Posted on 06/18/2006 6:14:18 AM PDT by tlb
The prosecutor insists his rape case is strong. One big problem: the facts thus far.
...court documents in the case increasingly suggest that Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong had very little evidence upon which to indict three players for rape. Indeed, the available evidence is so thin or contradictory that it seems fair to ask what Nifong could have been thinking when he confidently told reporters that there was "no doubt" in his mind that the woman had been raped at the party held by the lacrosse team.
Nifong is described by some lawyers as an adversary who gets dug in—and won't budge. But Nifong's motives may have been political as well. He was six weeks away from an election when the Duke case came up. Durham voters are almost evenly divided between black and white. One of Nifong's opponents was black and the other was white, but the white lawyer was much better known in the community, thanks to winning a high-profile murder case. (That opponent, former assistant D.A. Freda Black, became a bitter enemy of Nifong's after, she claims, Nifong fired her.) Nifong promised black voters that he would not let the Duke case drop. He indicted two of the players two weeks before the election. He won narrowly, taking a larger share of the black vote than the other white candidate.
Meanwhile, the players and their families are lying low, trying to figure out how they can get their reputations back. Finnerty and Seligmann are underclassmen and may be able to transfer to another college and still play lacrosse if the charges are dropped. Evans has already started to pay a price in the real world. He was supposed to begin a good job after graduation, but the job offer was withdrawn.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Hmmm. Is it possible that a black woman cannot now assert that a white man raped her?
Duke joins Tawanna Brawley in the pantheon of black racist injustices. Since the Brawley case nabbed Al Sharpton as a certified, malicious liar and racist, maybe Duke will take down more black racists, who cannot see truth if it involves other skin colors?
1. And how is that different from before?
2. Maybe she's "workin" somewhere else.
"You know it's hard out here for a pimp (you ain't knowin)
When he tryin to get this money for the rent (you ain't knowin)
For the Cadillacs and gas money spent (you ain't knowin)
Because a whole lot of bitches talkin s..t (you ain't knowin)
Will have a whole lot of bitches talkin s..t (you ain't knowin)"
Djay f/ Shug
This is Nifong's "Dan Rather" moment - his case is false but accurate...
The wall of protection around judges, DA, and almost all peace officers is huge. DA can hide behind the victim by saying he was bound to file charges. This is so much BS and the DA has the responsibility to protect the accused as well as the victim. This DA is brainless since he should have held off the indictment until better support for the charges were in evidence. He was up for reelection. You figure it out.
More than likely after the charges are dropped, even if court filings are made by the defendants, the judge can later dismiss the case for lack of evidence during the hearings. Remember the DA used the Grand Jury which has been said many time before, they can indite a ham sandwich. The defendants must use the court system.
Richard Jewell was successful in suing various media hacks.
And the beat goes on...
Didn't a TV Broadcaster (NBC?) settle out of court?
That Newsweek put this on their cover and that Newsweek and Meadows in particular fell for Nifong's date rape drug hoax is why they have turned so hard 180 on this case. They know they owe these guys to come down hard on the guy who lied to them. The media does not always come down hard on particularly national Dims for lying to and sandbagging them, but this time Newsweek at least is doing the right thing.
Ummmm, just a guess here. 'Cause he is BLACK!
This defense attorney agrees with you:
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2006/06/the_best_defens.html
Exactly. And Newsweek isn't dumb: Evans' mother is the president of the LPGA and a lobbyist, his father is a big time inside the Beltway mover and shaker regardless of the administration, and Finnerty's father is a honcho on Wall Street.
These people hang out with people like Bob Bennett and Ben and Sally Bradlee; and they are out for blood, IMO.
The party was at a private residence rented by two of the senior team members. It is not on campus or in any way under the control of Duke University. I believe all of the participants were over 18. You can't nail the school for that one.
However, some of the actions and statements made by the school administration after the incident might be actionable.
The defense counsel's job is not to 'get the defendant off' as conventional wisdom and street talk suggests. Rather, his task is to force the government to prove the case by making it prove every statutory or common law element comprising the definition of the offense charged according to the established rules of evidence.
In defense counsel's case-in-defense, he does not allow third person witnesses to lie or violate their oath about telling the ''whole truth.'' Neither does counsel permit the client to testify falsely. In summation, he presents the case to the fact finder (jury or judge) in the perspective that's most advantageous to the client--without falsity or deception. He has no responsibility to do anything that helps the government obtain a conviction. The presumption of no guilt (vis-a-vis innocence, there's a difference) remains with his client until/unless the government proves otherwise. Contrariwise, the prosecutor's duty is to the public's entitlement to know the truth irrespective of the outcome. His duty includes a search for the truth that presents not only evidence that constitutes proof of guilt, but also exculpatory facts.
