Posted on 12/29/2006 10:07:41 PM PST by rawhide
Dec. 29, 2006 — In yet another moral blow to Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys called for the prosecutor to step down from the Duke lacrosse case.
The group, which represents district attorneys from across North Carolina, said in a statement 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."
"It's extraordinarily unusual and it means a great deal," said Joshua Marquis, a district attorney in Clatsop County, Ore.
The district attorney group also called for the case to be reassigned and handed over to "another prosecutorial authority."
The statement was prompted by charges of ethics violations against Nifong filed Thursday by the North Carolina bar. Those allegations accuse Nifong of making inappropriate comments about the case in a series of press interviews early in the proceedings.
"As prosecutors, we do not try our cases in the media. We do not file charges frivolously," Marquis, who is active in the National District Attorneys Association, told ABC News.
"I do not know what the merit of the charges are, but Mr. Nifong has not brought respect to our profession," Marquis said. "Some of his actions have brought great disrepute on the profession of prosecution."
Under North Carolina state law, there is no rule requiring Nifong to recuse himself from the case, even though he has been charged with ethics violations. But Nifong's critics — including defense attorneys for the three indicted Duke lacrosse players — say Nifong should step down because the ethics charges create a glaring and unavoidable conflict of interest. A prosecutor, they argue, cannot make fair and independent decisions when he himself is in legal hot water.
"My opinion is that this crystallizes the conflict of interest," Thomas Metzloff, a member of the North Carolina bar and professor at Duke Law School, told ABC News.
No sooner than three months from now, Nifong will stand trial before a panel drawn from the bar's disciplinary hearing commission. If that panel finds Nifong guilty of misconduct, he would be subject to punishment ranging from private admonishment to disbarment.
No, they're separate. The photo IDs can be tossed but there is still the opportunity for Mangum to make in-court IDs unless the motion to preclude that is granted.
I believe they are both in one motions, but the judge could grant the relief of quashing the IDs from the photo array,quashing an in court ID or both. So the judge could separate them, but he might well be overturned on appeal if he does.
They may be legally separate, but I would think it very unlikely for one to be quashed without the other. If improper tactics were used to make a witness believe that the person in a photograph committed a crime, such belief would likely cause the witness to identify the person shown in the photograph as having committed in the crime, whether or not the witness had ever seen that person before.
I do agree this is probably a theoretical argument. When the photo array ID is tossed, I suspect that in court IDs will very likely be barred too.
True, from Waco to Fells Acres, the American "justice system" has become a farce.
while she is partly to blame for that herself
One of the tenants of feminism is that women are never to be held responsible for their actions. Women who kill their children do so because they have abusive husbands. Women who involve themselves in paternity fraud are never held accountable - it is only the bad man who hurts the child by demanding a paternity test. Women who commit crimes need to be "understood", rather than thrown in jail.
And, of course, the AG only has a small role in this farce - it is almost exclusively the bad man's fault that this happened.
Fems treat women as a class like irresponsible little children.
"Ruth sees the light."
Well, that's awfully white of you, Ruthie.
"No study has ever found that women lie about rape any more often than men (and women) do about other crimes,"
Fems repeat that lie over and over again. By blaming Liefong, the fems get to distract from the all too common false allegation.
Oh, Susan, no studies? Glenn Sacks compiled some for you:
http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/527696.html
Published: Jan 02, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 02, 2007 02:31 AM
Nifong to take oath as Durham DA
From Staff Reports
DURHAM - Embattled prosecutor Mike Nifong is set to be sworn in as Durham's district attorney this morning.
Nifong, a career prosecutor who kept a low profile for the first 27 years of his career in Durham, is now nationally known for his involvement in the sexual assault case against three former Duke University lacrosse players. The players deny the accusations that they assaulted an escort service dancer at a party.
Nifong was accused last week of ethics violations by the State Bar for his early public statements about the case. The agency regulates and licenses lawyers.
Nifong was elected to a four-year term in November in a contentious election that focused heavily on the lacrosse case. Nifong is scheduled to be sworn in at 8 a.m. at the Durham County Courthouse.
http://carolinajournal.com/articles/displa...ry.html?id=3798
Media Mangle
Bad Journalism and Forgiveness
Poor early performance of N&O not erased by good reporting later
By Jon Ham
January 01, 2007
As I've written before, Ruth Sheehan, the gender columnist for The News & Observer, was one of the worst offenders in the bad-journalism sweepstakes that occurred last March when news of the Duke lacrosse rape allegations became public. Her "We know you know" (I cringe as I write the words) column was possibly the lowest journalistic point in this whole affair, as it bought hook, line and sinker the improbable story line that Durham DA Mike Nifong and the exotic dancer/student/mother/saint accuser peddled.
