Duke's Rush To Judgment (Durham, The Massachusetts Of North Carolina Rape Injustice Case Alert)

Frontpage Interview's guest today is KC Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. With a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University, he specializes in 20th century U.S. political, constitutional, and diplomatic history. He writes a blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, which offers comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case.

FP: Kindly summarize briefly for our readers what this case involving the three Lacrosse students is about.

Johnson: This is the story of how a case virtually devoid of evidence, constructed upon a tissue of procedural irregularities, nonetheless has lurched forward. At a March team party at an off-campus house rented by three lacrosse captains, one captain hired two exotic dancers to perform. After leaving the party, which ended sourly, an African-American dancer with a criminal record and a history of false allegations (including an unpursued claim that three men raped her a decade ago) claimed to have been raped to prevent being involuntarily committed at Durham Access Center. After going through multiple stories, the accuser eventually settled on a claim of a violent gang rape by three players (with three others, who were never charged or in any way identified, serving as accomplices). The rape, she alleged, lasted a half hour; and at least two of her attackers, who she said didn't wear condoms, ejaculated.

Although the second dancer contradicted her account in virtually every way; the team captains gave statements to police, without their lawyers present, denying the allegations and voluntarily turned over to police DNA samples and their e-mail account passwords; and although the team captains offered to take lie detector tests (an offer the police spurned); and no DNA matches of any sort between any player and the accuser's DNA appeared; and although an original photo line-up of the players found the accuser unable to identify her alleged attackers, D.A. Mike Nifong eventually indicted three players, including one, Reade Seligmann, whose attorney produced a videotape of him more than a mile away, at an ATM machine, at the time of the alleged crime.

FP: Let's talk about District Attorney Mike Nifong's conduct. What is your angle on it and why has the legal community and most of the media been so quiet about it?

Johnson: Nifong's conduct in this case is the most unethical of any district attorney I have ever seen; I cannot recall a case in the last 15-20 years in which this many procedural violations were known at this stage of the process.

This is a man who violated multiple provisions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct simply to get a case. His most damaging violation was ordering the Durham Police not to follow their own procedures in the line-up that resulted in the identification of the three players charged. The procedures required five filler photos per every suspect; Nifong told police to confine the line-up to suspects—members of the lacrosse team.

The media, of course, were not initially quiet: led by the New York Times, early coverage all but had the players tried and convicted. The case fit into a comfortable narrative for a liberal media elite of out-of-control wealthy white athletes violating a poor African-American woman. As the case has collapsed, most media—with the crucial exception of the Raleigh News & Observer and CBS's 60 Minutes—abandoned interest in the affair, rather than revisiting their early flawed reporting. The New York Times, meanwhile, published a widely ridiculed August article that read more like a public relations piece for Nifong than a piece of journalism. The article contained four out-and-out errors of fact, all of which tilted the story in favor of the prosecution, and all of which the Times refused to correct.

FP: What has been the overall reaction of the Duke faculty and administration? What is your take on it?

Johnson: In the first week of the investigation (March 16-23), Duke administrators actively assisted the state. Without informing President Richard Brodhead, administrators demanded from the captains a candid account of the evening's events, allegedly citing a non-existent "student-faculty" privilege to encourage the captains to disclose any criminal activity. Multiple sources told me that Coach Mike Pressler, apparently acting on orders from above, instructed the other players not to tell their parents about the police inquiry. Meanwhile, Dean Sue Wasiolek arranged for a local lawyer, Wes Covington, to act as a "facilitator" in arranging for a group meeting with police.

After Nifong began his publicity barrage on March 27, faculty leftists became involved. Houston Baker, a professor of English and Afro-American Studies, issued a public letter denouncing the "abhorrent sexual assault, verbal racial violence, and drunken white male privilege loosed amongst us" and demanding the "immediate dismissals" of "the team itself and its players." Then, on April 6, 88 members of Duke's arts and sciences faculty signed a public statement saying "thank you" to campus demonstrators who had distributed a "wanted" poster of the lacrosse players and publicly branded the players "rapists." To date, not a single member of what has become known as the "Group of 88" has retracted his or her signature or publicly criticized Nifong's procedural violations.

(I started my blog as a response to the Group of 88's statement, which I considered a betrayal of the signatories' duties as faculty members, and only expanded to the case itself as the magnitude of Nifong's procedural misconduct became clear.)

As Brodhead failed to resist his faculty's assault on due process, his actions, whether intended or not, fortified a public image of guilt. On March 25, in an unprecedented move, the president cancelled (at the last minute) the lacrosse team's game against Georgetown, citing underage drinking at the party. Then, on April 5, Brodhead demanded Pressler's resignation, cancelled the lacrosse season, and issued a statement anchored by a lament on the evils of rape—at a time when the players were firmly denying any sexual contact, much less rape. These moves enjoyed enthusiastic support from Board of Trustees chairman Robert Steel. The president later issued a statement urging a trial, on the grounds that it would give the accused players an opportunity to be "proved innocent," in effect turning on its head 220 years of American constitutional history.

