Of the many arguments that have transformed
Sutton’s words could be dismissed as the rationalizations of a sycophant; as Joseph Cheshire pointed out, “Lawyers whose livelihood and clients’ fates are often governed by the whim of the elected district attorney [need] to remain as close as possible to that DA no matter what he does.”
Yet, as John in
A few weeks before, the N&O quoted a Nifong voter remarking, “Just over that one case, I can’t go against him.” Nifong backer Lee Castle, like Sutton a local attorney, offered the following pre-election endorsement: “Sure the DA needs to understand the law and trial work so he can supervise those working under him, but the ADAs carry the load . . . Nifong may have made mistakes concerning the lacrosse case, but he has done his job as an administrator by gathering around him people who do good work.” In early August, Nifong’s soon-to-be citizens’ committee chair, Kim Brummell, told the Herald-Sun that “Nifong should not be judged on one case.” And, of course, this approach has formed a consistent theme of Bob Ashley and the Herald-Sun for months.
The origins of the “just-one-case” mantra appear to lie with the “minister of justice” himself, who presented it when he unveiled the “New Nifong” at a July 28 press conference. Attempting to present himself as humble, in contrast to the arrogant, bullying image he had projected in April and May, he told the assembled media that he had made a few mistakes on the case. Nifong then added, “I’m here today to tell you the district attorney’s office is not about one case. It’s just not.”
The “just-one-case” argument is so absurd as almost to require no rebuttal. In effect, Ashley, Ford, Castle, Sutton, et. al. are saying that Nifong might well have engaged in massive prosecutorial misconduct in the lacrosse case, but for one reason for another (That the targets are out-of-state defendants? That the defense lawyers are unusually competent? That a sizable portion of the community demanded symbolic justice?), the “minister of justice” should receive a pass for his conduct.
As Duke Law professor James Coleman told 60 Minutes, this rationalization defies all logic. “You know, what are you to conclude about a prosecutor who says to you, ‘I’ll do whatever it takes to get this set of defendants?’ What does it say about what he’s willing to do to get poor black defendants?” It is outlandish to assume that a district attorney who engages in massive ethical violations in one case will not do so in others.
Imagine, moreover, extending the “just-one-case” excuse to other political figures. Backers of William Jefferson could concede that yes, perhaps the
There’s no record of either the Herald-Sun or Steve Ford’s N&O editorial page speaking out on behalf of Ney or Abramoff; and, indeed, Sunday’s Herald-Sun ran a lead editorial calling upon Jim Black, the ethically challenged speaker of the North Carolina House, to step down. Perhaps the two editorial boards believe that a different, and lower, standard of government ethics should apply in
The “just-one-case” rationalization, finally, is ahistorical. In his pre-primary publicity barrage, the “minister of justice” himself aggressively asserted that the lacrosse affair was more than “just one case.”
- On March 27, explaining why he would prosecute the case himself, Nifong asserted, “I’m making a statement to the
Durhamcommunity and, as a citizen of Durham, I am making a statement for the community,” since “it is a case that talks about what this community stands for.” Durham
- The next day, he told a local TV station that the case would receive the full attention of his office. He then informed the AP, according to the wire-service story, that “he plans to prosecute the case himself to send a message to the community that authorities are taking the offense seriously.”
- And, at his “New Nifong” press conference in July, the “minister of justice” asserted, “The first message I intended to portray [with his pre-primary publicity barrage] was that the community was in good hands with respect to this case, and they did not need to worry about it.”
The lacrosse case is the only one that Nifong has handled personally since becoming district attorney. Should his ethics be evaluated on the basis of cases that others have tried? (Nifong has announced he will personally try a high-profile murder case that hasn’t yet made its way to any hearings, apparently as part of his philosophy of assigning to himself cases “that the national media has shown real interest in.”)
Now that the case has served his political purposes, however, Nifong wants to shift the goalposts. What once “a case that talks about what this community stands for,” he suggests, now should be viewed as simply one among the thousands of cases his office deals with annually.
Nifong enablers, it seems, are determined not to hold the “minister of justice” to the ethical standards of either the state bar or traditional politicians. Is it so unreasonable, however, to expect them to judge Nifong according to the standards that he himself once articulated?
I always noticed that while Nifong said he wanted to be judged by more than this one case, he didn't offer any information about other cases or groups of cases by which to assess him. I heard him speak in generalities, but don't recall a lot of substance.