As the realization that the original story was bunk began to dawn on Sheehan and the editors at The N&O they began backing off and trying to recast themselves as defenders of due process, the Constitution and the American Way. I say bunk. They were only trying to save themselves embarrassment. Some bloggers, notably KC Johnson of Durham In Wonderland and the LieStoppers blog, have excused The N&O.
A notable exception is columnist William L. Anderson. He didn't buy the Sheehan turnaround in August, when he wrote:
Let’s face it; you wanted those accusations to be true, because they fit the leftist political viewpoint that dominates your newspaper. In early stories, reporters referred to the accuser as the "victim," not the "alleged victim" which is supposed to be the journalistic standard for these kinds of stories.
Like Anderson, I can't, and won't, forgive Sheehan, The N&O or The Herald-Sun for their pandering to political correctness, just as I can't forgive the newspapers that went with the flow early in the civil rights movement while a few brave ones took the dangerous and unpopular course of defending civil rights. They may have come around later, but the stink of journalistic cowardice will always be with them.
Today, in her latest column, Sheehan tries to move further away from her original reporting. While she calls herself "naive" for believing the early story, she doesn't apologize for her damaging dispatches. In fact, she proudly defends here irresponsible journalism:
I was one of the hopelessly naive who fell — hard — for Nifong's original depiction of the case.
In statements the State Bar now says violated ethics rules, Nifong described in detail the horrors of the alleged gang rape, including an attempted strangulation and racial insults.
Like others, I was outraged. And I wrote about it. I make no apology for that. It is not my job to wait for cases to be resolved and then walk through the aftermath and shoot the dead.
She defines her job in the negative, but what IS her job? Is it to believe all charges brought by prosecutors, or only those brought against those she despises (meaning those she views as privileged? Did her acknowledged date-rape incident more than 20 years ago prejudice her and affect her writing? Why was she outraged? Outrage shows she had already convicted the players in her mind.
Is that what she thinks her job is? She says it's not her job "to wait for cases to be resolved" before flying off half-cocked. If that's what her editors deem her job to be, then her 2006 performance evaluation must have been stellar. And does it bother anyone that one of the state's major papers is employing someone as a local columnist who is hopelessly naive? Columnists are supposed to be experienced enough in life to give us insights that we might not have ourselves. Naivete is not among the skill sets I used to look for when I was hiring columnists.
I admit I have a bias in this too. All my kids played lacrosse and I go to almost every Duke home lacrosse game. But when I first learned of the rape allegations (at a lacrosse game, as it happened) my first reaction was, "Well, it sounds bad, but let's see what happens. We don't know the whole story." Maybe my pro-lacrosse bias prompted that reaction, but, all in all, I think mine was the more measured, responsible and professional. If The N&O, its editor Melanie Sill, its columnists and even its reporters had taken that approach early on, I'd have more respect for them than I do now.
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/527634.html
Letter:
Published: Jan 02, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 02, 2007 02:30 AM
Nifong's mess
In view of the N.C. State Bar's accusations against Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong (news story, Dec. 29), several questions come to mind:
1) What could Nifong's evidence possibly be that would convict the Duke players of the remaining charges?
2) If the remaining charges are dropped, what can be done:
• to reimburse the three young men and their families for their pain and suffering and monetary sacrifices?
• to give back the lacrosse team their season, their coach, and their chance of winning a national championship?
• to repair Duke's reputation? (Early admission applications are down by 20 percent and its quite likely contributions to the university and its endowment will decrease.)
• to erase the hits Durham has taken in the national press?
• to alleviate the racial tensions that have been exacerbated by this case?
3) Was there anyone in the police department or the city government who ever questioned Nifong's actions?
4) And, in the linguistic tradition of the terms gerrymander, lynch, and luddite, how long will it be before "nifong" will be generally used to connote "to be treated unfairly or maliciously" as in, "Man, you got nifonged," or perhaps, "I feel like I've been nifed!"
