Posted on 01/24/2007 6:38:29 AM PST by FoxRun
Just heard via Fox News Alert that additional charges have been levied against Nifong. Charges are that he failed to disclose and/or hid the DNA evidence (that exonerated the 3 players charged).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1169785864...=googlenews_wsj
Duke President Urged Caution on Scandal
January 26, 2007; Page B6
In "The Michael Nifong Scandal" (editorial page, January 11), Dorothy Rabinowitz raises compelling criticisms of how the Durham, N.C. district attorney has handled the prosecution of the three Duke University students. The commentary also criticized Duke President Richard Broadhead for not speaking to the fundamental principle of a presumption of innocence until some seven months after the incident. President Brodhead, in his first public statement in the days following the alleged incident, urged that the students must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise -- an assertion he has made clearly and repeatedly in numerous subsequent communications to faculty, students, alumni and others.
As he told "60 Minutes: in August, ". . . my view is that the DA's case will be on trial as much as our players will be on trial." His statements have been reported widely. His comment with "60 Minutes" is still on its website, just as many of his other statements remain available on Duke's Web site.
John F. Burness
Senior Vice President
Public Affairs and Government Relations
Duke University
Durham, S.C.
E & J apply to disciplinary directives already handed down in prior decisions concerning the lawyer at issue. I don't think H applies because the victims - Duke boys - have adequate counsel, are free on bail, not incapacitated, feeble-minded, unfamiliar with the language, or so young or so old or so uneducated that they could not grasp what was happening to them. Besides that, I think it would more commonly apply to representation of a client. The NC Rules are adopted exactly from the ABA model and, although I don't think "vulnerability" is actually defined, my understanding is that it usually applies to such things as I've mentioned. But CA (where I am) has its own Rules (not the ABA model) that don't specifically include the subject, so I'm not sure.
If Nifong tries to throw all that nonsense at the committee, they will be more PO'd than they are now. He might be able to try B, C & D with a straight face but, realistically, the only mitigating factors with merit for him are A, G & L (L, if he can bring himself to express remorse). He might try E by telling yet more lies to cover his earlier lie to the committee since lying to cover previous lies is his established pattern, but if his lawyer is smart he won't allow it.
So DPD spent 30 minutes on the call and never rolled their fat behinds out of the patrol cars.
Nice work, boys. Back to the doughnut shop for another break. You deserve it.
They never made it over to building 1100 in that 30 minutes? Cops know or should know that the sound of shots fired in or around multiple buildings bounce and are hard to place, especially for a layperson passing by or inside another building. This is "Shots fired 101".
Lazy bastards.
They'll make a much bigger deal out of the "hate" aspect of this than they have the muzzie who tried to kill a bunch of students with his vehicle at UNC because they're Americans.
Circling the wagons.
Sounds like Tracey Cline is publicly auditioning for the upcoming DA opening. Easley passed over her last time, choosing the more senior Nifong.
They never stop surprising us. I would think they would have covered the entire complex. They had no idea where the sound of those bullets originated. She was out in the OPEN. Incredible.
mark
I read E&J again. I think they pretty clearly include the current case. Certainly it is against the rules to lie to the committee in this case and he broke that rule. Certainly he has been indifferent to making restitution.
As for H, you make a good case for it not applying. On the other hand were these poor black kids or poor elderly victims who scraped together bail money, but were only well represented because the ACLU of my youth took there case or some good lawyer took their case pro bono, would H not apply here either? These guys are young and POOR. They are depending on the generousity of others to pay for their representation. Sure it is their parent, BUT THEY ARE STILL POOR. Because others who happened to be related to them stepped forward to help them, everyone forgets that in this case [unless one has a trust fund we have not heard about] the defendants essentially have nothing.
Link to new thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773908/posts
I agree Nifong deserves to have his claims blow up in his face. And maybe I should have said Nifong will claim all these mitigating factors to his attorney who will not say such stupid things on his behalf in the hearing?
But really, I doubt we ever have a hearing. The next two things to happen in this situation in some order is for the charges to be dropped and Nifong to cop his plea. Nifong can not afford to have a public hearing about his behavior. He is nailed dead to right.
As someone predicted here long ago, Nifong is going take a disability retirement, slink away, default on civil liability and hope that no federal criminal charges come his way. He is truly insane so he is more apt to claim his cancer is back or some other physical malady than mental. [The crazy seemingly never claim to be crazy and fight tooth and nail against being labeled crazy.] But he will need a rationalization that fighting this is not worth it. And since he will be "sick" he will give up his law license since he can't use it anyway. And certainly if he gets good advice at all, it has to be to avoid a losing public hearing that will further damage him.
I think it will be interesting to see whether Nifong ultimately takes a hard-line, scorched-earth, "I did absolutely nothing wrong"-type position or throws himself under the fully-loaded bus that is speeding toward him and begs for mercy. If he takes the hard-line approach he already seems to have adopted in large part, he risks losing everything. If he takes the "I'm a poor, pathetic wretch" tack, complete with a carefully negotiated set of stipulated facts to avoid the humiliation of a public trial, he risks having the disciplinary committee reach a different conclusion than he'd like as to the severity of the appropriate punishment. And if he tries something in between, he runs the risk of finding himself in no man's land, with absolutely no certainty of the outcome.
No matter what, I'd hate to be in his shoes (or his bath robe) right now.
Are you sure this is really Wanda, and not Precious or her cousin?
Thanks for the heads up on the new thread, JLS. Where is it, and how do I know when the main thread has migrated? This happens to me all the time; usually I'm the last one, posting to stragglers like me!
Precious has many names.....
Remember the one they called "Sha-Nay-Nay"?
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.