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 ...
Another thing to consider is this: as pressure builds up to legislate an ability to control prosecutors better, those who wish to resist such legislation, such as prosecutors and legislators supported by prosecutors, will in turn pressure Easley to do whatever it takes to throw a net over Nifong, especially if Easley's next electoral objective for himself is the legislature, with the idea/hope that doing so will relax the pressure on them to act legislatively.
I'm thinking that right about now prosecutors across the state are real pissed at Nifong because he's pushed this so far he's about to spoil the great prosecutorial latitude gig they have going in NC.
That would be my intention as well had one of my sons been his victim.
Who the hell do you think he has been playing to if not the peasants?
Every capable thinker knew she was a Ho from day one.
Oh, I'm sorry. Are you still talking, Jezebelle?
I had stopped paying attention to you some time ago.
An investigatory Commission is in order. Tom Keane, Lee Hamilton where are you?
After the hearing Blythe went running over to Travis Mangum to get a quote, presumably. Victoria Peterson got him out of there too quick for that to happen.
Exactly, what was she going to ask him? "Mr. Mangum, with respect to your daughter, an entire courtroom just spent the morning doing a tap dance through her underpants. How do you feel? Do you have any comment?"
"Note to self: Don't post to, or reply to, people who really don't have a clue."
ML/NJ, you are my newest friend! I was beginning to think I was alone in my opinion of that individual.
When Estrich calls ted kennedy a murderer, and bill clinton a traitor, then I'll say she "gets it".
Ah, yes. Susan Estrich talking about rape. The last time she spoke about it, she was calling Juanita Broaddrick a liar. Then, she refused to speak with Juanita to discuss it.
LOL! I would have loved to see that!
So, Cory Peterson is Travis's handler? LOL! A perfect match. The second biggest loudmouth racist in town handling the second-biggest liar in town.
I don't think conservatives who are interested in this case are so thrilled that Estrich or any other lefty "gets it." In my opinion, Estrich's column shows that even leftist lawyers who would usually be an ally of Mangum (because she's a black female) and Liefong (because he's going after rich, white males ostensibly on behalf of the black female) are abandoning them. As support for Liefong and his case erodes, it brings us closer to a favorable resolution for the boys, at least as far as their reputations are concerned as to the public's perception about their innocence and the fact that they were railroaded as they move on with their lives as best they can after the case is dismissed or they are acquitted.
Victoria Peterson
Oh well. I thought I'd heard her referred to locally as "Cory" Peterson.
Maybe it's "Tory" (sp?) which is short for Victoria?
Since is's a slow day, just "googled" Miss Victoria.
"Peterson, an activist and City Hall gadfly, has been involved in a number of causes for at least a decade."
Nice little synopsis of her activities since 1992.
http://www.uga.edu/bahai/2003/030707-2.html
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=848
DNA Security, Inc. Statement re: the Duke Lacrosse Case Tests
December 19, 2006
[snip]
Two things about real-life DNA testing are often overlooked:
(1) There may be any number of samples from the crime scene or victim that labs are not able to "match" to a sample from a known reference specimen (possible perpetrator). This can occur when a sample from the crime scene or victim does not contain DNA, or when the DNA present is not from any reference specimen that was provided for testing. It is not the DNA lab's job to search for people whose DNA would match samples from the crime scene or victim.
(2) While DNA laboratories such as ours are confident in determining identity when there is a match between the evidence and an individual reference specimen, the absence of a match, by itself, does not exclude a possible perpetrator. Of course, evidence of the inability to match a defendant's DNA with that found at the scene or on the victim certainly presents an argument for a defendant or his counsel.
DNA Security is well aware of the importance of scientifically reliable DNA testing to the police, the prosecution, the public, and a suspect or defendant. We have and will continue to use the best scientific methods and practices to reach accurate and reliable results.
Of course, evidence of the inability to match a defendant's DNA with that found at the scene or on the victim certainly presents an argument for a defendant or his counsel.
IOW, it's exculpatory. That means Dr. Meehan and DNASI are in the crapper!
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.