Daniel Berenson
Durham
http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/527635.html
Letter:
Published: Jan 02, 2007 12:30 AM
Modified: Jan 02, 2007 02:30 AM
A menace to justice
Doggone it! The writer of the Dec. 27 People's Forum letter captioned "Too mild on Nifong" has stolen my thunder. However, to take his comments a step further, I believe Mike Nifong has succumbed to the awesome power bestowed upon him as district attorney and is driven to convict rather than to find justice. His egocentric approach to the "Duke rape case" should earn him tar and feathers and a ride out of town on a slick pole.
As far as I am concerned, he is driven by his ego and is a menace to the justice system. He must be corralled.
Charles T. Trent
Cameron
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/ruth/index.p...1&pb=1#comments
Ruth's Metro Blog
Monday, January 1, 2007
Nifong wins award
Late last week, I received a note from the head of a group that calls itself the Chappaquiddick Society, which nominates people for annual "First in Cowardice" awards. Guess who won this year?
From the Chappaquiddick prez:
"10 years ago, myself and a group of several other New Yorkers founded a political-satire organization, “The Chappaquiddick Society,” the aim of which was to scrutinize the cowardly actions of public figures. O. J. Simpson was voted the Society’s first Profile in Cowardice. This year, among the Society’s 10 Nominees for the Award was Mike Nifong, nominated for not having the courage to recuse himself and appoint a Special Prosecutor in the Duke University “rape” case. The Chappaquiddick Society has always championed women abused by men (and their attorneys) so it was all the more remarkable for the Society to nominate a Prosecutor in a case of alleged rape. Our nomination of Nifong reflects the very serious concerns our members here in New York share regarding a local prosecution in another State, a case we feel has national implications.
Once the 10 Nominees for the Profile in Cowardice Award are posted on our website, votes are tabulated from citizens nationwide willing to send in their choice. Mike Nifong received the most votes this year and is the Chappaquiddick Society’s Profile in Cowardice for 2006."
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2007/jan/01...rreach/?opinion
naplesnews.com
Dan K. Thomasson: Assault case at Duke smells of overreaching DAs
By Dan K. Thomasson
Monday, January 1, 2007
The sensational rape allegations surrounding three Duke University lacrosse players presents an almost perfect testimonial to growing concerns about the violence being done to the nation's justice system by ambitious, unbridled prosecutors who apparently have been reared on "ripped from the headlines" television like "Law and Order" in which self-righteous, unyielding district attorneys never (well, almost never) lose.
With the case that won him re-election as the prosecutor in Durham, N.C., about to come down around his ears, Michael Nifong seems to be running for shelter as fast his legs will carry him, eliminating the key charge of rape and telling a national newspaper that the other allegations of sexual assault and kidnapping also might be dropped if the exotic dancer who brought them shows any more doubt.
In case you have been living in a vacuum, the woman, who is working her way through a predominantly black state college, charged that three members of the Duke lacrosse team she and another stripper had been hired to entertain at a private team party dragged her into the bathroom and raped her.
It was a natural for Nifong, who was in a tough re-election campaign. It pitted a black woman against white men and privilege against poverty in a town where one of the nation's elite universities always has been resented by at least half the community. He jumped into the case with the alacrity of an alligator smelling lunch and went public with his own complaints that the accused were "rapists" and "racists" when very few facts were in.
His entire case now seems to have been based almost solely on the woman's word; it has been obvious for some time that the evidence doesn't support him.
None of the DNA taken from the woman's underwear or her vaginal and anal areas matched anyone on the lacrosse team. The DNA, however, did come from several other unidentified men, a fact Nifong and the lab director colluded to withhold from the defense team for some time.
The woman's identification of her alleged assailants was flawed as well, and appears to have been manipulated by the police department. One of those identified has evidence he wasn't even at the party during the claimed incident.
After telling nurses and doctors and anyone who would listen that she was raped from behind, she now says that she can't be certain there was penile penetration, resulting in the dropped rape charge.
It's shades of Tawana Brawley, the young black woman who claimed she had been kidnapped and raped by unknown white assailants only to finally admit she had made the whole thing up to escape her parents' wrath for being delinquent.
Well, that's also how political careers are made. Just ask the Rev. Al Sharpton, who bought into Brawley's tale hook, line and sinker and went on to political protest fame.
Quite clearly Nifong has begun to realize the fragility of his case and is looking for a way out, noting that he will follow the evidence wherever it takes him. And since it takes him nowhere, one would expect him to drop the matter.
But don't expect it to be that easy. He now faces the possibility of an ethics investigation by the North Carolina bar association and at least one congressman from the state has asked U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to investigate.
