Jason Trumpbour: "I've never seen a court session where the judge lectures the defense attorneys on the law."
They're in recess to decide.
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
-
▼
2007
(872)
-
▼
April
(95)
- Baker: No Outside Inquiry
- Chafe: Some in Group of 88 Presumed Guilt
- Reade Seligmann Letter
- The Farred File
- Sunday Roundup
- Wilson and the Prosecutors
- Summarizing the Report
- A One-Two for the DPD
- AG's Report
- Assessing the Post
- Seligmann Receives Delbarton Medal
- If the Herald-Sun Had an Ombudsman . . .
- The Finnerty Timeline
- Wojciechowska's Counterfactual
- What Byron Calame Should Have Written
- Araton: No Apologies
- Miller Signs Off
- The Times: No Harm, No Foul
- Abandoning the Sinking Ship
- The Chronicle: Right Again
- Cartoon
- A Duke Conversation: Chicago
- 60 Minutes Outtakes
- Week in Review
- Understanding Levicy
- Neff's Scoops
- Finnerty Lawyer: Criminal Investigation of Nifong
- Nifong Office: No Witnesses for Us
- Self-Serving, Pathetic Hatred
- WSJ Letters on the Group of 88
- NDAA: "The Primary Ethical Duty of a Prosecutor Is...
- Some Good News
- Ashley's Apologia
- Continued Character Assault
- Herald-Sun: Biased to the End
- Redeeming the Times
- Q Section in N&O
- Neff: Nifong Knew Mangum
- Sunday Roundup
- Brown Speaks Out
- Broverman Clarifies
- Dave Evans Statement
- The Nifong Preliminary Hearing
- Mike Nifong, Criminal?
- Decision
- Recess
- Update So Far
- Hearing Begins
- Marquis Clarifies
- In the Hearing Room
- Charns: More Apologies Needed
- Live Blogging
- Live-Blogging; Additional Charges Justified?
- Herald-Sun: Nifong Must Go
- Nifong's False Apology
- Naming the False Accuser
- Taylor's Analysis
- Star-Ledger Speaks Out
- Steel E-Mail
- Duff Wilson's New Version
- The Herald-Sun: "Love Yourself, Durham"
- Yesterday's Highlights
- Cheshire Summary
- Wade Smith Summary
- Summary of Jim Cooney Statement
- Reade Seligmann Statement
- Collin Finnerty Statement
- The Cooper Statement
- Live-Blogging
- Haagen Quote
- Case Narative, III
- Nifong on Open Discovery
- Mindboggling
- Responding to Marcus
- Case Narrative, II
- Channeling Selena Roberts
- Nifong on DNA and the Case
- The Man with No Name
- The Durham Police: Re-Accreditation?
- Carrington, Schoeffel Speak Out
- Sunday News
- Rewarding Dubious Behavior
- Today Does Nifong
- Continued Group of 88 Mysteries
- Evaluating the Evaluators
- Pulling the Plug
- Nifong Hearing
- Well-Deserved Award
- A Herald-Sun Classic
- The Early Bird
- Butler's Latest
- The CCI's Impending Train Wreck
- Nifong's Political Base Crumbles
- The Hon. Ronald L. Stephens
- Sunday Roundup
-
▼
April
(95)
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"
29 comments:
He's Toast! KC wave to us!!
Camera is facing the Bar table!!
Kemp
Yeah, KC. Give us a cameo!
I am shocked we are probably getting a decision right now.
Black guy in Yellow tie is in front on camera now!
Kemp
This is decision only on motion to dismiss, which has about as much chance as Nifungu does.
NONE
Kemp
KC bald guy with two phones in on camera now.
Kemp
JLS says...,
Yes, thanks for clearing that up I did not mean to imply a decision on the ethics violations. Still it is unusual from what little I know.
Nifong's folksy defense attorney is the wrong style for such a serious matter as this. It might work before a jury, but this is not the forum to play Sam Ervin.
From what I can tell from KC's summary, they are extremely hostile and skeptical to all of his assertions. I have to agree that the idea no one's constitutional rights could be violated as long as their is no trial is absurd, just the kind of absurd crap you expect to come from a defense lawyer with a guilty clietn.
KC SHOW US THE BOW TIE!!
KEMP
The Bald guy must have a bet on the out come. He sure is nervous, it is happy hour and reporters hate to miss cheap booze.
Kemp
Who's the tall guy with the beard?
From what I have heard, I would be shocked if they granted Fongster his request. Jean definitely did some hardcore smackdown on this miscreant.
This is going to call into question every plea agreement ever negotiated by Mr. Nifong as DA.
Can you imagine: a one-way gate on discovery.
Robbed of exculpatory evidence from its only sources- the police and investigators who gather it- how have any of Nifong's defendants stood any chance at all? They'd have to have pled.
Trumpbour must not have been practicing long if he hasn't seen defense attorneys lectured on the law by judges -- I've seen it plenty of times (even seen a few prosecutors get lectured).
JLS says....,
As the woman representing the bar said, in a motion for dismissal the maintained hypothises is what the bar had alledged is true. So the issue is even if what the bar has alledge is true does this rise to an ethical violation. This is a pretty tough threshhold and really I don't see what the defense thought they would gain by this motion?
Who was the lady Victoria Peterson was just in conversation with in front of the camera?
Nifong's fate is already signed sealed and delivered. Hope as much effort goes towards dealing with his multitudinous enablers.
A little strange to see still cameras in a hearing room.
Jim,
I would sure think if you had pled out a defendant in a case with Mike Nifong to hear him assert the idea that constitutional violations cannot occur absent a trial and that he has the right to withhold exculpatory material until at least a trial date has been set, would motivate you to think about appealing your clients case.
KC - is that you in the green t-shirt?
Mozart! Nice.
JLS says...,
Certainly Nifong is going to be cottage industry in Durham. Much money will be made looking back over ever case the Durham DAs office handled for the last several decades.
"From what I have heard, I would be shocked if they granted Fongster his request. Jean definitely did some hardcore smackdown on this miscreant".
Why do you talk like a teenager? Maybe you are a teenager.
I'm now seriously rethinking my previous belief that Nifong had never resorted to illegal means before to get a win, and it was the election and DA job that pushed him over the edge. There very well may be a long history of breaking or skirting the law with this joker.
"I'm now seriously rethinking my previous belief that Nifong had never resorted to illegal means before to get a win, and it was the election and DA job that pushed him over the edge".
Why on earth would you believe this to start with? That's absurdly naive.
OMG = Sam Erwin = a name from the past - what a guy - KC write all.
Sam Erwin and Barbara Jordan- what amazing human beings!
TexasMom
Sam Ervin was an overblown pos.
Are you people crazy?
Chicago--You look like Matt Damon.
Trumpbour must not have been practicing long if he hasn't seen defense attorneys lectured on the law by judges -- I've seen it plenty of times (even seen a few prosecutors get lectured).
Just back from Durham. I used to work in the criminal appeals division of the Maryland Attorney General's Office. I have seen and been involved in plenty of arguments and read even more trial hearing transcripts. I have certainly seen judges correct lawyers on points of law or express disagreement, sometimes vehement, with arguments. However, when I said lecture, I meant lecture. The Commission Chair spent as much time talking as Dudley Witt and gave detailed exegeses of elementary points to him, not in a confrontational way, but as if talking to a student. For someone whose specialty is professional license defense, Witt had to be taking gas at the Chair’s “Isn’t it cute how stupid you are” reception for his arguments.
Lawyers, even good ones, can only play the cards dealt them. However, I think a motion to dismiss always was a real longshot and, as it turned out, may have backfired on them a little.
Post a Comment