Glory's Sun

They are supposed to show her a wide range of people. As in people not even associated with the team. Not just a group picture of the team itself.

The_Jazz

I'm not sure that I understand this statement - do you mean that the DA would never claim the DNA was invalid? I don't see how any defense statements one way or the other would destroy any kind of credibility. The defense can make all the statements it wants outside of court (so can the DA, but that's typically a bad idea) without having to bring anything into the courtroom. You see it done all the time.

And for the record, the defense did claim that the DNA results showed no matches. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2404002 so I really don't get your point.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

My statement was in response to this quote

I meant to say that the defense would never claim that there were actual matches to the DNA. That would kill any chance of credibility or other avenues such as consent later on. Since they are blasting away at the DNA evidence, they have killed the consent avenue which makes me believe they are pretty confident in their clients and what evidence they do have/know.

The_Jazz

Again, what they say in the media doesn't have to conform to what they say in court. They can blast away at the DNA evidence all they want and then say that any sex was consentual in court. There are no rules against that. They'll look pretty stupid if they do, but that doesn't mean that there might be a valid strategic reason to do it. Again, it is entirely possible that the DA has DNA evidence linking one of these guys to the rape and the defense is setting up a smoke screen. The defense attorneys will look pretty foolish and unreliable if that does prove to be the case, but they may have a strategy here that involves misinformation.

There is no law that says that a defense attorney has to tell the media the truth about his client and their actions and plenty of laws that say that a defense attorney cannot disclose harmful things about his client.

All we have are the defense's interpretation of the DNA results. Its entirely possible that they are only giving us a portion of the facts or that there were inconsistent results in some of the tests. Again, consider the source of information, especially when the DA has basically put a gag order on his entire office with instructions that leaks = pink slips, at least according to what I've read. The DA is treating this very seriously, and the discovery is going to be very interesting. It's also entirely possible that all the charges are going to get dismissed in a month.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

Yes I know that there is no law stating they can't go back on issues in court.. but let's face the facts. If the DA did happen to have some DNA linking these kids to a rape, he's going to make damn sure he brings up in court how the defense said there wasn't any and yada yada. A DA can put all the gag orders he wants on his staff, but the leaks will still come through. I guess the DNA question will be settled when the next round comes through.. should be today or tomorrow.

The_Jazz

First, let's start with the fact that I agree with you on most of your points in general up to now. However.....

Exactly who do you propose is going to take the stand to defend these statements? Is the DA going to put the defense counsel under oath? To what end? What judge would allow it? Unless one of the defendants gets out of control and says something to that effect in pretrial discovery (which would be monumentally stupid), there's no way to get this kind of statement admitted. As far as facing facts, that's my entire point - what facts are we supposed to face when we don't actually have any? All we have right now is what the defense is saying, and that's not someone that I necessarily choose to believe. The defense counsel has an agenda, and that's to do everything he can to make us believe in the innocence of his client. Maybe the results are what he's saying, maybe not. My entire point is that you shouldn't accept what he's saying as fact



What leaks from the DA's office are you talking about? I haven't heard of any "unnamed sources" in that office making any statements. It's entirely possible that I've missed them, so I'm curious what they've confirmed or denied or even said. That would certainly lend credibility to whatever the defense is saying.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

ok..

First, a statement doesn't have to be admissible to have an impact on a jury Even if the judge advises a jury to disregard a statement.. the damage has already been done. Why do you think lawyers say things they know will be thrown out?? Because most jurors just can't forget things. It's a ploy that is used constantly. Like you said, this could very well be the case already. The defense could be pulling this trick now. Also, were the kids to hire a new lawyer, council whatever, the old lawyers could be put on the stand under oath. Not to say they will hire new council, just pointing out that it could happen.

secondly, there aren't any leaks yet. I said that will still come through. That doesn't mean it has occured yet, just that eventually no matter how tight lipped the DA says his office is, the leaks will occur. That's just the way it goes.

Again, I totally understand what you are saying about not accepting what a biased source says as fact. I'm just going with my gut instinct on this one and using what the defense has said as a backup. If something else were to be said to alter my judgements so far I would definately change my mind. I'm just merely pointing out that something has been off from day 1 in this case and I don't see these allegations standing.