Going to trial and letting a jury find the accused men innocent might be his only way to save any face.
Increasingly, this entire affair looks like a disgraceful travesty. The tragedy is not just that it is another incident of abused legal authority, but that it has disrupted the lives of young men who now will always reside under a shadow; damaged the reputation of a great university that has seen its admissions applications decline precipitously, and caused the parents of the accused endless hours of pain and huge amounts of money.
In some ways, the university's officials are no better than Nifong, having overreacted in a classic example of destructive political correctness by firing the lacrosse coach and canceling the season of one of the best lacrosse teams in the nation. The team has since been reinstated and Duke's president is now in the forefront of demanding explanations from Nifong.
But none of this, of course, needed to happen. A prudent prosecutor would have not let his own re-election problems or the specter of racial politics drive him into making hasty decisions based on nothing more than the word, disputed early on by her fellow stripper, of a woman who had no evidence to back her up.
In some ways, the woman herself, whatever her motives, has been a victim of this prosecutor, who may have used her far more violently than what she has alleged.
http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/ShowArtic...orm&date=070102
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author: Michael J. Gaynor
Date: January 2, 2007
Duke Case: Ashley Cannon, Please Speak Up
Rocky Mountain News
To print this page, select File then Print from your browser
URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/edit...5250434,00.html
North Carolina's out-of-control DA
January 2, 2007
North Carolina officials might not be able to correct all the injustices perpetrated by Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong. But at least they can make this rogue prosecutor pay for his abuse of the law.
Nifong, who's in charge of the investigation of the alleged sexual assault of a stripper by Duke University lacrosse players, faces his own legal fight. The state bar association filed ethics charges Thursday against the DA, saying he "engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" during his handling of the case.
The 17-page complaint cites dozens of statements made to the media that "Nifong knew . . . were misleading." They could of course make it nearly impossible for the defendants to get a fair trial.
An independent panel that rules on allegations of attorney misconduct could disbar Nifong. He may be removed from the case before the panel makes its decision.
Fortunately, the chances of any trial going forward look exceedingly remote. Nifong dropped the rape charges Dec. 22. Yet he has let stand counts of kidnaping and sexual assault, though the accuser could not identify her alleged attackers, and her story has changed repeatedly.
All charges should be dropped. Let the students go free. Meantime, the only person who deserves to face justice here is Nifong, who so eagerly abused his office to further his career.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20...02_spilbor.html
To Prosecute, or To Be Prosecuted? Why, In Light Of Formal State Bar Charges, District Attorney Mike Nifong Should Be Ordered Off The Duke Rape Case
By JONNA SPILBOR
Tuesday, Jan. 02, 2007
It was a week of back-to-back bombshells in the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal.
First, on December 22, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong made the surprise announcement that he was dropping the rape charge (but only the rape charge) against the three former Duke lacrosse players at the heart of this case: defendants David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Colin Finnerty.
Click here to find out more!
Then, Durham's top cop got a surprise of his own.
Less than a week after Nifong dropped the rape charges, the North Carolina State Bar - the agency that, among other things, polices attorney conduct - announced it had filed formal ethics charges against Nifong himself. The bar claims Durham's District Attorney made inflammatory remarks about the defendants, and misled the public about certain evidence in the case.
Nifong now faces an investigation before the state bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission, and the possibility of punishment ranging anywhere from private censure to disbarment.
Meanwhile, the North Carolina Attorney General's Office apparently has received more than 400 complaints against this District Attorney, spurred by his conduct in this matter. Moreover, North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones has called for a federal investigation against Nifong, to determine whether his handling of the case violated the defendants' civil rights.
To say that this level of public outcry against an elected law enforcement official is unusual, is the understatement of the year. While the public may have voted this man into office, and even re-elected him in the midst of this debacle, the public, laudably, is now doing its best to finally vote him off this case.
In this column, I will discuss why, in light of the formal ethics charges now pending against him, Nifong suffers from far too great a conflict of interest for him to possibly continue in his role as prosecutor in the case. If he does not soon either dismiss the charges outright, or hand over the prosecutorial reins to someone else, a judge should step in and take this case away from him.
Let's take these bombshells in chronological order, shall we?
The Oddity of DA Nifong's Pre-Trial Dismissal of Only One Charge
On December 22nd, DA Nifong announced his decision to dismiss, pre-trial, the top charge in the case against the three players - namely, the charge of rape. It was, frankly, an overdue, albeit nonetheless shocking, announcement. But even more shocking,
was the companion revelation that the additional charges, namely kidnapping and "sexual offense," would remain.
