Nifong asserted that none of the defense attorneys had provided him with the info. on "reciprocal discovery" relating to the evidence of their innocence.
He was quickly corrected by Jim Cooney, Reade Seligmann's co-counsel, who noted that months ago co-counsel Kirk Osborn filed a statement of alibi defense.
Nifong, at the time, asserted that he hadn't read the Osborn motion, because he was too busy to read "fiction."
Sheepishly, Nifong then admitted that he had in fact received the Seligmann evidence. Nothing like the DA making a demonstrably incorrect affirmation to the Court.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
Blog Awards
About Me
DIW in the News
- New York Magazine (Kurt Andersen)
- cnnsi (Richard Deitsch)
- Slate (Stuart Taylor)
- National Post (Mary Vallis)
- Chicago Sports Review
- Worcester Telegram(Paul Jarvey)
- New York Sun (John Leo)
- North Adams Transcript (Adam Bloch)
- New Criterion
- New York Observer (Anna Schneider-Mayerson)
- Towerview/Chronicle (Rob Copeland)
- New York Post (John Podhoretz)
- Volokh Conspiracy (Jim Lindgren)
- USNews.com (Michael Barone)
- Crime and Federalism
- Chicago Sports Review (Matt Wood)
- Seton Hall Sports Blog
- Wall Street Journal (Randy Barnett)
- N&O (Eric Ferreri)
- Blogger News Network (Jefferson Flanders)
- Slate (Jack Shafer)
- New York Sun (Eliana Johnson)
- Infodder
- Duke Chronicle (Saidi Chen)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(278)
-
▼
October
(52)
- Symbolic Justice
- Sheehan on the Election
- A "Technicality"
- Sunday Roundup
- Yesterday's Hearing
- Reciprocal Discovery
- Nifong's Creative Ethics
- Gottlieb Is Out
- Monks Press Conference
- Fiction
- Stretching Credulity
- Live-Blogging
- Surveying the Poll Results
- Baldwin's Significance
- Duke Talk
- Steven Baldwin Speaks Out
- Checking in with the Group of 88
- What, Exactly, Did the Police Investigate?
- Considering Alleva
- Sunday Notes
- Catching Up with the Times
- Media Panel Update
- Horrifying
- Ten Questions for Editor Ashley
- Wilson v. Bradley
- Understanding SANE, IV
- Squaring the Semi-Circle
- State v. Lofton
- Seligmann Speaks Out
- Questions and Answers
- Case Narrative
- Sunday News and Notes
- Best of the Case, II
- The Roberts Bombshells
- Sheehan on the PRD
- Campaign Finance Follow-ups
- New Defense Move
- Follow the Money
- Nifong Lashes Out
- Understanding SANE, III
- The N&O's March 25 Dilemma
- The Effects of Corrupted Procedures
- Laughter and Forgetting in Durham
- Ironies
- Clarifying the Record, II
- In Denial
- Justify or Retract
- Professional Protesters
- Joined at the Hip
- Nifong's Professional Creed
- The N&O Does Nifong
- Black Panthers Welcome, Duke Students Not?
-
▼
October
(52)
Comments Policy
(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
- "From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review
Links
Motions and Documents
- Attorney General's Report
- DNA motion
- Lineup motion
- Supplementary lineup motion
- Change of venue motion
- Bar amended complaint/Nifong response
- December 15 hearing
- State Bar v. Nifong
- Brewer removal motion
- Nifong December 28 letter to Bar
- Nifong January 16 letter to Bar
- Group of 88 statement (removed from Duke website)
- Group of 88 membership
- Transcript of relevant sections, April 4 "identification" "procedure"
16 comments:
Incredible. How many times does he get to lie in court?
Well, it's Durham.
I am glad to see the defense attorneys tightening the noose a
little more around Nifong's lies.
It astounds me he is allowed to continue with the joke of a case.
Imagine if you couldn't afford the attorneys these players have, regardless if you are black or white, you would be absolutely screwed. Nifong is shameless as well as incompetent.
It is incredible that a presiding judge will allow this farce to continue. Nifong should be given an ultimatum by the court to get on with it or get out of the case. That he maintains that he has not interviewed the accuser in the past 7 months is an absolute lie.
His new role as lead investigator may get him kicked from the case. Wonder if he is picking up Linwood's checks now that he is doing his job?
All I can say is that if a judge openly permits a prosecutor to lie and does nothing about it, then he is an enabler of crime.
No prosecutor ever has gone to prison for crimes committed during the prosecutorial process, and Nifong will not be an exception. However, the man is a criminal, and a vicious lying criminal at that. Give me John Gotti every time over someone like Liefong.
William L. Anderson
I think if Nifong admitted to being a lead investigator in the case, he is no longer immune.
In response to 2:12pm:
Did the DA really admit to becoming the lead investigator? I am not doubting you, but this guy parses words like no one since Clinton. It would wonderful news if he did, but I need that verified. We don;t want to give the DA any wiggle room on something as important as his role as lead investigator.
I don't know if he actually admitted it. But if he admitted it, he is no longer immune.
Would it matter if Nifong admitted to be being lead investigator or not? If he actualy did the work of the lead investigator, would that not put himself in a position of having to step down? Otherwise, how could the defense examine or cross-examine the 'lead' investigator if he is also the prosecutor? (I am not from NC...and do not know the criminal trial rules).
At what point will Nifong also be able to appoint himself as the judge in this case?
For those of you who want the recent (2006) Supreme Court case talking about prosecutorial immunity, see below:
Prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability for the decision to prosecute. Hartman v. Moore, 126 S. Ct. 1695 (U.S. 2006).
Absolute immunity does not extend to conduct taken by a prosecutor in an investigatory capacity. Hartman v. Moore, 126 S. Ct. 1695 (U.S. 2006).
Not only is the presiding judge allowing this to happen. He is slowing down the process as well. I can see no reason why it should take this judge till December to decide on previous motions such as the ones on the warrants and the lineups.
If 75,000 readers of KC's excellent reporting mailed copies of today's blogs, along with other excellent material produced by other bloggers, to the director of the FBI, to Attorney General Gonzales, to Gov. Easley, would this help to get those entities involved in this terrible injustice? What is Sen. Dole doing about this?
While the prosecutor is given immunity from civl action for"his decision to prosecute the case". He is not given immunity from misconduct. There are different levels of misconduct but Nifong seems to rise to the highest level seen in modern times. His deliberate prosection of a case with NO EVIDENCE along with his disregard for the Rules of Discover
and outright lies(if proven) should be easily converted to a violation of Federal Civil rights Law. This is a clear cause of action and the evidence was all provided by Nifong during his press conferences,etc. This guy is an ego maniac and it will not be hard to follow up on civil actions.
Post a Comment