I am not a lawyer, but there must be stats that lawyers use to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of an ADA. If I wanted to be judged by a long record, I would summarize and publicize that record. He didn't. I would also like to know if it is normal for a DA to handle cases personally. I noted that Nifong assumed the two high-profile cases. I think Nifong loves the courtroom because he gets to strut in front of an audience.
It's also telling that he took over in 2005 and made a mockery of Durham and justice very quickly.
How do the judges justify letting Nifong get away with his abuse of prosecutorial power, his improper procedures, his stalling tactics in turning over discovery, his courtroom behavior, his overwhelming lack of evidence that a rape occurred, his refusal to accept exculpatory evidence, et al?
I'm reminded of a panel discussion early in the case when Georgia Goslee harped on the fact that the defendants were asking for expedited treatment of the case. As if somehow that makes them guilty.
And never mind that Nifong himself sought and obtained expedited testing of the DNA.
From the beginning, Nifong and his enablers have seen this as a special case -- but only when it suits their purposes. At other times, it's just one of many many cases.
I've also viewed the "it's just this one case" argument as an incredibly lame attempt at defending Nifong's outrageous conduct. Do those who advance this argument seriously think that Nifong behaved ethically and competently during his 27-year legal career, and then suddenly woke up one morning and decided to become unethical and incompetent --but just for this one case?? That scenario defies all logic and common experience. Nifong's character and competence as a lawyer were not created by this one case, but they were exposed by it.
To the 12:41: since prosecutors get to cherry-pick the cases they take to trial, it is meaningless to try and assess an ADA's competence by their win/loss record at trial. Nationally, the vast majority of criminal cases that go to trial end in convictions. An ADA's efficiency is usually evaluated (in-house, by the direct supervisor) based on his/her number of dispositions (plea bargains included). The supervisor's evaluation of an ADA's professional conduct is, as you might expect, much more subjective and vulnerable to the biases of the evaluator.
I'm not surprised that the judge is giving Nifong a good deal of leeway. A lot of his "procedural violations," like bypassing the probable cause hearing, are well within the law. Other violations are really just abuses of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion to bring weak cases to trial (think of a murder case without a body) and I think judges usually give them a fair amount of leeway. In a jury trial judges aren't supposed to decide questions of fact, just questions of law. So the judge can't really throw the case out just because the prosecution will probably lose at trial. For that to happen there would have to be undisputed facts that establish innocence as a matter of law. Unfortunatly, the alibi evidence, while practically undisputable, is still legally disputed.
On other issues, like the line-up, I think the judge is just giving Nifong enough rope to hang himself (i.e. he'll let Nifong introduce the ID, but also give the defense a lot of leeway to attack its flaws. If things go badly at trial, which is unlikely given how shakey the ID actually is, the defense has automatic grounds for appeal).
The worst thing the judge is doing is sitting on motions. But even there, I think he's just waiting for discovery to end. Every time there's a hearing Nifong turns over thousands of pages of documents and the defense requests information that seemed to be missing from the last batch. The judge could probably crack the whip a little harder, but drawn out discovery isn't that unusual.
At the end of the day this is a story about a prosecutor with a case that's VERY weak factually. Nifong's chief misconduct is ignoring that weakness and refusing to look at the exculpatory evidence. Other than the line-up, there's not much there that an ordinary trial judge would throw the case out on. I thinks that's why you haven't heard the talking heads really calling for the head of the judge.
I would agree with the last poster (7:46 AM) in that I doubt that the judge is going to throw out the IDs. My guess is that he will punt and let the appellate courts decide that matter. There is no doubt in my mind that the lineup constitutes reversible error, but the politics of this case is such that Osmond Smith is not going to want to go against "the will of the people."
As for Nifong and a weak case, for him this is all about "winning." I received an email from someone who had a private conversation with Nifong, and while I am not at liberty to tell what Nifong said, I can say that it was clear that he sees this as a contest rather than an honest prosecution.
People long ago figured out that the evidence -- well, the NON-evidence -- was such that Nifong does not have a criminal case against the Duke 3. It has turned into something else, an attempt to force a politically-correct regime into the Durham justice system.
Look at the comments of the Duke faculty and of the student activists. Literally, no one any more is saying that this is a legitimate "rape" case, at least a legal rape case. Instead, they are saying that the lacrosse players AS A TEAM are guilty of being racist, homophobic, misogynyst, and the like. Now, I think that much of the Duke faculty, the administration, and many students WANT to see a trial and conviction because of their hatred for people who do not fit the PC mold, but that is another story altogether.