Typically, it just doen't happen this way.
Ordinarily, in a criminal case, when lesser counts are charged that directly relate to the top count - as is the situation here - those charges are included primarily to give the DA a tactical advantage in plea bargaining: If a defendant pleads guilty to the top count, the prosecutor may dismiss a lesser charge or two, thus ratcheting down the sentencing range.
Moreover, if no plea is reached, all charges typically stay put, for multiple charges give a potentially divided jury multiple options, allowing conviction on lesser charges, if the top count is difficult or impossible to prove.
All Charges in This Case, Not Just One, Should Have Been Dismissed
That said, it is especially odd - if not downright absurd - to dismiss the main charge, but not all of the charges, in this particular case. Nifong claimed that only the rape charge had been dismissed because the accuser could "no longer remember" whether she had actually been "penetrated" by any of the defendants, and penetration is an element of rape.
As readers are probably well aware, this isn't the only thing the accuser hasn't been able to recall along the way; far from it. Her changing stories have faulted as many as twenty Duke players in her alleged rape. If she had truly been raped, I believe she would have remembered both the penetration, and at least roughly the number of men who assaulted her. This additional supposed failure of memory thus simply adds to evidence supporting the dismissal of all charges.
True, the accuser may well have been severely intoxicated, and that is no defense to rape. However, proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires testimony that hangs together, rather than falling apart. Moreover, the utter lack of DNA evidence against any Duke player -- including tests that were negative for the defendants' DNA, and tests that were positive for the DNA of other men not on the team -- overwhelmingly favors dismissal.
In light of a lack of corroborative forensic evidence, this case turns on one thing: the accuser's credibility. Her defective memory on the top charge therefore affects her credibility on all charges.
Indeed, the accuser likely ought to be worried about potentially testifying under oath in this case to facts that are untrue. To do so is perjury - a felony. Filing a false rape report with police, on the other hand, a misdemeanor. You do the math.
A Prosecutor Whose Lack of Credibility Equals that of the Accuser
Now, let's move on to DA Nifong's own lack of credibility. The serious charges the North Carolina State Bar filed against Nifong aren't just accusations of improper and inflammatory commentary.
Nifong also stands accused of breaking a rule against "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation" -- by insinuating publicly that a lack of DNA evidence on the accuser could have resulted from the defendants' use of condoms, when the accuser specifically said her attackers did not, in fact, use condoms.
Why DA Nifong's Conflict of Interest and Apparent Misconduct Demand His Dismissal from this Case
One thing is for sure in this case: Defense attorneys will be asking the presiding judge to sanction DA Nifong for what they claim is a willful violation of ethical and evidentiary rules. Recently, a forensic scientist the DA hired to conduct early DNA tests admitted that DA Nifong himself ordered the expert to withhold relevant information from the defense!
Based on that order, the defense did not learn that DNA samples taken from the accuser revealed evidence of sex between the accuser and a number of other men - none of whom were in attendance at the party in question, and none of whom were Duke lacrosse players. It is as if, in a murder case, the gun bore four sets of fingerprints - none of which were the suspect's -- and the DA suggested that the gun was simply wiped clean.
Nifong claims this was merely an oversight, but that seems extremely implausible. After all, the expert was apparently fully aware of this evidence and ready to provide it, until Nifong said no. In addition, there's at least a strong credibility issue here that ought to make Nifong a star (if adverse) defense witness in this case, and thus require his disqualification.
Withholding exculpatory evidence from defense counsel violates the U.S. Constitution, as well as North Carolina's (and every state's) rules of criminal procedures. Sanctions for violations can range from fines against the offending attorney, to wholesale dismissal of the charges.
What sanctions are appropriate here? As noted above, DA Nifong should be disqualified, but that's a matter of fairness, not a sanction. His misconduct rises to the level that a healthy fine, and dismissal of these woefully unproven charges, would also be appropriate.
If DA Nifong isn't dismissed, he ought to step down. His role is to represent the people of the State - 400 of whom have filed complaints against him with the Attorney General's Office. His conduct has disgraced his office. The State Bar plainly wants him out: It could have waited to file its ethics complaint until after this case was resolved, and the fact that it didn't, says loud and clear that it wants Nifong out. Now.
