Posted on 12/18/2006 4:44:22 PM PST by abb
his is not the way the system is supposed to operate. Prosecutors are supposed to be out for justice, not blood; committed to the truth, at all costs, not winning, without more.
Prosecutors aren’t just morally obliged but legally required to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Prosecutors aren’t just one side in a battle.
You can’t come across the smoking gun covered with fingerprints on it – come across it because you have the power of the state to collect all the evidence – and then decide to ignore it because they don’t match the fingerprints of the guy you’re prosecuting for the crime. You certainly can’t file the report from the lab for your eyes only.
You have to tell the defendant that the smoking gun has someone else’s prints on it. He has a right to know that, and the prosecutor has a duty to tell him.
There is a reason that the rules are such. The prosecutor represents the people. The people’s goal is winning, which doesn’t have to mean a perfect conviction rate.
The goal is supposed to be to convict the guy who did it, not frame the guy you’ve got.
Somebody should tell that to Mike Nifong. Or to the judge who is in a position to do something about who prosecutes the Duke lacrosse players charged with rape.
What is going on in the prosecutors’ office in Durham North Carolina is disturbing in ways that go beyond the ugly allegations that started this case.
The District Attorney has clearly lost sight of his mission, and with it the last remnants of any ethical compass. The case has been characterized, since the outset, by a clear failure to follow the office’s own procedures and practices.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
bttt
The safeguards have been eroded, particularly in a state like NC that uses the secret grand jury indictment process for threshold felony cases and has no probable cause review before trial. That's been a huge drawback in curtailing this runaway train. The grand juries no longer perform the function they were designed to do, so that leaves a crap shoot for the voters. But in this case, the voters knew what they were getting because it's what they wanted. With such an electorate, the ability to purge the corruption and failure to oversee prosecutor conduct, good or bad, evaporates, and that is what we have in Durham.
I think the test of such men will follow after the revelations this case has brought. It's not as though the defense bar can't rally support and push the legislature and politicians for the needed changes, but such an effort won't be led by anyone like Vann. He doesn't have the juice.
Sure. Holding Liefong to answer in one or more of the boys' hometown jurisdictions would certainly yield a different result than if the same suits were brought in Durham.
Vann hasn't gone the soapbox route. He just answers questions about NC criminal procedure and local judicial philosophy and customs. He's more like a reporter.
What, exactly, is it that you think he should do as an individual about this case, assuming for the moment that he shares our views of the case?
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Questionable leadership during Duke LAX mess
Visiting the Duke Athletics Web site earlier today, I was heartened by the promise of a link to "additional comments" by President Richard Brodhead that were not included in Ed Bradley's "60 Minutes" report. I was "heartened" because as an alumnus of Duke University, I was shocked that President Brodhead failed to capitalize on the rare opportunity provided him by "60 Minutes"-- most notably, to show millions of viewers that he does understand the most fundamental principles of our nation's system of jurisprudence, that he is not an impotent bureaucrat held captive by the agendas of the most radical members of his own faculty, that he is sorry for the rush to judgment that his politically calculated statements and actions stoked rather than calmed, and that he does indeed value well-administered justice, and in the end, the lives of three young men, more than thoughtless compliance with the prevailing winds of the media.
I could locate no "additional comments" on the link provided on Duke's site. But that is really beside the point. The statements of a university president -- edited or otherwise -- should be well-considered and welcome accountability.
In the days, weeks and months following the "incident," Brodhead has consistently abdicated his core responsibilities as a university president -- most notably abandoning students in his charge to the hate-spewing mobs teeming with PC-crazed members of his own faculty.
A tendered resignation -- or official and public apologies to those you abandoned out of callous political calculations -- are the only actions that could begin to redress the damage you have done.
Washington, D.C.
Gordon Runte
Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2006
Where is the outrage?
Shortly after the rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse players there were marches in the street, all claiming injustice. As it seems to be turning out the injustice has been against the lacrosse players and particularly the three men charged with the rape.
The prosecutor, Mike Nifong, has violated their civil rights and slandered their names to the world. Where will justice come from for these men? Why are the citizens of Durham not marching now to protect the civil rights of these men?