Based on the actions and statements of both the faculty and administration, a fair-minded neutral observer could only conclude that Duke's administrators and most outspoken professors believed that a rape occurred.

Johnson: In Nifong's case, the political motivation was straightforward. An appointed district attorney, he was running in the May Democratic primary against two challengers: a well-known white woman, Freda Black, whom he had fired as an assistant district attorney in one of his first acts in office; and a weak black candidate, Keith Bishop. The party's electorate was about evenly divided between white and black voters.

Black was much better known than Nifong (she had helped prosecute a high-profile murder case in 2003), and in mid-February, she seemed on the verge of putting the race away. Nifong started having trouble raising money—he attracted only $1150 in contributions for all March—and, to keep his candidacy alive, he loaned his campaign nearly $30,000. (A lifetime bureaucrat whose wife is a "victims' rights" advocate, Nifong isn't personally wealthy.)

Then came the lacrosse allegation. Nifong took control of the police investigation, gave over 50 interviews that highlighted (in misleading fashion) an alleged racial motive for the alleged crime, and soared in polls. He captured the primary by 881 votes, thanks to robust showings in black precincts.

In the fall campaign, two unaffiliated candidates ran against him: with minimal support from the white community, Nifong again squeaked through, with less than 50%, thanks to overwhelming backing in black precincts. By the fall, he had abandoned all pretences that his motives were anything other than political, stating at one point that his trying the case would address Durham's "underlying divisions," and wildly claiming that his critics considered his prosecution "a threat to their sense of entitlement and that they do not trust a jury of Durham citizens to decide" the case.

FP: How do you think the Duke/Nifong case will turn out? Crystallize for us the main lessons we must all draw from it.

Johnson: Legally, the outcome of the case very much depends on the judge, Osmond Smith. Any judge with integrity would have to suppress the procedurally improper line-up ordered by Nifong and then used to indict the three players; without the results from that line-up, Nifong has no case. There are two other key decisions the judge could make: (1) He could grant a defense motion to force Nifong's refusal from the case, which in effect would dismiss the charges, since it's inconceivable any other prosecutor would try this case; or (2) he could grant a motion for a change of venue, which would effectively ensure an acquittal, since Nifong has constructed his whole case around appealing to biases with Durham's community.

There are myriad lessons we should draw from events of this case, including the following:

Rape law needs modification. Until the 1970s, rape law was far too friendly to the defendant; now it is the reverse. Nifong has done many unethical things in this case, but he has been correct in one assertion: under North Carolina law, a jury can convict solely on the testimony of the accuser and her identifying her alleged assailants. That means that, as a matter of law, Reade Seligmann could be convicted—even Seligmann has electronic and physical evidence that can definitely prove his innocence (he's on videotape a mile away at the time of the alleged crime).

Duke, as an institution, has revealed a hollow moral core. Seven months into a case of what might be the highest-profile example of prosecutorial misconduct in the last decade, two Duke law professors and two Duke arts and sciences professors have publicly criticized Nifong. Meanwhile, Group of 88 members continues to defend their actions, even to the point of making demonstrably false public assertions about the players. Meanwhile, Brodhead has shown himself unwilling or unable to lead the institution, allowing what amounts to a "separate-but-equal" system to be established in Durham, under which Duke students are second-class citizens.

The silence of North Carolina's political and legal establishment regarding Nifong's misconduct is stunning.

The media needs to reconsider how it covers rape cases. To a greater extent than any crime other than child abuse, a presumption of guilt exists.

The next time the NAACP speaks up on behalf of standard procedure in a criminal justice case, the media should ask why the organization betrayed 70 years of its principles on criminal justice issues to give Nifong a pass in this case.

In Durham, North Carolina, a robust constituency exists for the politics of revenge and prosecutorial misconduct.

(From a post at Talk Left :

"I sometimes wonder if this incessant drumbeat of victimhood isn't damaging as much to those who are subjected to it, as to the rest of society.

"To regurgitate Shelby Steele ("White Guilt : How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era"), every failure in the black community must now be treated as a result of injustice on the part of whites; and the remedy to everything--
poor educational results, poor jobs, drugs, gangs, etc.

--is simply for whites to do more to end this injustice. The responsibility for ending any problem thus lies with the white community; they are the ones who must take some kind of action.
The idea that blacks must assume any responsibility for any aspect of their own problems must be rejected, because otherwise blacks would no longer be victims, and the whole culture ethos of modern black society would fall apart.