In Durham, the black leadership is saying that a black woman has to be believed at all costs, and that the exculpatory evidence can be explained away by using conspiracy theories. I seriously doubt that Irving Joyner and Cash Michaels actually believe a rape occurred, but they want to see a trial and conviction purely on the basis of racial politics.
Having lived most of my life in the South, and in a city that has a high percentage of blacks, I have seen the resentment firsthand. Blacks in Durham are very resentful of what happened in the Jim Crow era -- and for good reason. And it is that resentment that drives much of the political scene there.
I would say that Osmond Smith is not stupid and realizes this is a bogus prosecution. But I doubt he would have the backbone to do the right thing. First, to throw out the charges or restrict Nifong in any way would almost surely mean he would lose in the next election. Second, government employees tend to watch out for each other, and both Nifong and Smith are employed by the State of North Carolina. Most likely, Smith enjoys the regular paycheck and would not wish to return to the rough-and-tumble world of being a private attorney.
Smith and Nifong know that even in the case of a conviction, appellate courts would overturn everything. Nifong just wants a win because he likes to win, and if he can make the Duke 3 see the inside of a prison if only for a few years, he would have "won the big one."
If it is being said that Nifong should not be judged on "just this one case", then it is being acknowledged that this case has been poorly managed.
But this case is not over. Maybe Nifong and his enablers are asking for absolution; however, the door is still open for repentance. Let him un-do the things which he ought not to have done and proceed to do what he should have before now.
So based on Nifong's reasoning, the citizens of Durham have the right to commit one crime without being judged on that one crime?
The irony here is that it probably is not "just one case." My guess is that Nifong didn't come up with all these short cuts and procedural innovations during his election campaign.
While the rape hoax may be "just one case" it is also probably the only case in Mr. Nifong's career in which his clear duty as a lawyer and a public official (to investigate cases carefully and honestly before bringing charges) came so starkly into conflict with his own personal interest (to win last May's Democratic primary). Obviously this cases speaks much more clearly to the man's character than anything else he's ever done.
Mr. Anderson: So would you agree with me that, if this ridiculous case does go to trial, it definitely merits a change of venue? I'd be relieved if it was tried anywhere but Durham.
Below is the mission statement of the U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District for N.C.
To pursue justice as we represent the United States of America in civil and criminal litigation in the most effective manner possible.
To provide leadership in our interactions with all federal, state and local agencies and to serve as a liasion between them.
To foster public trust and confidence in law enforcement and the federal judicial system.
Adopted December 19, 1997
How are they doing on the Duke case???
Although I have been a contributor to these blogs, I will now be devoting more time to writing the USDoJ, Eastern District of NC, and ask them where they have been and to review the case. Their address is:
Office of the U.S. Attorney
Eastern Disttict of N.C
310 New Bern Ave
Federal Building, Suite 800
Raleigh, NC 27601
I am hoping a few hundred of you will do likewise.
this case won't make it to trial, but i hope it does
i just want to see precious the predator get destroyed on the stand
Anonymous 9:29 : Thanks!
If each and every supporter of the 3 falsely accused wrote to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Raleigh NC Federal Bureau of Investigation, there would be hundreds of thousands of letters to get their attention. The people of this country spoke up against O.J.'s book and within days he was stopped. If you speak loudly and in numbers our voice will be heard, we all want Federal intervention in this case. Anyone with power in the state of NC who can stop Nifong are useless, they are all politically tied and looking out for their own interests. An outside Federal investigation is what is required to stop this lunatic from continuing this farce of a case. So spend 10 minutes today and write a letter to the Department of Justice and Raleigh, NC FBI office. Put it in the mail today. Lets put some pressure on Judge Smith to finally read the motions and uphold the law and adhere to the Constitutional rights of every citizen in this country. Its time to say ENOUGH. Thank you.
As a proud black woman, I'm sick and tired of all the racist drivel I've seen on this site. The proud, hard-working black mother who was viciously gang raped by uncaring, drunk lacrosse players is an outrage. Is it any wonder that 1 of them is also a hater of homosexuals?
Black slave labor made this country, and we want what's coming to us: reparations; affirmative action, affordable housing and affordable healthcare--but most of all: an honest legal system that punishes arrogant white rapists of working-class black people.