The photo identification was clearly done inappropriately. But the failure to properly do the DNA tests through a state lab and then give full disclosure of the results should be a criminal offense.
Pat O'Rourke
Clarkston, Mich.
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/523377.html
Criticism directed at Nifong and Duke
Anne Blythe, Staff Writer
DURHAM - After the most recent hearing on the Duke University lacrosse rape case, critics have ratcheted up the heat on District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Some fiery comments have been targeted at Duke University, too.
This week, U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a Republican from Farmville, renewed his request for the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Nifong's handling of the rape case against three former Duke lacrosse players.
Jones asked Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. attorney general, to review evidence from the hearing, in which the head of a private lab testified that Nifong and he agreed last spring not to report DNA results favorable to the accused.
Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security in Burlington, testified his lab found DNA from unidentified men in the underwear and body of the woman who said she was gang-raped at a lacrosse party in March.
North Carolina law requires prosecutors to hand over all evidence to defendants regardless of whether it has been requested.
The information was in a report that defense lawyers got only after asking for it during a court hearing.
State Rep. Stephen LaRoque, a Republican from Lenoir County, also weighed in. He endorsed Jones' call for a federal investigation and suggested a change in state law to allow prosecution of prosecutors who engage in professional misconduct.
Only the N.C. State Bar has the authority to punish incidents of legal misconduct. "That's like having the fox guard the henhouse," LaRoque said.
Jones' request won another endorsement this week from Friends of Duke University, a group of five people that monitors media reports and information on the Internet about the lacrosse case.
Spokesman Jason Trumpbour, a 1991 Duke law school graduate who lives in Parkton, Md., seems to have sparked a response from Duke administrators with his rant.
"The administration's silence about Mr. Nifong's continued assault on the civil liberties of Duke students appears to be having an unfortunate, if inevitable, effect," Trumpbour said in the group's statement, citing a 20 percent drop in early admissions applications. "Surely any prospective parent would have to think twice about sending a son or daughter to an institution whose leadership has stood aside as a local prosecutor targets students through procedurally improper actions."
Hours after Trumpbour's statement was released, Duke sent a brief statement from President Richard Brodhead.
"Under American law, the legal system is the place to establish the facts and bring a case to a just resolution," Brodhead said. "For that reason, it is of the essence that everyone involved in the legal system act fairly in pursuing the truth and protecting the rights of the individuals involved. As I told Ed Bradley during a '60 Minutes' interview last summer, given the concerns that have been raised, when it goes before a judge and jury the DA's case will be on trial just as much as our students will be. In the meanwhile, as I have said before, our students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise."
Staff writer Anne Blythe can be reached at 932-8741 or ablythe@newsobserver.com.
http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/523257.html
Shaky case
Questions about evidence and the investigation's handling lead to doubts about rape charges against former Duke lacrosse players
There's no question that members of last year's Duke University lacrosse team showed poor judgment in staging a rowdy spring break party that featured two dancers hired from escort services. But serious doubts continue to grow about the case that Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has brought against three of the players who are accused of raping and assaulting one of the dancers.
Reports in The N&O concerning contradictory accounts by the alleged victim and flaws in how the case has been investigated have raised questions about Nifong's decision to press ahead with the prosecution. The latest such report cited court testimony Friday by Brian Meehan, director of a Burlington laboratory, to the effect that Nifong knew that DNA tests on evidence gathered from the accuser's body and underwear failed to implicate any of the Duke athletes.
Meehan said under Nifong's questioning that no one had asked him to conceal the lack of evidence from the players when other findings were released from the DNA testing that was performed last spring.
Yet Meehan didn't have to be asked to conceal anything if he and Nifong already had agreed that only certain information would be released, as Meehan claimed that they had. It was only in September, in response to requests by the defendants' lawyers, that the full report from Meehan's firm was made available to the lawyers.
Under state law, prosecutors are required to turn over to defense attorneys evidence favorable to the accused, who in this case are former Duke lacrosse players David Evans of Maryland, Colin Finnerty of New York and Reade Seligmann of New Jersey.