(Hence there are demands for example in education, not for parental involvement, for studying hard ('too white'), educational skill development, and relentless and repeated practice;
but instead for ebonics, multiculturalism, culturally 'inclusive' classes, advanced placement, simpilfied exams, and 'adjusted' standards. The responsibility for action lies with white society, and there is nothing the black community can do to rescue themselves absent this action.)

And thus, just as no woman ever lies about rape (a world-view would be destroyed if ANY woman could be admitted to lie about sexual assault)
so too any black woman who accuses a white man of rape must become not a potential crime victim, but a symbol of the entire ethos of modern black culture--white oppression; and the 'rape' (if it occured at all) must not be treated as a crime, but as primarily a political act of oppression.

So the players have to be guilty. Just as the nazi world-view would not (could not, lest it deconstruct) admit the possibility of the innocence of any Jew, so too the modern ethos of the AA community cannot admit the possibility that a black woman's accusation against any young white male athlete could not be true.

And that is the atmosphere (a carbon-copy of the 1930s) in which it is insisted that this trial take place--which will not be an impartial rendering of the facts, so much as an act of political theater in which once again black victimhood is exhibited before all the world, in order to justify the victimhood concept yet once again.

(Change of venue, anyone?)

Official 'charity' isn't new [Understanding Durham dysfunction: a rather lengthy history]

Author: Jim Wise; Staff Writer, N&O, May 7, 2005

You gotta hand it to former Durham City Manager Marcia Conner. Out of the job almost a year now, and still costing Bull citizens money.

A veritable executive's executive. Even by Durham standards.

Last month a jury awarded Ava Hinton $1.59 million for her unfair dismissal from the city payroll on Conner's watch. Durham's lawyers wheedled Hinton down to settling for $390,000, but then our City Council agreed to pay Conner's former assistant, Sharon Laisure --- who signed off on Hinton's firing --- $30,736 in severance and unused-vacation pay, even though she has another job in Norfolk, Va.

According to news reports, Laisure had the Norfolk job in hand before she went off Durham's payroll, but apparently thought she had grounds for a lawsuit, thanks to the severance clause put into her contract by Conner, who left office in August under fire but with a reported $164,991.25 of your money and mine to keep her cool.

Marcia the formerly Great and Powerful took a lot of heat during her three years as Durham's CEO, but in these latest cases a charitable soul might cut her a little slack. For there were precedents.

Remember James Tabron, the administrator who made the Durham Housing Authority what it is today? He resigned under fire too, in 2003. He got no severance package, just a few months' consulting work for DHA at $2,576.50 a week.

Talk about "worker's" compensation --- Trevor Hampton had no severance deal either when he left as police chief in 1992. He was under fire too, and left with $20,000 --- three months' pay; however, he was subsequently cleared of allegations a prostitution ring was running through his department.

Hampton was followed by the late Jackie McNeil, who took early retirement in 1997. McNeil had already given up his administrative duties in the wake of sexual-harassment accusations; officers filed two lawsuits against him (eventually dismissed) and the city settled a reported 19 officers' claims for work-related stress during his tenure; meantime, Durham had a record 43 murders in 1996. Since the city counted his military stint as time in Durham's service, McNeil pocketed full retirement benefits, plus $46,602 from a new, temporary city policy that rewarded early retirement.

That policy was devised by then-City Manager Orville Powell, who retired early at the end of 1996 with his own a going-away present of almost $70,000 plus a $30,000 consulting job with the city to help ease his transition.

Earlier, Powell arranged for fired Durham County Manager George Williams to perform an $11,000 survey of the city's cemetery needs. One of his recommendations was using telephone solicitors to hawk burial plots. Williams' brother-in-law is veteran City Council member Howard Clement.

Indeed, in Durham charity is a way of life. Depending, of course, on just whose life you're talking about. Marcia Conner wasn't with us very long, but she sure caught on that, in Du'm, public officials take care of their own.

One house that's long overdue

Jim Wise, Staff Writer, N&O, Nov 18, 2006

Durham County took another step this week toward a new courthouse, exercising its right of eminent domain (not, of course, to be confused with the right of prima nocte) to grab the requisite U-Haul property on Mangum Street.

Latest estimates seem to put the courthouse's price at around $122 million (about twice what was estimated just three years ago) and occupation around 2011. Start dates and completion dates are pretty fluid where our town's public works are concerned. Just think of your favorite pothole. But whenever Durham County's fourth place of doing its business gets finished it will already be 30-some years overdue.

That's because the current courthouse -- aka Judicial Building -- was out of date already when it opened, a year late, in 1978. Or so had said a local committee of the bar, which determined soon after construction was under way that the place wasn't going to be big enough.

So much for good intentions.

It was 119 years ago -- Nov. 17, 1887 -- when Durham began its first courthouse. The state's good Baptists were convening in town (the same town they would declare, less than five years later, was not a fit place for young women and so located their Meredith College in Raleigh), so there was a good crowd on hand when Durham's dignitaries paraded from the Claiborn Hotel (present site of a parking lot at Corcoran Street and the Loop) down Main Street for laying of the cornerstone with all due Masonic solemnity.

