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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
He's Toast! KC wave to us!!
ReplyDeleteCamera is facing the Bar table!!
Kemp
Yeah, KC. Give us a cameo!
ReplyDeleteI am shocked we are probably getting a decision right now.
ReplyDeleteBlack guy in Yellow tie is in front on camera now!
ReplyDeleteKemp
This is decision only on motion to dismiss, which has about as much chance as Nifungu does.
ReplyDeleteNONE
Kemp
KC bald guy with two phones in on camera now.
ReplyDeleteKemp
JLS says...,
ReplyDeleteYes, 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.
ReplyDeleteKC SHOW US THE BOW TIE!!
ReplyDeleteKEMP
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.
ReplyDeleteKemp
Who's the tall guy with the beard?
ReplyDeleteFrom 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.
ReplyDeleteCan 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).
ReplyDeleteJLS says....,
ReplyDeleteAs 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?
ReplyDeleteNifong's fate is already signed sealed and delivered. Hope as much effort goes towards dealing with his multitudinous enablers.
ReplyDeleteA little strange to see still cameras in a hearing room.
ReplyDeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteMozart! Nice.
ReplyDeleteJLS says...,
ReplyDeleteCertainly 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".
ReplyDeleteWhy 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.
ReplyDelete"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".
ReplyDeleteWhy 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.
ReplyDeleteSam Erwin and Barbara Jordan- what amazing human beings!
ReplyDeleteTexasMom
Sam Ervin was an overblown pos.
ReplyDeleteAre you people crazy?
Chicago--You look like Matt Damon.
ReplyDeleteTrumpbour 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).
ReplyDeleteJust 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.