Posted on 01/14/2007 4:25:09 PM PST by Howlin
Comments here!
Yup, right after all the Charger fans started to drown their sorrows. And you guys come from such a beatiful city...too bad!! Now, you have to admit that Mr. Brady is one tough-minded SOG, lucky too!!!
"I didn't read the transcript, but yes I did gather that the decision to depart from the NC photo line-up guidelines was made by Nifong. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a failure to conform to state guidelines, if that failure does NOT rise to the level of a U.S. federal constitutional violation, would give much added weight to a federal civil rights claim for damages against Durham."
Any indictment obtained on the basis of an unconstitutionally (and intentionally) suggestive lineup most certainly would constitute a federal constitutional violation. While Nifong's conscious decision to instruct the police officers conducting the lineup to violate the guidelines may not, in and of itself, be sufficient to prove the required section 1983 elements, it is very powerful circumstantial evidence of such an intent.
"If the photo identification IS found to be a violation of the US Constitution, then yes that would of course greatly help the defendants in succeeding on a claim for damages for violation of federal civil rights."
You obviously meant to say it would greatly help the plaintiffs. Even so, there would not need to be a prior judicial determination to that effect. The plaintiffs could introduce evidence bearing on that issue at trial.
"And of course a failure to conform to the state guidelines may in and of itself be sufficient for a North Carolina court to exclude the photo identification, and a court could then easily further conclude that an in-court identification would also have to be suppressed, in which event the case would almost certainly have to be thrown out on that basis, but I don't know the answer as to whether a North Carolina court has the power to exclude a photo ID solely on the basis that it did not conform to the state guidelines."
That would certainly dispose of the criminal charges. Like you, I don't know for sure if a violation of the guidelines alone would be sufficient reason for a North Carolina court to exclude a subsequent in-court identification. However, as a lawyer and former appellate judicial clerk, I can give you plenty of reasons it *should* be sufficient grounds for exclusion, particularly when there is also evidence of the prosecutor's intent to violate the guidelines.
And not in the West neither. It was a far far closer thing than school histories suggest. The Tories were numerous in New York and Philadelphia.
Certainly you are right that just because something is unconstitutional does not mean it is a civil rights violaton. But I suspect that many of Nifong's actions including slandering the entire Duke lacrosse team will make him and Durham Co. liable. That is not my opinion but that of attorneys who understand the case law on the immunity of better than I do. [I am not an attorney.]
The disbarrment committee is very likely to disbarr Nifong. Failure to do do might very well lead to a lot of problems for those on the disbarrment committee.
Think about a criminal defense lawyer.. who took on a case that got only local coverage. The prosecutor might very well say something like, "I cannot comment on the quality of the defense council. It is not right for me to do so, but I will tell you that he was on the committee that voted NOT to disbarr Nifong. You may make of that whatever you chose."
A case or two of that and defendants would look for other council.
Or imagine a corporate lawyer telling the head of company that is negotiating with, that they may want to reconsider taking the advice of their attorney... becuase he proved his poor judgement by being on the committee that voted NOT to disbarr Nifong.
And of course as we know the first player she picked was a local and in Raleigh that night, so they ignored that pick and made her pick three others.
I found this statement telling. She may indeed have other records.
"When I'm trying to get over the rage I am thinking about, so deeply, this young woman who has been abused by men all her life. And nobody has abused her more than Mike Nifong," says Rae Evans.
When I refer to "the defendants" seeking federal civil rights damages, I am referring to the lacrosse case defendants.
The body of 1983 cases is so vast, one can find winners on slim circumstantial evidence and losers on what one would think is very strong evidence. This, like many areas of law, is not one where IMO one should purport to predict outcomes with absolute certainty, but is better stated in terms of odds.
My take on their odds of success based on what has been publicly revealed about the case so far, taking ALL factors (legal and practical) into account, is about 1:4. I take it you would put them at better than 1:1.
Well...since we have polls it has hard to tell exactly. There were areas in the South and the Middle states (Highlander Scots are a notable example) where Tory opinion was strong....but the whole south? I don't see the evidence. Good baromters of opinion in the South was not only the overwhelming support for the Patriot cause in Southern colonial legislatures but also the utter failure to recruit a "loyalist army" that could begin to match the patriots in numbers and zeal.
Rae Evans is taking the high road. I am not so sure I could.
But she is right-Mike Nifong used her. He pimped her out.
Yup. And actually given that two of the other people she picked had rock-solid alibis, it was a multiple choice test with probably about ten wrong answers out of 40 (guessing some other players had alibis) and she picked three wrong out of four.
That is we don't have polls
Remember the Durham Access records supposedly not kept?
--- There are a couple of names of staffers in one of the motions.
When was Nifong aware of her mental health history?
--- Probably when she plea-bargained the taxi-theft caper.
Good friend Woody could always fill him in, if he didn't know.
--- We figure the cops know her on sight.
Would the Navy admit someone with a 'history' or do they check
an enlistee out first?
She did have the brains to get an associate degree at Durham Tech.
And then study criminal justice at NCCU in a degree program.
She did graduate from high-school, which is an obstacle for many
in Durham.
--- the mental health issues will now be a smokescreen ---
No need to apologize, I was only ballparking the number anyway, 3,000 on 9-11, 3,000 in Iraq and another 1,000 for Afghanistan, the Cole etc.
Did you know that in 1941 before the attack on Pearl Harbor some US ships and German ships did a little shooting at each other and some US Sailor were killed?
If it was so "close" why were British efforts to recruit Tories to fight alongside them such an utter failure? Why did so few Tories speak up in colonial legislatures? Not a single colonial legislature came even close to backing the Tory clause.
Actually that's not what I am saying at all. What I am saying is that just because something violates a state guideline does not mean it is also necessarily a violation of the US Constitution.
Actually it violated DPD policy. I think there maybe is a state model but not a state policy in NC?
Good thing I took a nap, have some looking up to do. I agree about the smoke screen. Not sure of the process, but if precious never sought help n high school, she would have no mental health record to check. This could very well factor into her early discharge. (Speculating) She could be an honors student when taking her meds. She could be every postive thing ever said about her.
I'm fairly certain I read many months ago that it was a statewide guideline adopted recently, that is just within the past few years
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.