Great oratory, of course, was de rigeur, and attorney James S. Manning rose to the occasion thusly:

"We are assembled today to dedicate a temple of Justice. ... to regard as supreme, to revere as sacred, that law which is the protector of our lives, our liberties and our property."

Such sentiments, no doubt, are comforting to U-Haul. Citizens with a decent respect for property rights can only hope it does as well with its 2.3-acre plot by us taxpayers as the Scarborough & Hargett Funeral Home, which got $3.75 million for its 2.17 acres next door.

Property rights aside, the new courthouse can't get there a minute too soon. Not just because the price of steel goes up every time the Chinese build another skyscraper, but because a six-story building ought to help block the Durham Freeway's view of our other temple of Justice, the county jail.

Lawyer Manning spoke of "the majesty of the law." Somehow, when you have to explain why that Stalinesque monstrosity is our town's most prominent landmark, blind justice is a better idea.

http://www.thedurhamnews.com/109/story/13083.html

County settles with funeral home

Author: Eric Ferreri; Staff Writer, N&O, March 14, 2006

DURHAM -- The county avoided a court battle with a longtime local business owner Monday night, agreeing to pay more than $3.7 million for a key piece of downtown property where it will eventually build a new courthouse.

The county will pay $3.75 million for the Scarborough & Hargett Funeral Home property, a coveted piece of real estate on South Roxboro Street. The unanimous approval by the Durham Board of Commissioners ended several months of negotiations and allows the county to avoid taking the land through eminent domain proceedings, which it had planned to do if an agreement wasn't reached.

Eminent domain is a power governments can use to acquire private property to use for the public good.

"Scarborough & Hargett is a unique business, being in this community so long and being moved around [twice before]," said Commissioner Michael Page, who along with Philip Cousin cast the dissenting votes last month when the board decided to move ahead with the eminent domain proceedings. "I certainly didn't want to be the one to make them move."

Officials declined to discuss the negotiating process, but the sale price is significantly higher than a $1.52 million appraisal done recently for the county.

The county actually needs two land parcels to build its next courthouse and has started the legal process by which it plans to take ownership of adjacent land now home to a U-Haul rental agency. U-Haul officials have not responded to the county's attempts to negotiate a purchase price, officials have said.

County officials plan to finalize the purchase later this month, but since the new courthouse project is still in its infancy, the funeral home will be allowed to rent the property for $1 a year and continue operating until September 2007.

The sale price includes costs the funeral home's owner, J.C. "Skeepie" Scarborough, will incur upon closing the business and moving, as well as lost revenue during the transition. It isn't clear where the funeral home will relocate.

"We're just relieved that this process is over in a favorable manner for Mr. Scarborough," said James "Butch" Williams, one of five attorneys on Scarborough's legal team.

[Scarborough & Hargett, founded in 1871 to serve African-Americans, still has deep roots in the community. Before agreeing to buy the property, the county had started legal action against Scarborough & Hargett as well, angering some residents.]

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006611170463

"Xavier basketball player C.J. Anderson won his appeal case before the University Discipline Board and has returned to classes at the university with the potential to rejoin the basketball team.

"He feels real good about it," said his father, Curtis Anderson. "He was vindicated for something he didn't do."

"Anderson was accused of raping a female Xavier student in September according to police reports, but Cincinnati police determined the matter did not warrant charges against Anderson."

Clearly they don't know how to handle things at Xavier.
They didn't fire the basketball coach, they didn't cancel the season, and they let the kid back in the school and on the team.

And as for the police, they need a few lessons from Sgt. Gottlieb on how to really conduct an investigation!

A psalm for Sunday vespers :

(a wild and ecstatic prayer of David)

God! God! I'm running to you for dear life;
the chase is wild.
If they catch me, I'm finished :
ripped to shreds by foes fierce as lions,
dragged into the forest and left
unlooked for, unremembered.

God, if I've done what they say--
betrayed my friends,
ripped off my enemies--
If my hands are really that dirty,
let them get me, walk all over me,
leave me flat on my face in the dirt.

Stand up, God, pit your holy fury
against the fury of my enemies
Wake up, God. My accusers have packed
the courtroom; it's judgment time.
Take your place on the bench, reach for your gavel,
throw out the false charges against me.
I'm ready, confident in your verdict :
"Innocent."

Nobody gets by with anything,
God is already in action--
Sword honed on his whetstone,
bow strung, arrow on the string,
Lethal weapons in hand
each arrow a flaming missile.

See that man shoveling dirt day after day,
digging, then concealing, his man-trap
down that lonely stretch of road?
Go back and look again--you'll see him in it
headfirst,
legs waving in the breeze.
That's what happens :
mischief backfires;
violence boomerangs.