The_Jazz

Guccilvr, you watch too much TV. Lawyers don't say things that get thrown out very often because it gets them in huge trouble with judges. If you do things like that as a lawyer, you'll find yourself sitting on a mistrial. There's also the issue that if a lawyer does this multiple times, judges will get wise and shut them down before they can even get started on misleading the jury. Remember that these guys see each other constantly in the courtroom, especially in a smaller venue like Raleigh (as opposed to NYC). If you're the top lawyer in town, you aren't going to hold that title very long if all the judges are predisposed against you.

Also, you couldn't put an old lawyer on the stand because of client confidentiality. You can't force a lawyer to reveal anything about a past, present or future client - ever. The exceptions to that rule are so few and far between as to be unworthy of listing.

There may or may not be leaks in the future, but I think that you just helped me prove my point about where all the information is coming from. I completely agree that these kids could be innocent (as I've said several times), but they also could have done it. The DA could also be sitting on DNA proof that they haven't revealed yet that the defense knows about but is deliberately ignoring.

I think that you get my point, so why don't we sit back and see what happens? I agree that the timeline offered is pretty telling if it holds up compared to the rest of the evidence. This may be a huge scam, and strippers aren't exactly known for their law-abiding behavior at the best of times. Then again, maybe these guys did something horrible to her.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

Actually, you know what's funny? I don't watch tv at all. I think I might watch about 5 hours of tv a month You can ask several people in chat. They will tell you I think Law and Order and CSI and similar shows are nothing but pure bullshit.

What I'm going on is from friends that I have as lawyers and what I've seen in actual cases. A friend of mine just had a case where they put a lawyer on the stand. Granted it was a huge exception. I was just merely pointing out that it can/could happen, especially as weird as this case is.

If lawyers didn't say things very often that got thrown out, then there would be no need for objections and such. Like I said, I'm just guessing at the craziness that could ensue if this were to ever hit trial.

Sure, you can say I proved your point. I never disagreed with you. I am just going with what I think will be the outcome. If you think I'm a majority in this assumption you would be wrong. Alot of people around here seem to think the kids are guilty.

I am going to wait and see what happens but it's just interesting to me to sort through things and kind of see how I stand at the end.

The_Jazz

That is pretty funny about TV. I'm not a lawyer either, although I too thought very hard about it, and I have a bunch of friends that work for some of the big firms in Chicago and New York, including some that are litigators. I'm basing my opinions on what they've told me, which is basically that trying to mislead a jury like we're discussing could lead to a mistrial or even contempt of court fines. They laugh at Law & Order and CSI just like you do (although that doesn't stop some of them from watching those shows).

As far as my "proving my point" statement, I didn't mean to imply that you and I disagreed. That was more for the lurkers.

The lawyer that went on the stand must have been one hell of a case. That's certainly the one-off exception to the rule, and generally lawyers can't be compelled to reveal anything a client tells them even if that client is dead.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

Yeah the lawyer friends have said that a mistrial could happen. I doubt it will actually get to that point though.

As far as the case with a lawyer on the stand it was for some sexual assualt case and I don't remember why or the how's he actually got on the stand. I just know that he said it was allowed. (he doesn't go into detail much..it's his way of detaching from work)

I actually enjoy this sort of legal guessing and banter back and forth.

heccubusiv

I do not know if they are guilty or if they are innocent, but its just be lawyers. Its not a race thing at all, its a money thing. If you have the best lawyers you have a better change off getting off than if you have a shitty lawyer, i thought that aspect was obvious. It was just in this case the rich kids happended to be white.

__________________
Fuck Ohio

Ustwo

vrs

Might want to edit that first post then.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Glory's Sun

According to a news story this morning, Duke Lacrosse players have broken their silence. There was an interview on ESPN (which I didn't see) on the basis of anonyminity. The players said that there was an argument over the amount of money and how long the girls were supposed to dance, and this is when the girls locked themselves in the bathroom. The players also said that slurs were used during the argument but that no rape occured.