A Proud Black Grandmother
To a Proud Black Grandma:
I respect your right to say what you like. This is the US... where we believe in civil rights and the protection of those rights, including free speech. I am sure you would want to see the same civil rights protection for the your friend the accuser, as you would for the falsely accused. Which is why I hope you will join me in writing to the Dept of Justice in NC.... and here's another letter writing target:
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints
Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
With your support and the support of many more, perhaps we can restore real 'civil rights' in the unjust persecution of the these three young men. And in turn make Durham a better place to live FOR ALL citizens!
thank you in advance for your help in this extremely important matter.
I think the previous post says it all. The politics of entitlement says that blacks are entitled to a conviction for which there is no evidence.
There is no changing the mind of this person, but I think we can see what is driving this case.
Yes, I would hope there is a change of venue, as this woman's comments pretty much sum up the way of thinking in Durham. There is no way that the Duke 3 could receive a fair trial in Durham.
To 10:14: Pride goeth before destruction.....proverbs 16:18
I hear you, Bill, but I think 10:14 is obviously baiting posters-- he/she sounds too clear-spoken to genuinely represent that POV. Hmmm, that would rule out any of the Despicable 88! Perhaps it is an administrator from the Eagle's Nest, er, I mean, Allen Building. sic semper tyrannis
Assuming this goes to trial and the bogus line up is admissable, will Nifong be compelled to testifly in his role of "inspector DA", that is he assumed personal control of the police investigation, line up etc.?
NBA super scout Marty Blake once said "if Hitler was a seven footer with skills they'd say he had a few bad years". The AA and feminist communities won't let some inconvient facts get in the way of the underlying truth.
I also think your premise is wrong.
The last pice of flotstam these losers are clinging to is the "something must have happened" charge. If only they could make that stick......
Over the past few days, a pattern has emerged on several case-related boards in which "baiting" comments have appeared from various posters, with an apparent purpose of triggering condemnations of Durham blacks.
This morning, this thread featured one such commenter, posting under the nom de plume of "A Proud Black Grandmother."
I deleted two other posts from this person; and will hold to a standard of asking those who post solely for the purpose of baiting others to do so under their own names, rather than a pseudonym.
It is impossible for me to monitor the comments section more than a few times daily, but I will delete all such anonymous posts, as I have previously deleted the rare posts that contained race-baiting attacks on the accuser.
I simply can not understand what makes a person whether black or white want to crucify these innocent young men for a crime they obviously did not commit. How can the black community think that by sinking their teeth into this case and not letting go even when all the evidence points to innocence that it will be retribution for past crimes against their race. The AA community is not the only group of people who have been persecuted through history, the American Indians, the Jewish community, the Asian Community etc...How is the human race to grow and evolve when people such as the Duke 88 and the Proud Black Grandmother close their eyes and ears to the truth and choose to be ignorant, choose to be hateful. Truly these types of people are what keeps humanity from evolving. I wonder if they believe in God.
To a Proud Black Grandmother:
Please give us one single piece of hard evidence that supports the allegation by the accuser that she was raped. Even the other dancer has called the allegation a crock.
KC,I am wondering what your professional opinion is. I believe I read somewhere that there is factual evidence that not all lacrosse players were at the party. If that scenario is true, would it be possible for the lacrosse players who were in the lineup photos and not at the party be considered fillers?
KC: The fallacy of Nifong and his supporter's argument is apparent on its face.
Let me put this quite plainly: The public outcry against Mike Nifong goes far beyond "this case," and instead rests on his character. It goes to honesty, integrity, the hallmarks of which define a true prosecutor (yes, I'm an attorney).
A prosecutor has a tremendous amount of power in society, he can judge a case worthy of prosecution, whether the facts stated and evidence collected can give him cause to believe that crime has been committed, and whether the case merits being tried (i.e., whether it can be proven).
This responsibility to seek true justice is a heavy one. People's lives, the victim's and the defendant's, are at serious risk. On one hand, the victim needs to be receive careful attention, on the other, the Defendant must be provided with the protections that surround the prosecutor's decision. In other words, if a prosecutor does not have evidence to proceed forward and make at least a cogent argument for a conviction, he has no business indicting a Defendant, because the cost is the label worn by that Defendant for the rest of his life.