I'm thanking God, who makes things right.
I'm singing the fame of heaven-high God.
(Psalm 7)

IRS files tax lien on lawyer's property

BY RAY GRONBERG, The Herald-Sun
November 20, 2006 12:23 am

DURHAM -- Regulators from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service have filed an $809,110 tax lien against the property of a Durham lawyer who's been active on the local political scene.

The Oct. 25 filing targeted Jerry Clayton, lead partner of Clayton, Myrick, McClanahan & Coulter, a Parrish Street law firm. It sought payment on the unpaid balance of personal income taxes assessed in 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Attempts to reach Clayton for comment Thursday, Friday and Sunday were unsuccessful. But a Duke Law School tax expert, Lawrence Zelenak, said the filing means that IRS officials believe there's no real dispute about whether the taxes are owed.

"The lien means the liability for the tax has already been established, and it's purely a collection matter," Zelenak said. "If the liability was ever in question, the litigation has already been concluded, or maybe he never contested the liability."

Another Duke Law School tax expert, Alan Weinberg, said the IRS files liens after sending a target four or five warning letters over a period of about four months.

The escalating series of warning letters is supposed to give the taxpayer advance notice that the federal agency intends to file the lien and "start looking for assets to seize."

"The right to levy on property is an extremely powerful instrument," said Weinberg, the director of Duke's Low Income Taxpayer Clinic and a former IRS district counsel who from 1981 to 1995 was in charge of all the agency's legal matters in North Carolina.

The IRS filing provided few details about Clayton's liability. It specified that he owed $273,567 for 2002, $245,006 for 2003 and $290,537 for 2004. But it wasn't clear whether those amounts represented unpaid taxes only or also included penalties and interest.

The form did specify that the assessments for the three tax years date respectively from November 2003, May 2006 and November 2005.

Zelenak and Weinberg both said the filing of a lien indicates that IRS officials don't intend to pursue criminal charges against the targeted taxpayer.

"Once they go to collection, they've pretty well made a decision they're not going to do anything criminally," Weinberg said.

A lien is a serious step all by itself.

"You have to either raise the money, or anticipate you'll be losing the property they put the lien on," Zelenak said.

IRS officials filed the lien in the clerk of court's office in Durham County. Records there indicate that Clayton is having trouble with state tax collectors.

The state Department of Revenue filed two "certificates of tax liability" against him on Oct. 4 that seek to collect on a $1,735 balance from 2003 and a $66,097 balance from 2004. The state papers – the legal equivalent of civil judgments – specify that the totals include unpaid income taxes, plus penalties and interest.

Clayton isn't the only member of the Durham bar who's had tax trouble in recent years.

Lawyers Ann and Thomas Loflin pleaded guilty last year to six counts each of willful failure to file state income-tax returns. The charges alleged that they didn't file their returns for the years 1998 to 2003. They received two years' probation. The N.C. Bar Association later suspended their law licenses, but they received conditional stays of those sanctions.

Clayton is a player in the politics of the local bar, mostly as an opponent of Durham's incumbent district attorneys. He and his law partners helped bankroll challenges to former DA Jim Hardin in 1994 and incumbent Mike Nifong this year.

Clayton attended a mid-September political dinner in Raleigh orchestrated by former state attorney general and secretary of state Rufus Edmisten, with several other Nifong opponents who wanted to persuade write-in candidate Steve Monks to drop out of the DA's race so another challenger would have a better chance to win.
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-790636.html

http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
wo reasons why Nifong should drop rape case

Two reasons why District Attorney Mike Nifong should drop the case against the Duke lacrosse players: 1) They may be libertines and stupid for putting themselves in such a compromising position, but they are clearly not guilty of rape and/or assault; and 2) The heavy criticism he continues to receive over his intransigence will give other DAs pause when actual victims make similar accusations.

Two reasons why he won't: 1) He forlornly hopes that by some miracle he'll get a guilty verdict and thus save face; 2) By dragging it out to its inevitable conclusion he wreaks both debilitating and financial havoc upon the accused and their families. Terrible thing, being labeled a sex offender. Innocent or guilty, you're pretty much toast.

David Highlands
St. Petersburg, Fla.
November 20, 2006

Here I am

In response to Dock Terrell's question, [Letters, Nov. 13], this neo-con is down on her knees praying that the Duke lacrosse players receive a fair trial and that our courageous young soldiers did not die in vain.

Paula Mann
Durham
November 20, 2006

Read the record

In response to Laura Blasberg's Nov. 12 letter, the following is an excerpt from Blasberg's personal profile posted at her employer's, a New York law firm, Web site:

"Blasberg's a director of Take Back the News, a charitable organization that confronts the misrepresentation and under representation of sexual assault in mainstream media with the goal of improving both the quantity and quality of media coverage of sexual assault."

