Posted on 12/29/2006 2:37:58 PM PST by Cecily
RALEIGH, N.C. — Ethics charges filed against the prosecutor at the center of the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case might constitute a conflict of interest that forces him off the sensational case in which a black woman claimed she was reaped by three white college students, legal experts said.
"It's hard for me to imagine how he can be effective as an advocate, with either the court or a future jury, when he has ethics charges pending against him ... concerning his conduct of this very same case," said Joseph Kennedy, a University of North Carolina law professor.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Last paragraph of the filing is the most interesting, they actually ask the court to make Nifong pay for the entire proceeding to date out of his own pocket.
Nope, no way this trial stays in Durham after the complaint.
We will see.
Nope, no way this trial stays in Durham after the complaint.
"reaped?"
__________________________________________________________
How Grim!
At this point, if Nifong is offered up as a scapegoat everyone else will walk away practically unscathed. The only way the trial would be held in Durham would be if some judges were willing to stick their necks out for Mike Nifong. Since the case has received enough attention that Nifong is almost certainly going to be in big trouble regardless of what anyone does to help him, I see no reason to expect anyone else to want to join him.
Nifong is toast, the real question is the president (Broadhead) of Duke and the 88 super losers who signed the infamous letter. There is a real opportunity here to break the back of the liberal establishment at a major university in a single stroke.
What exactly do professors' tenure contracts specify? Even if the university cannot cut the pay of a tenured professor, is there anything in the contract that says the courses they teach have to count toward graduation, or that they must be given offices in the same building as other faculty assigned to similar subjects?
I have a pleasant vision of Duke moving some professors into some little cubicles in a storage building some distance away from the rest of campus, and assigning them "courses" that do not count toward graduation. Having to hire new professors to teach the real courses while continuing to pay the old profs might be expensive, but I would think exiling the Duke 88 would cause a sufficient increase in alumni donations to make up the difference.
Tenure is another one of these theories like the idea that a DA cannot be sued, when in the real world can only be stretched so far. The situation with the 88 super losers at Duke is at the snapping point now, and it would only take the littlest bit of effort on the part of conservative activists there to get rid of all of them. Students are talking about major protests against all of them to the point of banging pots and pans in front of doors if they try to teach classes. That would reduce their value to the school to pretty near zero.
This is Nifongs' ticket OUT of his own selfmade bad situation! It wouldn't be a bit of a surprise if he fabricated this 'ethics' crap himself.
He's probably immune from civil lawsuits as long as he doesn't continue with the prosecution of the rape cases.
An all around dirty-rotten-bastard! ................FRegards
Found an AP report, but lost it. Search of the web found this:
http://www.durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/
In the second half of a devastating one-two punch, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, Nifong’s peers, announced that “it is in the interest of justice and the effective administration of criminal justice that Mr. Nifong immediately withdraw and recuse himself from the prosecution of these cases and request the cases be assigned to another prosecutorial authority.”
Home page for the NC Conference of DAs with contact info.
http://www.ncdistrictattorney.org/
Is #4 correct and accurate? IOW, did she report early that morning that THREE men had raped her?
Hey, he just went to the same law school as Dan Rather... Just because there isn't any evidence, doesn't mean they didn't do it!
Mark
The North Carolina State Bar asserts that she claimed rape by three men in the early hours of 14 March 2006. The State Bar probably doesn't manufacture facts.
She changed her story so many times, and I couldn't recall which version was included in the initial report to police. That's all.
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.