizens of Durham have voted, and it's time to move on," he said. "People didn't judge him [Nifong] on just one case. The DA's race is bigger than the lacrosse case. People who saw the election as a one-case issue underestimated the voters."

Attorney Bob Nauseef also applauded Tuesday's election results.

"I'm excited because I know how hard Mike has worked throughout his career," said Nauseef. "He's a hard-working, honest prosecutor."

Nauseef is employed by the same law firm as Freda Black, a former Durham prosecutor who unsuccessfully challenged Nifong in a May Democratic primary election, and who recently threw her support behind Cheek.

"Without knowing the full facts on the Duke lacrosse case, I think a lot of people have rushed to be judgmental of Mike," Nauseef said. "But I think he will be a good, competent DA for the next four years."

The Duke campus looked starkly different Wednesday from the days leading up to Election Day.

There was relative quiet where students previously rallied against Nifong.

Before the elections, students had carried signs, posted fliers and even spray-painted an overpass on the road to East Campus showing their support for Cheek. But in the end, Duke students failed to sway the election.

"It's disappointing," said Martha Brucato, a 19-year-old Duke sophomore. "A lot of things happened that shouldn't have and now it seems like [the defendants] might not have done it. It seems like [Nifong] just wanted to make a case."

Brucato didn't cast a ballot in the Durham races. She said she did not change her registration because she was more concerned about issues in her home state of Virginia.

But across town at NCCU, where the accuser in the case was enrolled, some people were disappointed for another reason.

Jennifer Augello, a recent NCCU graduate, said she voted against Nifong because "he took it too far, too fast. He didn't get all his ducks in a row" -- and now the case is in trouble, she said.

She thinks most of the students at NCCU support the accuser's case.

The Cheek campaign, fueled largely by dissatisfaction over the lacrosse case, was officially billed as a "recall-Nifong" effort. But Cheek had vowed not to serve if elected, meaning the governor would have had to appoint a replacement for him.

According to Cheek, Monks was a "spoiler" in the movement to unseat Nifong. Monks, who ran on an unaffiliated write-in basis, denied the allegation. And unlike Cheek, he said, he would have taken the job of district attorney if voters had chosen him.

The lacrosse case revolves around three young men -- Evans, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann -- who are accused in the rape case of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.

But Nifong critics contend he unfairly rushed to judgment, getting the three indicted before he had sufficient evidence, and before he knew that DNA testing would not be on his side.

Because of the lacrosse incident, the district attorney campaign aroused such fervor nationwide that some poll workers journeyed from out of state to help Cheek.

At Cheek's home voting precinct on Barbee Chapel Road, a Kansas woman carried a Cheek sign Tuesday and heckled a Herald-Sun reporter over what she perceived to be his pro-Nifong news coverage.

"You ought to be ashamed of yourself," she declared.

The lacrosse case was much on voters' minds this week.

Retired UNC professor Bob McClelland said he didn't like Nifong's handling of the case but still favored Nifong over Cheek.

"I really do not like what Lewis Cheek is doing," he added. "He's taking away my vote, disenfranchising me. And Monks is a spoiler as far as I'm concerned."

McClelland said he backed Nifong because "he has had a track record for years. He's done good work. To judge him solely on the basis of the lacrosse case would be a mistake. Democracy is sloppy. I think the truth will ultimately come out. We can't expect perfection from a system when we're surrounded by imperfections."

Duke professor Peter Euben said much the same.

"I think Mr. Nifong made some mistakes," he said. "But I also know it [the lacrosse incident] was an incredibly fraught situation. Did he do an exemplary job? No. Would I have done any better? No. To take that one particular case and blow it up as if it's the whole world is wrong. It would be a mistake to make too much of it."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-786533.html

That, or they foolishly were led to believe (by Monks) that Monks could actually win, which I think is the more likely case.

What was that all about, Sue? For those of us well out of the area, we didn't see or hear about whatever incident you're speaking of.