Perhaps Blasberg should read all of MSM's (mainstream media's) coverage on the Duke lacrosse case. She will find that the quantity and quality of the reporting in support of the alleged victim in this case has been immense. For months, both local and national media were falling all over each other to report on the alleged atrocities perpetrated upon the alleged victim, completely disregarding the accused's. Only after scientific and medical evidence, witness statements, police reports and the accuser's own varying statements were made public, did MSM begin to question and report on the veracity of this case.

One of the many ironies in this case is that the prosecution, not the defense, seems to be resorting to smoke and mirrors since evidence hoped for didn't materialize.

BETH BREWER
Durham
November 20, 2006

Off-East complaints see sharp drop
With Duke's purchase of 12 houses, Trinity Park residents find life quieter

Victoria Ward, The Chronicle, 11/20/06

Since the University bought 12 houses in Trinity Park, residents have reported fewer student-caused disturbances.

Instead of calling to complain about Duke students hosting loud parties, this year, Trinity Park neighbors are socializing with them.

At the beginning of the semester, senior Max Milliken and his housemates hosted a barbeque to meet their Trinity Park neighbors.

Milliken lives in one of the 12 houses purchased for $3.7 million by the University last February. According to an official statement released last year, the properties were bought in order to curb off-campus partying and improve relations between students and Trinity Park residents.

"The complaints for off campus have gone down dramatically," said Sara-Jane Raines, Duke University Police Department administrative services executive officer.

In addition to purchasing the notorious party houses, the University has done more educational programming with students living off-campus, Raines said.

Administrators have also heard fewer complaints from neighbors who call or e-mail various offices, said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations.

"Especially in light of last year's issues, students have gone out of their way to be nicer to neighbors," Burness said.

Of the 12 properties, four are still being rented by students who had signed leases before the purchase, said Jeff Potter, Trinity '76 and Law '79, the University's director of real estate administration. Although the house formerly owned by members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team is not up for sale, three houses have been sold, two are under contract and two are still on the market.

The purchase of the houses has contributed to the decrease in off-campus partying, but the biggest factor for the smaller number of off-campus citations has been students' fears of being cited by Alcohol Law Enforcement, said Stephen Bryan, associate dean of students and director of judicial affairs.

"In essence, I think that students are being more responsible in their actions off-campus, staying on campus more or engaging in other activities," he said. "Last year's 194 citations by ALE really chilled them and put the fear of God in them."

Milliken and Adam Rothenberg, a senior who also lives in one of the Trinity Park properties, both signed their leases during their sophomore year. Although they were worried about tense student-neighbor relations, both said they have had positive experiences.

"The neighbors on our street have been very cooperative," Milliken said. "Whenever we are planning to have people over, we tell them, so none of them have ever called the police. The last thing you want as a senior is to have charges pressed against you."

Rothenberg said his house has not received any complaints this year.

"There has been a limited amount of interaction, but they're cordial and we are the same," he said. "We've tried to be respectful by not letting people outside making noise."

Some Trinity Park residents said they have noticed a decrease in student partying since last year.

Lisa Rist, whose home is in front of three of the purchased houses, said students have been much quieter this year.

"[Partying] used to be sporadically very loud and disruptive," she said. "I certainly would not say it was all the time, but when it was really loud, it was often on a weeknight at 2 o'clock or 2:30 in the morning."

Lee Ann Tilley also said she and other Trinity Park residents have been pleased by the difference in partying this year.

"It's so quiet this year," she said. "The guys that have moved around the corner from me are so nice. We just haven't heard a peep out of them."

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/
news/2006/11/20/News/OffEast.Complaints.See.Sharp.Drop-
2470165.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost
=media.collegepublisher.com

From professor Michael Gustafson of the Pratt School of Engineering:

Sunday, November 19, 2006
Ugh

So, as I keep trying to understand what all is going on with the lacrosse case, I keep finding things that either I missed or missed the importance of earlier with respect to many of the issues being faced by Duke and by Durham. One of the major issues has been the faculty and administration response. Early on, I had said that I was truly happy with how President Brodhead had not caved into to pressures to expel the entire team as well as his decision to reinstate the team after the Coleman Report came out.

However, some things are still very disturbing about the way the administration has proceeded. If the administration really did tell the lacrosse players not to tell their parents what was going on, and if the administration really did recommend a particular lawyer for them to talk to, then the administration has a LOT to answer for. Likely, several administrators should resign if such allegations are true. Beyond that, some quotes have come up from early on that are just truly disturbing in hindsight. This one is from President Brodhead from the Durham Chamber of Commerce (from WRAL):

"If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn't do it, whatever they did is bad enough," he said. "Of the things that have pained me about this episode, one of the greatest ones is all the publicity that this has brought, unwished to Duke University and, indeed, Durham."