Turning to Nifong, what has always infuriated me about the man is that he appears to have a serious honesty problem, something detested by other lawyers. His statements at the beginning of this case were demonstrably false when he stated, and further implied, that these players were not cooperating with him. That was a lie. Any reasonable, thinking person knows that was a lie, and that his comments were geared purely for personal gain, in terms of his election to office, and not for the purposes of justice. He has continued this deceitful practice, making innuendo and assertions regarding these players that are absurd, and reek of dishonest motive. I can only assume that Mr. Nifong has found an audience of one that believes him - himself.
So, does the repudiation pf Mike Nifong "only" have to do with this case? Absolutely not. When it comes down to it, Mr. Nifong, in my opinion, has serious character flaws that merit careful consideration by the community. The facts demonstrate, however, that these flaws surfaced and became supremely transparent in the Duke Lacrosse case. They defy the role of justice in a civilized society, and place the individual and his or her rights at serious risk.
Since the Police did not know who were at the party how could they make the claim of using them fillers?
If my memory is correct Officer Soucie & Clayton showed her 24 pictures of the Duke Lacrosse Team prior to a search warrant being served at 610 N. Buchanan and before the Captain's talked with the Police until 4 am Mar 17.
That argument is just being floated by the Nifong supporters to make the ridiculous claim the people at the party were fillers. Those are not fillers because Judge Stephens ordered all of them to take DNA tests.
explanations for lack of dna evidence:
the white lacrosse players were too drunk to ejaculate, or
they used transparent condoms
both explanations supprt the AV's POV: she was the person that was horribly victimized
Another point: What's wrong with earning extra cash as a dancer? I think a lot of people on this site have no idea how hard it is for working-class people to make a living. She is to be admired for being a good provider to her children.
"explanations for lack of dna evidence:
the white lacrosse players were too drunk to ejaculate, or
they used transparent condoms"
Then why did Nifong say that DNA will clear the innocent?
DNA(Blood, sweat, skin cells, saliva, seminal fluid, and hair) all can be transferred without ejaculation. And yes even some semen. Even the presence of condoms can be tested for. Somebody else's DNA was found.
Science tells us no assault happened. Nifong knows that.
because he's incompetent
think about it: his remarkable ineptitude hurts his case--and the defense's case
The accuser also claimed that one player ejaculated in her mouth, and she spit the semen by the toilet. The accuser's DNA was not found at all, which casts doubt on that account.
Also, the rape that Nifong has described simply could not happen without some DNA traces, condoms or no condoms. Condoms would leave residue, none of which was found, and they do not keep ALL DNA from being transferred. Also, the CSI-type conspiracy theories don't work here, especially if it was a five-minute rape, as Nifong decided to claim after being faced with irrefutable evidence that Reade Seligmann was more than a mile away. Raping, choking, and beating would leave some DNA traces on a nude woman.
No, this case stays alive because of its political symbolism, and nothing else. There was no rape, period.
I was a teacher so I must be guilty.
False accusers are getting away with rape now as well.
That rapist was hidden by a screen in court because he claimed that his victim sexually assaulted an underage male (him).
Isn't it interesting the techniques rapists are using now and how young they learn to game the system.
If the players who were not at the party were considered "fillers" why was not line up thrown out when the accuser picked such a "filler" as being at the party? The "filler" theory clearly does not work.
Kobe Bryant had a short encounter with the woman and did not ejaculate.
The tests found DNA anyway. It seems absolutely impossible that the scenario described by Nifong and Precious wouldn't have left any DNA on Precious. Especially considering her boyfriend's DNA was found. Based on DNA alone and ignoring all other exculpatory evidence, it's clear to me there couldn't have been a rape.
In answering 2:32 PM, the police and prosecutors simply ignored the wrong choice and went to the others instead. That was part of why people have been outraged by the lineup procedure.
The purpose of this procedure was not to identify any real "rapists," but rather to have people who could be indicted. Remember, the first two indictments came just before the primary election.
To the Proud Black Grandma,
It would seem that you have what you want. Three kids stand charged with rape because a woman accused them. Justice will prevail.
that guy finnerty liiks like a rapist to me--i bet he reads the village voice, too--he's got those beady eyes and a real propensity for gay-bashing
i think a rest in the hoosgow would cheer him up, anr to realize that life indeed has meaning
does anyone here think that they all exploded simultaneouly in precious's ass
i think that explains everything: this case is not about rape but covering up an obvious homoerotic love explosion
R. Crumb, Esq.
Chicago writing here:
A Proud Black Grandmother is the exact type of person Nifong would like on the jury and the exact reason this trial needs a new venue. A Proud Black Grandma will have the boys convicted before the trial even begins and will not listen to one ounce of truth that is revealed. I wonder how she would feel if it was her grandson accused of doing this.