Of course this gives the girl a reason to cry wolf. *I'm not saying that's what she did, just saying it's possible*

Glory's Sun

Just a small update:

On the news this morning, they reported that this same woman filed a very similar report 10 years ago. She claimed she was sexually assaulted by 3 men. No charges were ever filed after the claim because (according to her mother) she was in fear of her life and did not want to make any statements. Her mother said that this time the woman would testify during a trial.

this thing just gets weirder and weirder.

Ustwo

The DA was re-elected.

Count down till the charges are dropped begins now....

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

magictoy

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/13/D8M06HMG0.html

I wonder why they're even having a trial?

Glory's Sun

I heard about this as well. They may not have a trial. I think Mike Nifong was hoping the media would forget about this little gem of his, and then he'd just casually drop charges. :shrug:

I've also heard that a state senator here has made a motion for dismissal for several reasons. I'll have to try and find the article to get the whole story.

maleficent

Judge OKs defense request for paternity testing of Duke lacrosse rape accuser's child

DURHAM, North Carolina: A judge ordered testing Friday to determine whether three Duke University lacrosse players fathered the child of a woman who accuses them of rape — a prospect defense attorneys dismissed as an "absolute impossibility."

News of the accuser's pregnancy comes roughly nine months after the team party where she says she was raped by three white men, but District Attorney District Attorney Mike Nifong said he believed the accuser became pregnant at least two weeks after the party. The accuser is a black woman.

Defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said Friday the defense, which requested the testing, has known for some time about the pregnancy.

A person familiar with the case, speaking to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the pregnancy late Thursday but had no information about the father.

Testimony at a procedural hearing Friday focused on a defense request for more information about DNA testing conducted for the prosecution.

Defense attorneys have stressed for months that no sex occurred at the party and they have cited DNA testing that found genetic material from several males in the accuser's body and her underwear — but none from any member of the lacrosse team.

The woman has said the three men raped her in a bathroom at a March 13 team party where she had been hired to perform as a stripper.

Medical records included in a defense motion filed Thursday were not made public, but Cheshire said the woman was given a pregnancy test immediately after reporting she was raped — and it was negative — and she took an emergency contraceptive.

"The possibility of her having gotten pregnant (from) these alleged incidents is an impossibility ... an absolute impossibility," Cheshire said.

Cheshire spoke shortly before a previously scheduled hearing in the case.

The defense motion claims the woman misidentified her alleged attackers in a photo lineup that was "an incoherent mass of contradiction and error."

Defense lawyers argue that the key lineup, conducted April 4 at the Durham Police Department, violated departmental policies and the defendants' due process rights because it included only pictures of lacrosse players.

Based in part on those identifications, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans were indicted on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual offense. All three players have insisted they are innocent and were in court for the hearing Friday, as was Mike Pressler, the head lacrosse coach who resigned after the accusation became public.

"Our loyalty to each other remains and my wife and I are here to support the boys," he said.

Defense attorneys asked a judge to bar prosecutors from using the photo lineup at their clients' trial and prevent the accuser from identifying the players from the witness stand.

There had been no prior indication the woman, a 28-year-old college student who has other children, was pregnant. She has not spoken in public since granting a single interview to the News & Observer of Raleigh shortly after the party.


This is the story that never ends

__________________

Glory's Sun

The story never ends.. that's the truth. I just can't figure out why the other charges haven't been dropped. If there's no DNA evidence, how in the world can you drop a rape charge but still pin a forced sexual assault charge on the kids?? If this thing does make it to trial, the prosecution is going to look silly and end up with some serious internal issues. Without even factoring in that a jury is going to be extremely difficult to pool, the fact that the girl is changing stories should make the D.A. drop the charges. His job is not to prosecute everything, his job is to look at facts, and prosecute where there was an actual crime.

Now, I'm not saying it did or didn't happen. Nobody but the people involved really know, I'm just saying that from what I've seen, (which could be a whole lot of smoke) I don't see how in the world the D.A. would let this case make it to trial.