This quote is from April 20th. The "whatever they did is bad enough" part is just criminally negligent - by April 20th, nothing was really known, and I have gotten more and more angry over people - academics - not using their presumably finely-honed research and analytical abilities to do research and to analyze what was going on in the case.

To then follow this directly with a concern about the publicity of the case, well, it contextualizes the first statement in a sad, sad way. When all this began, I was worried about whether potential students would come to Duke, given the hyperbolic characterization in the Rolling Stones article as well as the microscopic press coverage we had received. While Duke took a little bit of a matriculation hit, it was far less than I had expected.

Now, though, I wonder how many people we are going to lose when they see a school that is unwilling to do seemingly anything to stand up for its students in the face of unjust police procedures and widely reported prosecutorial misconduct that has been pointed out by one of our own law school faculty members. I wonder how many parents will be willing to send their kids to Duke when our undergraduate judicial system has elected to extend its jurisdiction off campus without really having the resources to do so in a fair or just way - a judicial system that put illegally-obtained ALE violations in the citizenship records of its students.

Sometimes I wonder how much longer I can teach at a place where this is the reality. Where the people that are, very rightly, asking for attention to be paid to the problems of race, and gender, and privilege go forth and tie themselves to a case of dubious grounds, and then have nothing to say when their colleague (in the person of James Coleman) describes the mishandling of our students' civil rights and when the facts of the case, as they come out, point in a very, very different direction.

Ugh

http://www.xanga.com/DukeEgr93/548808875/ugh.html

From Liestoppers:

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2006

Cheshire's New Best Friend

Over the past several months we , and several others, have questioned the transparent motives of the Herald Sun's slanted coverage of the Hoax.

It appears that additional confirmation of the concerted propaganda campaign has come in the form of comments made by editorial page editor, Greg Childress, to frequent Herald Sun contributor, Deborah Correll. In response to her questioning of the Herald Sun's overt efforts to promote District Attorney Mike Nifong, and his hijacked hoax, Mr Childress offered the following justification:

"Countless black men have been falsely accused in the past.....so what's such a big deal about these lacrosse players?"

[snip]

Sadly, it appears that NCCU associate law professor, Fred Williams, may have been quite prophetic when he stated:

"A significant part of this community is made up of minorities-this is a chance to get back at the white folks." (The Chronicle)

Certainly, many of these expressions are extreme view points, and not representative of the Durham community as a whole. Professor Williams notes that there are also fragments of the community that are also quite opposed to the District Attorney and his dubious prosecution.

Hearing the radical sentiments, however, echoed by a man in a position to influence the editorial agenda of the county's only major daily, and noting the extremely slanted coverage offered to date by that same newspaper, extends the prejudicial impact of Mr. Childress' statements from a reflection of an isolated, individual viewpoint to that of an influential opinion maker. Quite possibly, Mr. Childress, and the Herald Sun, have just made themselves the defense attorneys best friends.

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2006/11/cheshires-new-best-friend.html

'Freekey Zekey' free from prison
Hip-hop star released in Durham after doing almost 3 years on drug charges

Patrick Winn, Staff Writer, N&O, Nov 21, 2006

Hip-hop celebrity Ezekiel "Freekey Zekey" Jiles was released from a Durham prison Monday after serving roughly three years on drug charges. Though his title is mostly symbolic, Jiles is president of The Diplomats, an influential group better known as "Dipset." He's a founder, business partner, hype man and occasional vocalist for the group, though he has no solo album.

Jiles, 31, was convicted in early 2004 for running an ecstasy ring based in New Hanover County. The New York City native has no family ties to North Carolina.

Outside the Durham Correctional Center, a luxury Chrysler limo waited to escort Jiles to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, where he would be flown to New York City.

At home in Harlem, Jiles said, core members of The Diplomats -- Cam'ron, Jim Jones and Juelz Santana -- were were waiting for his arrival.

Dipset is known, among other things, for garish fashions and lyrical imagery that often focuses on the drug trade.

Its influence on the hip-hop genre and its fans includes getting young black men to wear pink. When teenagers yell "Balling!" -- slang that more or less means living well -- they are mimicking Dipset. -cut-

http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/513089.html

No murder conviction for fatal shooting

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun, Nov 20, 2006

DURHAM -- There apparently will be no murder convictions for a 2004 drug deal gone sour that ended with a fatal shooting outside The Streets at Southpoint mall.

A newly published court calendar indicated Monday that Julius Gray, one of two suspects in the case, is scheduled to plead guilty next week.

Court sources said a homicide charge against Gray will be dismissed, and he will plead to a drug charge and receive probation.

Gray reportedly was at the scene but did not take part in the gunfire. The other suspect, 24-year-old Barry Ford Evans, got a deal last month for a drastically reduced charge of involuntary manslaughter. He also received probation.

Evans originally was accused of first-degree murder, for which the only possible punishments are death or life in prison without parole.