If the prosecutor hides such exculpatory facts (as they too often do, and I think Mr. Nifong is doing precisely that in the Duke lacrosse case), he has violated his individual oath to see that justice is done (whether the defendant is found guilty or otherwise) and the defendant must be released. Justice is never accomplished by hiding facts that might raise a reasonable doubt irrespective of the nature of the crime or the reprehensible character of the person on trial, Justice, not conviction based on probability, is the goal our society has decided is the highest good.
It seems fairly apparent that Mr. Nifong advanced suppositions as established inculpatory fact to justify his election posturing as a public official who's tough on crime at a critical time in the recent campaign. It appears to have worked for him politically since he won reelection by a handful of votes that came from the community of the alleged victim, a community traditionally not likely to support him absent the lacrosse team incident.
This dust-up is a work in progress. I'd bet a case of Samuel Adams that Mr. Nifong will not try this case. He'll find some whimsical, yet logical sounding, reason to cause a dismissal after the passage of time and feigning a more comprehensive investigation. I surmise he'll spin it in the nature and justification of a jury issue of either the complainant's or witness' lack of credibility thus creating an inevitable potential reasonable doubt and jury impasse.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nifong is, among state prosecutors, not an anomaly. While not a discernible norm, it is not at all unusual for a locally elected prosecuting attorney to see his role, not in relentless pursuit of impartial justice, but to convict anyone arrested by local law enforcement and purportedly involved in a notorious crime. And, if that requires casting a blind eye to facts that might tend to favor a defendant or perhaps raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, well, it's easily justified by the common knowledge that, if the defendant actually didn't commit the present crime, he surely is guilty of something else. That is a reality with some, by no means all, local prosecutors. Every lawyer, whether engaged in criminal defense practice or not, knows that attitude exists within the prosecutorial comminty.
Judges are the only neutral actor in this scenario. As such, the citizenry should hope that the Bench is alert to potential prosecutorial misconduct and serves to assure that neither electioneering nor vigilantism come into play in the courtroom and distort the even handed administration of justice, the presumption of innocence and the guarantee of a fair trial.
The defense counsel's job is not to 'get the defendant off' as conventional wisdom and street talk suggests. Rather, his task is to force the government to prove the case by making it prove every statutory or common law element comprising the definition of the offense charged according to the established rules of evidence.
In defense counsel's case-in-defense, he does not allow third person witnesses to lie or violate their oath about telling the ''whole truth.'' Neither does counsel permit the client to testify falsely. In summation, he presents the case to the fact finder (jury or judge) in the perspective that's most advantageous to the client--without falsity or deception. He has no responsibility to do anything that helps the government obtain a conviction. The presumption of no guilt (vis-a-vis innocence, there's a difference) remains with his client until/unless the government proves otherwise. Contrariwise, the prosecutor's duty is to the public's entitlement to know the truth irrespective of the outcome. His duty includes a search for the truth that presents not only evidence that constitutes proof of guilt, but also exculpatory facts.
If the prosecutor hides such exculpatory facts (as they too often do, and I think Mr. Nifong is doing precisely that in the Duke lacrosse case), he has violated his individual oath to see that justice is done (whether the defendant is found guilty or otherwise) and the defendant must be released. Justice is never accomplished by hiding facts that might raise a reasonable doubt irrespective of the nature of the crime or the reprehensible character of the person on trial, Justice, not conviction based on probability, is the goal our society has decided is the highest good.
It seems fairly apparent that Mr. Nifong advanced suppositions as established inculpatory fact to justify his election posturing as a public official who's tough on crime at a critical time in the recent campaign. It appears to have worked for him politically since he won reelection by a handful of votes that came from the community of the alleged victim, a community traditionally not likely to support him absent the lacrosse team incident.
This dust-up is a work in progress. I'd bet a case of Samuel Adams that Mr. Nifong will not try this case. He'll find some whimsical, yet logical sounding, reason to cause a dismissal after the passage of time and feigning a more comprehensive investigation. I surmise he'll spin it in the nature and justification of a jury issue of either the complainant's or witness' lack of credibility thus creating an inevitable potential reasonable doubt and jury impasse.
Unfortunately, Mr. Nifong is, among state prosecutors, not an anomaly. While not a discernible norm, it is not at all unusual for a locally elected prosecuting attorney to see his role, not in relentless pursuit of impartial justice, but to convict anyone arrested by local law enforcement and purportedly involved in a notorious crime. And, if that requires casting a blind eye to facts that might tend to favor a defendant or perhaps raise a reasonable doubt as to guilt, well, it's easily justified by the common knowledge that, if the defendant actually didn't commit the present crime, he surely is guilty of something else. That is a reality with some, by no means all, local prosecutors. Every lawyer, whether engaged in criminal defense practice or not, knows that attitude exists within the prosecutorial comminty.
Judges are the only neutral actor in this scenario. As such, the citizenry should hope that the Bench is alert to potential prosecutorial misconduct and serves to assure that neither electioneering nor vigilantism come into play in the courtroom and distort the even handed administration of justice, the presumption of innocence and the guarantee of a fair trial.
Sorry about the double hit on the send ket.
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.