PBG: You, like any other person is entitled to nothing. You want something from this world, you earn it. Plain and simple. I suggest you pick good causes to stand behind other than OJ Simpson, a doctor shopping, stripping, false accuser, the black panthers or Affirmative Action.
The sense of entitlement you express for being a warm blooded black women is disgusting and ridiculous. It would be disgraceful for a person of any race, class, gender or sexual orientation to demand preferential treatment for the that sole purpose.
If you want a better life, the chance is out there, just work hard and make good decisions. Don't sit back with your arms crossed and expect some one to do it for you.
john Lennon sang it best "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."
There is no getting thru to the people who just want these boys to go to trial because they are white, affluent, talented, smart, hardworking. The green monster of jealousy is at work feeding the racism. If these boys were black, poor and stupid there would be no outcry for a lynching. You can't reason with ignorant, stupid people who only see what they want to see and not look at the evidence. These boys are innocent. Nothing happened. Guess what, a black women lied, lied, and lied again. And a white DA who is corrupt and power hungry used her as bait.
"Proud Black Grandmother" and some of the Anonymous posters claiming they hope the Duke 3 go to prison are just trolls and race-baiters, with phoney identities, hoping to cause a big race-based argument. K.C. is doing a lot of work here, and it's too bad he has to work overtime catching their posts and deleting them.
i didn't see proud black grandmother accuse the boys of being guilty--
these guys are "talented"?
it they're "talented," i'll wait for the evidence--imo they are all waiting for low-iq wall street jobs
hey collin, can u execute that trade for me, you goddamn gay-basher?
The only ferocious homophobes in this case is the new Black Panther Party and Nifong's chum Victoria Peterson. Notice how left-wing nuts never bring THAT up.
There are plenty of mind-numbing jobs "on wall st" but they're hardly low- IQ jobs. Analysts do boring work when they're straight out of undergrad a) because somebody has to do it; and b) because no one in their right mind is going to give a kid straight out of college the kind of high-level work that requires extraordinary thought and judgement. You have to earn trust and experience first. But if you do good work and you have exceptional drive and intelligence, there's no question that an i-bank or fund will find a place to put your brain to work.
If any idiot could be an i-banker, I can guarantee that bankers wouldn't be bringing home six figure bonuses.
When I read accounts of how the three accused players were taunted with vile language and accusations early on, I didn't truly understand how disturbing this can be. I just read this thread and now I understand. It's another example of the pain Nifong has caused.
above poster, right on
but here's the real deal, kittycats: nifong got caught; therefore, prosecution is over
lots of other innocent men without the 3's connections are being victimized by the preciouses of the world every day
1 more point: false accusers are racially and intellectually similar to male rapists--precious could be taught in a criminology course
When it's all over and these defendants are vindicated, the city of Durham and perhaps Duke University may find that this "just one case" is likely to cost them millions of dollars in damages.
I suspect the defendants have already been in touch with some talented lawyers about precisely that. And for once, I'm on the side of the greedy tort lawyers.
ANY LAWYERS ON THIS SITE? a little help please
previous poster wanted to know about civil suits in the event of the 3's acquittal--i don't think they'll be able to sue nifong personally, and durham would also seem questionable
precious could be sued for the 50 bucks she has in her purse
now if duke were to abandon the incredibly outdated idea of "tenure"--then we could see the 88 deep-sixed
I see we have a question regarding whether the three players can bring suit regarding the incident at issue.
The answer is yes. Malicious Prosecution against Durham. On the question of Nifong, it is a bit cloudier. In MD, prosecutors have absolute immunity, but this sometimes does not apply in other States. The question is one of malice. If Nifong was acting with malice, he may have waived his immunity under NC law. Does this perhaps also explain why the case survives? Possible claims under 42 USC 1983 are also present against the police department and the town for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Remember the illegal searches? The violation of evidentiary collection standards? The lineup procedure? All of these can be raised in Fderal Court, which is where I would sue given the choice, not state court.
Other causes of action also exist. I would sue Nancy Grace/CNN out of hand, because her comments on the case were outrageous, and amount to actionable defamation in my mind.
I am somewhat shocked, to be honest, that a civil action has not already been launched, because the civil discovery rules can be used to cement a defense to the claims in criminal court.
I hope that helps.
Post a Comment