Biological evidence from the woman who says she was raped was retrieved within hours of the alleged assault at the team party. Nifong then obtained DNA samples from team members, asserting that the evidence would be pivotal. He went on to obtain indictments of Finnerty and Seligmann on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual assault, even though state tests of those samples showed no connection between the defendants and the accuser.
In view of that, it's not unreasonable to wonder if Nifong arranged for the more sensitive tests offered by Meehan's lab in an attempt to bolster his prosecution. The results clearly didn't help, yet he went on to gain the indictment of Evans and otherwise has plowed ahead.
Meehan maintained in court that the test results showing no DNA from any of the defendants were withheld out of some concern for their privacy. Nifong also said they were "trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud." but certainly the trio's greater interest has been in having their names cleared.
Meanwhile, notes from Durham investigators show that the woman changed her story repeatedly during interviews with detectives. And detectives violated the department's own photo line-up policy when they had the woman identify the three players. What is the basis for Nifong's sustained belief that sexual crimes were committed by the three?
Nifong has enjoyed the benefit of the doubt from many members of the public over this case. But the more information that comes to light, the more questionable his conduct and judgment appear.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson157.html
Durham, Duke, and Dishonor
by William L. Anderson
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061219
Duke case: Why I focused, now need not, but still will, focus on it
Michael Gaynor
December 19, 2006
mark
I cannot disagree with any of that.
Thanks for the link. Great blog.
"Vann hasn't gone the soapbox route. He just answers questions
about NC criminal procedure and local judicial philosophy and customs.
He's more like a reporter."
Again, Vann's father was a longtime NC legal eagle, Chesire league maybe.
Him and his son Woody tried murder cases together in Durham courts.
Vann junior has done a lot of previous legal work for Honey and her family.
His analysis has been right on the money from day one- whether you
like it or not. If the other lawyers in town hadn't pushed him aside early on
none of this would be happening today.
btt
That was a great post. Said everything I've attempted to say. Wow-EE!
I know his analysis has been spot on, which is why I listen to what he has to say, which is what I'm trying to get across to JLS as his current value as a commentator on the case when he goes on TV shows like Greta. Please read the entire exchange which is several posts from both of us rather than picking out a couple of sentences to respond to. Your point, which is tangential to what we're talking about, would be better made to JLS because I'm not the one with a problem with Vann. I want to hear what Vann has to say because he provides knowledge and insight into NC criminal procedure, local rules of court, and how the judiciary responds and operates. That's his value in this case at the point we've come to recently and now.
Good stuff! :>
What a lukewarm, lame article, and there's yet another N&O canard in this piece: "Under state law, prosecutors are required to turn over to defense attorneys evidence favorable to the accused, who in this case are former Duke lacrosse players David Evans of Maryland, Colin Finnerty of New York and Reade Seligmann of New Jersey."
NC law requires ALL evidence and information gathered in the investigation to be turned over to the defense in discovery. If Nifong tries to argue that the information of the full results were not exculpatory/"favorable to the accused" it matters not. The law still requires that it be disclosed to the defense.
I suppose the N&O's next article would put forward the argument that the full lab results didn't need to be disclosed because it somehow wasn't "helpful" to the defense and thus Nifong did nothing actually illegal.
God, they truly sicken me.
"State Rep. Stephen LaRoque, a Republican from Lenoir County, also weighed in. He endorsed Jones' call for a federal investigation and suggested a change in state law to allow prosecution of prosecutors who engage in professional misconduct.
Only the N.C. State Bar has the authority to punish incidents of legal misconduct. "That's like having the fox guard the henhouse," LaRoque said."
Another "Nifong being thrown overboard" splash. Finally, the NC legislature is starting to weigh in. It probably won't go anywhere, but then maybe it will.
"Jones' request won another endorsement this week from Friends of Duke University, a group of five people that monitors media reports and information on the Internet about the lacrosse case.
Spokesman Jason Trumpbour, a 1991 Duke law school graduate who lives in Parkton, Md., seems to have sparked a response from Duke administrators with his rant."
Rant? Blythe should be called on the carpet for this characterization of Trumpbour's letter. It should be pointed out to her that she and her ilk are a major part of what brought this case to where it is by gleefully boarding the Nifong bandwagon in the first place.
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.