But the homicide charge was dropped as part of Evans' plea bargain, as was a robbery allegation.

The charges arose from the fatal shooting of Harvey Dennard Wiggins, who was gunned down outside The Streets at Southpoint two years ago next week while the mall was thronged with holiday shoppers. No one else was injured.

Reports indicated that the shooting occurred during a planned sale of three pounds of marijuana. Wiggins was sitting in a car in an isolated spot near Southpoint Cinema when a bullet entered his head, mortally wounding him.

"By all accounts, this was a transaction involving the projected sale of a large quantity of marijuana," Assistant District Attorney Mitchell Garrell said in October. "I don't think anyone questions that."

Still, Garrell said he felt compelled to offer Evans a generous plea bargain last month. Otherwise, Evans might have escaped punishment on grounds of self-defense, according to Garrell.

The prosecutor cited reports that Evans fired at Wiggins only after Wiggins pulled a gun of his own.

Evans' lawyer, Lisa Williams, agreed with that assessment in a recent interview.

"Mr. Wiggins was the one who was there to rob," she said. "He was the aggressor. A gun was pointed directly at my client. My client happened to be armed and blew his [Wiggins'] head off. It was kill or be killed. Those were the only options. Someone was going to die. It turned out to be Mr. Wiggins. This was an extremely strong self-defense case."

http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-791008.html

* Plea bargain. That's the ticket in this town. We don't want any messy trials tying up valuable court time.

http://www.wral.com/news/10373846/detail.html
NC House Committee Looks At Prosecutor Error In Capital Cases

POSTED: 6:45 pm EST November 21, 2006
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST November 21, 2006

RALEIGH, N.C. -- A seasoned prosecutor and a well-known defense lawyer disagreed Tuesday about the extent of prosecutorial misconduct in the state's death penalty cases and what lawmakers should do about wayward district attorneys who withhold evidence.

"We do know that prosecutorial misconduct exists," said Joseph Cheshire, who represented former death row inmate Alan Gell. He won a new trial and was acquitted after a judge ruled prosecutors hid key witness statements from his defense attorneys.

Cheshire spoke Tuesday before a House committee examining the state's capital punishment system. The panel is expected to make recommendations to lawmakers on possible changes when the full General Assembly meets in January.

While admitting that defense attorneys always don't live up to the highest ethical standards, Cheshire said the stakes are high when prosecutors fail to do so.

"We all want to believe the fiction that all of our elected district attorneys are ethical," Cheshire said. "There are gross exceptions to the good people on both sides."

But Tom Lock, the district attorney in Harnett, Johnston and Lee counties, said there is usually nothing sinister or malicious at work when a piece of evidence isn't turned over to the defense. It's more likely to be an oversight, or evidence that the prosecutor never received from investigators.

"There is no epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct in this state," said Lock, who added a 2004 law requiring prosecutors to give defense attorneys their "complete files" and those of police prior to a felony trial is helping prevent potential problems.

Lock said raising starting pay for assistant district attorneys, providing more prosecutors and support staff, and making open discovery procedures more automated would help reduce the chances for prosecutorial mistakes.

N.C. State Bar counsel Katherine Jean said the group had received four complaints of prosecutorial misconduct in a capital cases since 2005. The bar has also asked a state appeals court to reinstate a misconduct case against two former Union County prosecutors accused of hiding deals that a witness received in a 1996 murder case.

Duke University law professor James Coleman, an expert on the death penalty and wrongful convictions, told lawmakers prosecutors sometimes engage in what he called the "unprincipled exercise of discretion" in determining when to seek the death penalty.

Coleman cited the case of Guy LeGrande, who is scheduled to be executed next week. Coleman said prosecutors sought a death sentence against LeGrande, who is black, while allowing a white co-defendant in the murder-for-hire case to plead guilty and serve life in prison.

"A prosecutor is a human and once they make a decision to seek the death penalty I think it's very difficult for them to have doubts about that," he said. "They focus on getting the death penalty and they do not focus on other factors that might affect justice."

Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, said he's concerned that a disproportionate number of death row inmates came from the same group of counties. That suggests whether a convict receives a death sentences depends more on where the crime is committed, rather than the nature of the crime, he said.

"Other counties have no one on death row at all, not that murders don't take place in those other counties," Luebke said. "The standards don't seem to be there."

Several House members were interested in Cheshire's suggestion the state create a committee that reviews preliminary evidence to determine when a district attorney should seek the death penalty. The U.S. Department of Justice uses a similar committee that makes recommends to the U.S. Attorney General on whether to seek a death sentence in federal cases.

But Peg Dorer, executive director of N.C. Conference of District Attorneys, said such a system would take away the decision making process from district attorneys who stand for election.

"I don't believe the current discretion is inadequate or inappropriate," she said.

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.