Thanks.

Rape shield laws do NOT protect the identity of the accuser. That is a misnomer, although there have been a few efforts or at least some talk at different times in different states to enact such a law that didn't amount to much.

Rape shield laws protect a woman's sexual conduct from being introduced as evidence unless it is directly related to the source of physical evidence found on her, such as injuries, semen or other forms of DNA, etc., in the rape case at hand.

Yes, unless it is directly related to evidence introduced as to the rape that's been charged.

There isn't even any evidence of a crime having been committed, which is what the entire case is actually about and the reason Liefong won't interview Mangum.

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/508260.html

Nifong benefited from a split
Benjamin Niolet and Anne Blythe, Staff Writers
DURHAM - Mike Nifong won the election for district attorney Tuesday even though more people voted against the incumbent prosecutor than voted for him.

In the three-way race, preliminary voting results show that Nifong had countywide support, though it was sometimes tepid.

Nifong's handling of a rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players and his behavior were key issues for many voters, but not all had hard-line positions on the case.

"My view was that I would vote for any Democrat, and that's what I did," said John Mercer, a Duke biology professor registered to vote at Lakewood Elementary School near Duke's West Campus.

Voters at Mercer's precinct cast 45 percent of their ballots for Nifong.

Nifong, on the ballot as a Democrat, received 26,116 votes or 49 percent, according to unofficial results that exclude provisional ballots.

County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, a Democrat on the ballot as an unaffiliated candidate, received 20,875 votes, or 39 percent.

Voters cast 6,193 write-in votes, and Durham's election director said that all but about 300 went for official write-in candidate Steve Monks, a Republican.

After the results came in Tuesday, Nifong said he knew the community was divided but he would strive to be above the fray.

"You don't have to like somebody to treat them fairly," he said. "As far as I'm concerned I'm doing my job the right way. ... I will continue to do what I believe to be the right thing to do."

Cheek vs. Monks

Nifong critics who rallied behind Cheek blamed Monks for siphoning votes.

Monks speculated that his votes would have gone to Nifong, saying his supporters were reluctant to vote for Cheek, who had promised he would not accept the job if he won. That outcome would have forced the governor to appoint someone.

The campaign was unusual in a county accustomed to quiet contests for district attorney. But the rape allegations by an escort service dancer and N.C. Central University student against three lacrosse players turned a spotlight on the election.

The national media have portrayed Durham as a racially volatile powder keg ignited by the rape case. The indicted lacrosse players are white, and the accuser is black.

In October, Durham County had more than 54,000 registered black voters and more than 81,300 registered white voters.

Race appeared to play a part in the election, but it is unclear how the lacrosse case steered voters.

Nifong received 80 percent of the vote in 13 precincts where black registered voters far outnumber whites, according to Durham County Board of Election statistics.

In the 12 precincts where Nifong received less than 35 percent of the vote, white registered voters far outnumber blacks with one exception -- a polling place where many Duke students vote went heavily for Nifong but has a relatively diverse racial breakdown of registered voters.

W.I. Patterson Recreation Center gave Cheek his biggest margin with 68 percent of the vote. But across town at the Shepard Magnet School just south of the historically black NCCU, nearly all voters -- 96 percent -- turned out for Nifong.

Throughout Durham County, racially diverse precincts split more evenly.

(Staff writer Michael Biesecker contributed to this report.)
Staff writer Benjamin Niolet can be reached at 919-956-2404 or bniolet@newsobserver.com.
Staff writer Michael Biesecker contributed to this report.

The ballots are in -- students pick Nifong, Price

By KELLY HINCHCLIFFE, The Herald-Sun
November 8, 2006 10:24 pm

DURHAM -- If Tuesday's election was decided by kids in Durham, District Attorney Mike Nifong and U.S. Congressman David Price, D-N.C., need not have fretted -- both still would have won.

But Nifong would have won by a larger margin and Price by a smaller one.