Nifong will be lucky, in the end, if he himself avoids the punishment he sorely deserves. In its complaint against the D.A. for making "improper commentary about the character, credibility and reputation of the accused," the Bar quotes Nifong as saying, "One would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong."
I wonder what commentary DA Nifong will offer when and if he himself hires an attorney, as well he should right now.
Interested readers may also want to consult Spilbor's series of columns about this case, the most recent of which - containing links to earlier columns as well - is this one. - Ed.
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/s...gepublisher.com
Official, but not over
Va-Va-Voom
Shadee Malaklou
Posted: 12/11/06
It's official. Even Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has succumbed to the reality that many Duke students knew all along. The members of the men's lacrosse team did not rape a Durham stripper March 13.
Sadly, this means very little for the rest of Duke.
Although the rape charges are off the table, the lacrosse scandal is far from over, and it's partially our fault. In the dwindling throes of what has become the biggest sex scandal at a major university, as Duke students we still feel indebted to-connected to-these "big men on campus." But the lacrosse players, despite the fact that they wear the Duke name on their chests at games, feel no connection or responsibility to Duke University.
I've watched in wonder at how aggressive and angry Duke students, past and present, are to accusations of the lacrosse team. As someone who feels neither indebted nor connected to the lacrosse players, I'm curious: How did the lacrosse team become representative of Duke as a whole, or of Duke students in general? How did their negative, rude and hard-partying image become our negative image as well? And is the media to blame? Or are we?
For one reason or another, as students we've come to represent and define ourselves through each other. Duke students know very little about themselves (as individuals) apart from the group-apart from the monolithic whole of Duke University. We see this reflected in "Innocent #6, #13, #45" wristbands students wear, in over-zealous student blogs and in the bumper stickers students post (ad nauseum) on their cars, in an almost "Support the Troops" type fashion. After all, who are we if not, first and foremost, Dukies? And as Dukies, don't we have an obligation to stick together?
Not necessarily. Although we now know that a rape did not happen on March 13, the truth is, as students and passersby, we owe the lacrosse team nothing, not even a toast or celebration in honor of their now official innocence. In the days since the party, we've connected ourselves so closely to the image of the lacrosse team and the embarrassing Duke 500 that we've fooled ourselves into believing an innocent verdict will clear our name.
Has it? No, and I should hope that we feel a little foolish. Were we really so na've as to think that our name-the coveted Duke name-could be scrubbed clean? The damage, as far as we're concerned, was done in March… and April, and May, and into the summer, as CNN camped out on West Campus and used our DSG president-Jesse Longoria-and Chronicle editor-Seyward Darby-as talking heads. Let's face it: Our integrity, our pride, our boastful reputation and pseudo-Ivy League status, it was all already jeopardized.
And still, as the "Duke three" underwent DNA tests and watched the reelection of Nifong, we still wore the wristbands, and even started the following Facebook groups: "I Support Duke Lacrosse," "Duke Defense Fund" and my personal favorite, "For every 100 people that join I'll donate $5 to Duke lacrosse defense fund." The latter boasts more than 2,000 members.
It surprises (and to an extent, disgusts) me that we have remained so loyal to a group of men that have shown very little loyalty to Duke, to the student community or to Duke's reputation. Have we so soon forgotten the lacrosse team's sloppy tailgate habits? Or their "I am man, hear me roar… and chug a bear" reputation with women?
Indeed, the original uproar of students in the wake of the lacrosse accusations reflected a common concern among Dukies-Dukies who normally stick together in defense of their school and their Blue Devil honor-that the lacrosse team, although now exonerated, was capable of such an act; and that it's just like these men to nonchalantly dishonor Duke.
For the players, the fight to prove their innocence looks to be mostly over, as is the need to prove themselves as "good" guys. But for us, as an institution, a student body, a campus and a culture, it's only just beginning.
It frustrates me to graduate in four months and tell future employers that my undergraduate years were spent at Duke University. I can imagine it now: The employer will shrug and mention something about how disappointed he was to hear that Duke has such a deplorable campus, while I ineffectively insist that Duke really, truly is great. Upon graduation, Joe Lacrosse Player, on the other hand, will have the following conversation with his future employer: "Poor guy. That must have been a terrible ordeal for you and your teammates. Let me cut you a break."
Pinging with today's crop of news, editorials and columns
Be they separate motions or not, they are separate questions before the court. Granting the motion to quash the photo IDs doesn't mean the in-court is automatically out. That question is for a separate ruling, and that's the point.
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.