[supercat]

1. Day one: Read Mangums various statements. [That should be sufficient, but they will want to do more leg work.]

While I agree that the new prosecutors have to review the state's evidence to confirm that the physical evidence is indeed 100% exculpatory, I'm not sure the prosecutor would have to review all the defense evidence. Given the complete lack of physical evidence, the only "evidence" the state has in the case is the identification by Precious. At best, she is so totally confused about events and so inconsistent in her statements of who did what that even if she were attacked there would be no reason to believe she hadn't confused her attackers for other partygoers.

I can't really see anything the state could bring to the table to challenge the motion to suppress the ID; some of the changes in Precious' statements suggest strongly that she's been coached. If the new prosecutors don't want to be seen as dropping the case, they could simply wait until the Feb. 5 hearing, wait for Precious to make a fool of herself on the stand (I think the defense goes first, since the hearing is to consider their motion), and then say "enough is enough". I'd suggest arranging for video of the hearing if possible (to be kept under seal for as long as the judge deems appropriate). Depending upon how things go, releasing video of "Precious" on the stand could be priceless for showing people--even liberals--what a farce this case is. To be sure, that would only really work if the defense attorneys took a low-key approach, but the December version of events is so farcical that I can't see Precious being able to respond reasonably to even the mildest of questioning.

[JLS]

I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts. I want to comment point by point.

While I agree that the new prosecutors have to review the state's evidence to confirm that the physical evidence is indeed 100% exculpatory,

Actually they only need to do this to make the statements I suggested. All one really needs to do is read Mangum's various statement to see this case is unsustainable. You need the other evidence to conclude she was not raped or anything else.

I'm not sure the prosecutor would have to review all the defense evidence.

No but I think you will. You want to say the right thing at your press conference. There are only three press conferences you can have after you do your review:

1. It is my judgement this case can be won and I am going forward.

2. It is my judgement that his case can not be won and the charges are dropped.

3. The charges are dropped and it is my judgement that their is no evidence in the case file to support than any crime was committed against Mangum at the Duke lacrosse party.

Given the complete lack of physical evidence, the only "evidence" the state has in the case is the identification by Precious. At best, she is so totally confused about events and so inconsistent in her statements of who did what that even if she were attacked there would be no reason to believe she hadn't confused her attackers for other partygoers.

I guess someone might go through the evidence and only know the charges can not be sustained in a court of law, but not conclude that they can be sure Mangum was not raped. I doubt it, but I guess someone might conclude that.

I can't really see anything the state could bring to the table to challenge the motion to suppress the ID; some of the changes in Precious' statements suggest strongly that she's been coached. If the new prosecutors don't want to be seen as dropping the case, they could simply wait until the Feb. 5 hearing, wait for Precious to make a fool of herself on the stand (I think the defense goes first, since the hearing is to consider their motion), and then say "enough is enough". I'd suggest arranging for video of the hearing if possible (to be kept under seal for as long as the judge deems appropriate). Depending upon how things go, releasing video of "Precious" on the stand could be priceless for showing people--even liberals--what a farce this case is. To be sure, that would only really work if the defense attorneys took a low-key approach, but the December version of events is so farcical that I can't see Precious being able to respond reasonably to even the mildest of questioning.

Certainly this is how it could unfold if NC does not want to do the right thing even at this late time. If I were the AG, I would certainly tell the peoples whose hands I put this in:

1. that they were to go forward if they believed a crime was committed by these defendants and they could prove it in court.

2. that they were to drop the charges whether they believed a crime was committed if they do not believe they can sustain this charge in court.

3. that if they could not they were to drop the charges and make statements to the effect that there is no evidence against these defendants if they can not be sure a crime was committed or these defendants committed any crime they think might have been committed.

Some times you just have to be an adult. Most politicians and most bureaucrats dont like to be, so your analysis is probably a better prediction than mine, but mine is what NC should do to start to put this travesty behind them. While I want Nifong punished, I would be more likely to visit NC in the future if they publically admit there was not case here rather than punt to the 5 Feb hearing which we know will likely be postponed.