I also found it very interesting to see the different views on this case in the community. Students at NCCU want to see it go to trial (the student population is majority black) while the majority of white people interviewed think the charges should be dropped. This whole case while IMO has nothing to do with race has now,thanks to the local media, turned into a huge racial cesspool. Durham has enough issues as it is already without having a racial dilema on it's hands.

Glory's Sun

Well it's finally over. IMO the right decision was made. I just feel bad for the guys that had to go through this crap. It just shows how easy it is for women to manipulate the court. (Don't go on a rabbit trail with that statement you all know what I mean)

flstf

These guys are fortunate that their families have lots of money to hire some really good lawyers and investigators. I fear that under the same circumstances many would probably be in prison for a long time.

The_Jazz

Maybe, maybe not. It's kind of hard to tell, to be honest.

If their families didn't have lots of money, would the accuser have told her tall tale?

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

I do think the guys had a great lawyer setup, but I still think that any decent lawyer, no scratch that, any public defender would have been able to nail this one down.

I hope these kids are actually able to move on with their lives and that these charges don't define their lives in the future.

Now, it's time for Nifong to step down and the state to de-bar his ass. If there was ever proof that there are alot of prosecutors who only care about their conviction record instead of actually doing what their real job is, this is it.

I'm a little surprised that the state decided not to set charges against the girl. She'll be lucky to avoid a civil suit. Oh and Nifong, his legal troubles are just beginning. You can bet he hasn't seen the last of these kids in court.

Hanxter

the suspicions about the duke players will always remain...

the "accuser" either lied and should be prosecuted and have to pay the players attorney fees or got paid off...

it never ceases to amaze me how the media is always in a rush to accuse followed by a rush to condemn followed by confusion followed by "whoops, we were mislead"

ubertuber

There was a hint about the accuser in the article I read this morning. The judge said something along the lines of him considering allowing charges pressed against her, but that he decided not to "because she may have sincerely believed the various stories she told". Also mentioned in the article was something about the judge having read sealed records pertaining to the accusers history, including mental health status.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Glory's Sun

Well mental health isn't going to save her in civil suit. I guess it could a little bit, but more than likely, she won't have the caliber of lawyer these kids do.

The_Jazz

Why would they sue her? She doesn't have deep pockets? She was wrong in what you did, but civil court is almost always about recouping losses, not assigning blame.

There's going to be a case against Nifong, which will be defended by either the county or the state (depending on the set up). That will only happen after the disciplinary action. If I remember correctly, NC does not claim immunity for wrongful prosecution, but I could be wrong about that. I do know that they're on the low end of the "immunity spectrum" as far as insurance goes.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Glory's Sun

Even if they only got $5, they can sue her for slander.

Will they? I think they might, but may just let it die.

Nifong is fucked. As far as the immunity factor, a person can sue for Malicious Prosecution in NC, however that is a sticky, sticky road and better served under the federal courts. They would have a much easier time suing for the tort of Abuse of Process, as well as Slander and/or Defamation.

If they were to sue for Malicious Prosecution, they wouldn't really achieve anything because iirc, the law excludes any damages that cannot be measured. Which is what they would be going after (loss of reputation etc)

Of course those are only a few charges that he could face in civil court. Too bad for him, he'll (hopefully) be de-barred by then.

flstf

I guess maybe I'm a little too cynical but I think the expensive lawyers and investigators may have stopped the prosecutor and police from hiding or planting evidence against these boys. Its a good thing the state threw the case out. With a local jury these boys may have been convicted anyway just from the accuser's testimony. It appears Nifong pressed the case mostly in order to get their votes.

Xazy

I have been looking for the article but they estimate that each family spent over a million to mount the defense (lawyers and private investigators). Good thing none of them were poor

After all that money spent, I am sure they will want at least re-imbursement.

Glory's Sun

Which is why they'd have a better chance going for the other charges I mentioned. If they only go for malicious prosecution, they can't factor in their pain and suffering, loss of reputation etc. They could couple that charge in with others but it would be too sticky I think. If Nifong was convicted of only Malicious Prosecution, they'd be out a ton of cash.