.....and should reparations ever come to pass, perpetuate the "I-am-entitled" attitude.
Gaynor on why the case CAN be dismissed now (pre-trial), and ought to be, on legal grounds.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061117
(snip)
"I DO know that there is a North Carolina statute that explicitly provides for pre-trial motions to dismiss indictments:
"§ 15A 954. Motion to dismiss — Grounds applicable to all criminal pleadings; dismissal of proceedings upon death of defendant.
(a) The court on motion of the defendant must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that:
(snip)
(3) The defendant has been denied a speedy trial as required by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Carolina.
(4) The defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution.
(c) A motion to dismiss for the reasons set out in subsection (a) may be made at any time. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"
"North Carolina General Statutes 15A-954(a)(4) mandates that, on motion, the court "must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that...[t]he defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution,." and North Carolina General Statutes 15A-954(c) permits such a motion "at any time."
(snip)
"That means Judge Smith (and every other North Carolina trial judge) is obligated to follow the rule in the Duke case (and any other case before him).
"That means, upon motion, Judge Smith should determine that the manner in which each of the Duke Three came to be identified was flagrantly unconstitutional and it cannot be said that they were not irreparably prejudiced under the circumstances, so the indictments against them must be dismissed.
(snip)
"God save the Duke Three from timidity!
"First it was said that Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty better not proclaim their innocence publicly or else they surely would say something that would be used to convict them.
"Then it was said that David Evans' public proclamation of his (and their) innocence was a fluke, and another public statement would be too dangerous.
"Each of the Duke Three proved the naysayers wrong when they spoke with there late Ed Bradley of "60 Minutes" (and the outtakes were as good or better than what was broadcast).
"Now someone is saying better not to move to dismiss because the Judge might not decide the motion quickly and Mr. Nifong would be able to read the motion papers and do his worst.
GOD SAVE THE INNOCENT BEING DEFENDED AS THOUGH THEY ARE GUILTY.
"In order for the truth to prevail, it needs to be made public. . . "
(snip)
"A pre-trial motion to dismiss that will set forth flagrant constitutional violations in the Duke case is the right way to go."