More than 2,600 Durham students voted Tuesday for their favorite candidates as part of "Kids Voting," a national, non-partisan program that educates students about democracy.

Nearly 56 percent of students who participated voted for Nifong, while only 49 percent of adults voted for him for real.

Nifong's foe, Lewis Cheek, also received more support from students but not enough to make him the winner. More than 42 percent of kids wanted him to be the new district attorney, while only 39 percent of adults felt the same way.

Nearly 2 percent of kids chose to write in a candidate for the DA race.

Price was less popular among kids than adults, but still managed to easily lock in the majority of the students' vote. More than 61 percent of kids voted for Price, while about 76 percent of adults picked the veteran incumbent. Price's challenger, Republican Steve Acuff, received more than 38 percent of the kids' votes and nearly 24 percent from the adults.

Being able to cast a vote -- even if it didn't count -- was a huge thrill for the students, according to Julie Moushon, a "Kids Voting" volunteer and PTA member at Southwest Elementary School.

"It's really important for all the kids to get a chance," she said.

"Kids Voting" in Durham had one of its largest turnouts during the 2004 presidential election. Democrat John Kerry won the kids' support, taking 3,895 votes to George W. Bush's 1,663.

Other winners in previous kids' elections included Gov. Mike Easley, who totaled 3,049 votes to Republican challenger Patrick Ballantine's 1,469 and Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, who inched out a victory over Richard Burr by only 267 votes.

"Kids Voting" is in more than 20 counties around the state, and has been in Durham for six years -- most recently run by the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce. It is now part of the Durham Center of the N.C. Cooperative Extension.

Donna Rewalt, a program coordinator at the cooperative extension, said her group acquired the program recently and had to put the event together quickly. Even with the late start, the vote went smoothly, she said.

"The board of elections was gracious in working with us," Rewalt said. "Our objective was not to interfere or get in their way."

At 35 precincts, kids could vote within feet of adults doing the real thing. Rewalt said she enjoyed going through the kids' ballots, because some students added personal touches.

"One child wrote, 'I hope you can help my school,' " she said.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-786453.html

Voters divided on lacrosse case

The Herald-Sun
November 8, 2006 8:05 pm
Mike Nifong was elected district attorney Tuesday in a tighter than expected race that saw challenger Lewis Cheek take 39 percent of the vote in spite of his pledge not to accept the job if elected.

Cheek's very respectable showing, coupled with write-in candidate Steve Monks winning 11.6 percent of the vote, stopped Nifong from capturing a majority of the votes cast in the race. With Cheek and Monks receiving slightly more than 50 percent of the votes, the anti-Nifong camp was left to wonder what might have been had they united behind a single candidate who was willing to serve.

It is worth noting that Nifong didn't receive a majority of the votes because the DA's race had become a referendum on his handling of the controversial rape case involving three Duke lacrosse players charged with sexually assaulting an exotic dancer during a wild off-campus party in March. Had Nifong gotten a majority of the votes, it would have been a symbolic nod of approval from a community torn over his decision to prosecute the case.

But the fact that more people voted against Nifong than for him shows clearly that the rape case, which has received unimaginable national attention, was weighing heavily on the minds of Durham voters when they entered the polls on Tuesday. And it appears that many more voters than we suspected, and perhaps more than Nifong suspected, have taken issue with the way he has handled the case.

Fair enough.

It can be argued credibly, and Nifong has admitted, that the case hasn't been handled flawlessly. But a court of law is the best place to weigh the merits of the case, whether a judge is evaluating it on procedural grounds or whether a jury winds up assessing the evidence on its way to a verdict. That is how our system resolves difficult questions such as those in this case.

Furthermore, with an upcoming trial that is sure to draw major media attention, it would be better for the players to have an opportunity to prove their innocence at trial. If Nifong were to dismiss the case now, the suspicion would linger that influence and money played a role.

The best course for all concerned is to continue down the current path to trial, and we hope, to justice.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-786404.html