Friday, December 15, 2006

The Perry Mason Moment

Seligmann attorney Jim Cooney: “Was the exclusion of material the result of a specific agreement between you and representatives of the state of North Carolina?”

DNA Security director Brian Meehan: Yes.

18 comments:

bill anderson said...

So, we have Nifong going to the grand jury and not acknowledging the DNA tests of which he knew. If the State of North Carolina gives him a pass on this one, perhaps we can have a movement to have North Carolina become a province of Cuba or Russia or wherever.

(I know there are decent people in that state, but right now the state government and its supporters outnumber the good people.)

WJD said...

KC wouldn't this be a conspiracy to obstruct justice, if so who would charge that? Isn't the conspiracy charge even worse then the obstruction charge.

Anonymous said...

I originally thought the setting of the Feb hearing would push back Nifungu's Bar Summons, but now I am thinking no way they'll wait. I will try to see my contact this afternoon, Friday is a good day to catch a lawyer in a real bar, and see what his take is. Yesterday he was insistent that the summons had been issued any only needed to be served. Kemp

GPrestonian said...

Per Neff's article:

Did Nifong and his investigators know the results of all the DNA tests? Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

“Did they know the test results excluded Reade Seligmann?” Cooney asked.

“I believe so,” Meehan said.

Was the failure to report these results the intentional decision of you and the district attorney? Cooney asked.

Yes,” Meehan replied.


Gotta love it, I guess Meehan decided not to be thrown under the bus. But I did notice the weasel-word, 'privacy', too. Is that what they're going to hang their hat on?

Anonymous said...

Is the privacy excuse valid under law? Nifong is required by law to review and turn over possible exculpatory evidence. Does this law provide for an exception due to perceived privacy issues?

Anonymous said...

This testimony is disturbing on so many levels.

First, it is a perversion of open discovery to invent excuses for non-disclosure. The entire point of open discovery is to remove the discretion from the prosecutor to judge what is exculpatory. There is no doubt in my mind that this would be grounds for reversal.

Second, Nifong lied in court and outside of court (assuming Meehan was telling the truth).

Third, Nifong's pleadings are false as he knew of other information.

Fourth, he lied when he said outside the courtroom that the information was available when he oppose its production.

Fifth, this was a critical point of inquiry, the source of the edema, according to his own notes, and yet it did not matter what the anser was

Sixth, oh heck, i am just sick to my stomach

bill anderson said...

I agree with WJD in that we now are seriously looking at obstruction of justice and conspiracy. By withholding the documents, this went beyond planning. Nifong and Meehan both planned to withhold exculpatory documents, and then did it.

Victim in Massachusetts said...

I see a jail cell for two ( Nifong & Meehan) and Collin, David and Reade I would start those law suits. For being wrongly accused.

Anonymous said...

No, there is absolutely no privacy exception to hide behind. If Nifong believed that there was a legitimate privacy issue, his duty would have been to bring his concerns to the attention of the Judge and opposing counsel. Then, if necessary, protective orders could have been issued to protect the privacy interests. But what pray tell are the privacy interests he was trying to protect?
If Meehan's testimony is true, this is a very, very, very serious problem.

Anonymous said...

I want to see one former prosecutor go on tv and say that they met with a DNA lab, told them to ignore the standard procedure, and withold evidence. Not one will say it, not even the great enablers, whatever they say it wont admit to ever doing this.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully Nifong will get a jury trial...with three jurists: Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans!

Anonymous said...

Wow...the judge was brilliant here: Nifong said he didn't know about the exculpatory DNA evidence--Meehan said he did. So he's thinking, 'these two just cancel each other out so we can move towards trial where someone else can make a decision instead of me.'

Anonymous said...

How did not reporting the full DNA results protect the privacy of the other lacrosse players? It was well known that the team co-operated and gave DNA samples. The names of the players are known. We also know that two players were not at the party. Ah! Was this so that all the other players could pretent to Mom and Dad that they weren't at the party? I'm confused. Where is the privacy issue?

Anonymous said...

The "privacy" excuse that Meehan and Nifong have cooked up is just that, an excuse. It's not a valid justification for withholding exculpatory evidence, and Nifong certainly knows that, even if Meehan does not. In cases where legitimate privacy issues are, or may be, of concern, the attorney submits the discovery material to the judge and asks the judge to issue the necessary protective order(s) to protect those whose privacy is, or may be, in need of protection. It is NEVER the right of a prosecutor to withhold Brady (i.e. exculpatory) material on the grounds that it may affect the privacy rights of some unspecified persons.
Nifong has lied repeatedly to this judge. When is this judge going to sanction him and put an end to this nonsense?

Anonymous said...

As I see it, there are 2 groups implicated in the results.

1. the 46 players

2. the 5 unidentified semen providers

The first group had already been already been identified by group, name, and pictures on the internet. their interest was to HAVE a report naming them as innocent of providing semen. they had no underlying interest in obscuring that fact.

The second group were unidentified, they HAD NO right to privacy. BTW: they might be rapists. Nifong and Meehan, prevented the public from knowing about them.

Anonymous said...

not only that but the privacy concerns are for identifying individuals. just saying there were 4 different, unidentified sampels of DNA puts no one's privacy at risk because it identifies no one. its a sham.

Richard said...

It is obvious that this persecution (no I did not use the wrong word) has become a vendetta on the part of Mike Nifong. He has lost any sense of perspective he may have had. He has become Inspector Javert. He will do pursue Jean Valjean … er … I mean the Duke Lacrosse players to the end of the earth. He will do whatever it takes to get a conviction, the law be damned. When is someone in authority going to step and stopped him before he does any more damage to David, Reade and Collin and to Justice itself?

Anonymous said...

Mr. Nifong has aggressively pursued this hoax, knowing it was a hoax, since at March -- for personal gain. It was just a matter of time before his lies caught up with him. Brad Bannon and Jim Cooney were amazing today!

The earth is shaking, the wall of silence is crumbling...

Thanks to KC, LieStoppers, CrystalMess, John in Carolina, FODU and all the other truth seekers who have investigated and reported every detail of this hoax. You wrote the venue motion for the defense....

To Bill Anderson - please don't forget more than 20,000 people voted for "nobody"