Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: abb
"After a December hearing, Nifong insisted he did nothing wrong. 'There was no attempt to hide anything,' he said, adding that defense attorneys only had to ask for the evidence."

The buffoon apparently doesn't even know how utterly wrong he is (not that it would matter). As the Second Circuit put it in United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1208 (2d Cir. 1995): "[T]he government has an affirmative duty to disclose favorable evidence known to it, even if no specific disclosure request is made by the defense." Or, as the Missouri Supreme Court said in Middleton v. State, 103 S.W.3d 726, 733 (Mo. banc 2003): "Prosecutors must disclose, even without a request, exculpatory evidence, including evidence that may be used to impeach a government witness." "It is not enough for the prosecution to avoid active suppression of favorable evidence; Brady and its progeny require disclosure." Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89, 99 (2d Cir. 2001). And, as the United States Supreme Court made clear in the very recent case of Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 696 (2004), any rule "declaring 'prosecutor may hide, defendant must seek,' is not tenable in a system constitutionally bound to accord defendants due process."

Bring on the additional charges!

165 posted on 01/15/2007 7:48:00 PM PST by Bitter Bierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies ]


To: Howlin
On WRAL:

Nifong Could Face 2nd Bar Complaint

Raleigh — The former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case could face another complaint from the North Carolina Bar.

Last month, the bar filed an ethics complaint against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong for his numerous pretrial comments regarding the Duke Lacrosse case. The complaint says the district attorney's conduct was dishonest and deceitful.

The bar committee that handles complaints meets again Thursday. The bar won't confirm or deny whether it is looking into another complaint, but some observers say there is reason.

They say Nifong broke other professional conduct rules by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence -- which tends to negate guilt -- to defense attorneys in a timely manner.

The evidence in question is test results in which no DNA from any lacrosse player was found on the accuser.

After a December hearing, Nifong insisted he did nothing wrong.

"There was no attempt to hide anything," he said, adding that defense attorneys only had to ask for the evidence.

Nifong's pretrial hearing regarding last month's ethics complaint is next week. A trial is set for May.

166 posted on 01/15/2007 7:55:39 PM PST by NCjim (The more I use Windows, the more I love UNIX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson