tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post6554815084661956243..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Everett's Odd Argumentskcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3376968576080404612007-02-12T02:28:00.000-05:002007-02-12T02:28:00.000-05:00Professor Everett,what say you in response to the ...Professor Everett,what say you in response to the numerous questions and rebutals to your articles in the newspapers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43227230757304087282007-02-11T17:54:00.000-05:002007-02-11T17:54:00.000-05:00Professor Everett's fault was to not disclose his ...Professor Everett's fault was to not disclose his support of the Fong. KC could be right that they are testing the waters for Nifongs defense. Will be interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Everett can certainly write well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87251359677208136652007-02-11T13:05:00.000-05:002007-02-11T13:05:00.000-05:00"Professor Everett certainly has the credentials t..."Professor Everett certainly has the credentials to make a legal opinion on the evidence - and he has everyright to do so. "<BR/><BR/>And us other lawyers have every right to point out how asinine his arguments (or "opinions") are. This is what makes this case so fascinating, how can someone with the intellect and experience as Everett write such a poor (and legally incorrect, there's really nothing else to say that already hasn't been said) op-ed?<BR/><BR/>I understand that certain people have a vested interest in protecting the reputation of Duke, but personal attacks aside, Everett's article is an embarassment. I'd give it an "F" if I was grading. Why so quick to doubt the exceptions to the rape shield statute? Why neglect to even specifically mention them? Why does he believe Nifong has the unilateral right to withhold it from the defense REGARDLESS if it is eventually deemed inadmissible? Why not mention the open discovery statute? <BR/><BR/>Its really breathtaking how someone so smart can have such an incorrect opinion.<BR/><BR/>Sincerely, a non-Duke law grad admitted in New York, Maryland and Virginia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-79821048258508335272007-02-11T04:17:00.000-05:002007-02-11T04:17:00.000-05:00Carolyn:It doesn't take a year after graduation fr...Carolyn:<BR/><BR/>It doesn't take a year after graduation from law school to be admitted to the bar, at least not in most states. A few years back, I graduated from law school in May, studied for the bar exam throughout June and July, took the exam in late July, got my scores in October and was admitted to the bar in November of the same year. That wasn't just me; it was common practice.<BR/><BR/>Also, I doubt it takes 3 to 5 years before one can argue the law in court. I personally am not a litigator and rarely appear in court, but it's my understanding that assistant district attorneys and assistant public defenders commonly appear in court and argue the law during their first year after admission to the bar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-91977727591867985042007-02-10T23:19:00.000-05:002007-02-10T23:19:00.000-05:00I wuz reeding the Heruld/sun an seen a letter by P...I wuz reeding the Heruld/sun an seen a letter by Perfesser Evrette of the Duke law school and he dun said that Nifong oughta be the final decider when it cums to wut evidence is allowed in that court theer <BR/><BR/>Now i aint been to school sense i passd the 9th grade and ma wuz reel prowd but i know beter then that / > them judges gotta make thet desicion not the DA like whut hapenned ta me with the burrglarry an the robberry charges we all make mestakes an lord knows i maid my share but i aint dum like everette an i love duke an jj reddic and coach k an the boys an no way nifong getsta decide wut is or aint evidense see wut i mean theses my opinins wut says you bout wut there teechin in duke law schoolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-88540005645677880352007-02-10T22:22:00.000-05:002007-02-10T22:22:00.000-05:00"In California, no lawyer is allowed to practice l..."In California, no lawyer is allowed to practice law until after he passes the state's bar exam. This takes at least a year (studying for the exam, taking it, awaiting results). Even then, you must still practice a minimum of 3-5 years more before you know the law enough to even attempt to argue it in court.<BR/><BR/>Yet Everett was appointed to the Duke law faculty to teach law the SAME year he graduated from law school (1950). In other words, Duke appointed someone to teach a subject they had no real world knowledge of."<BR/><BR/>This is silly -- clearly you didn't attend a top law school. Plenty of law professors from such institutions never practice law -- in fact, at Yale, I would bet this month's mortgage payment, less than 50% ever did. In my experience, however, the ones with real-world experience (like, for instance, Jim Coleman) were far better teachers. Still, while Judge Everett is doddering now, don't disparage Duke for ever hiring the man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-1334164586232359332007-02-10T21:08:00.000-05:002007-02-10T21:08:00.000-05:00WTF "I don't know his families past, but it could ...WTF "I don't know his families past, but it could be racial." Has never faced a hardship in his life." "He was an idiot". This smacks of Karla and the 88. Wait till you hear this ... school of thinking. The Kennedys may not be model citizens, but they are not dumb. Does it come as a surprise that wealth has its privileges?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-35343267574853969582007-02-10T20:47:00.000-05:002007-02-10T20:47:00.000-05:00Professor Everett matriculated at a time when an 8...Professor Everett matriculated at a time when an 8th grade education was better than a high school diploma today. What is it, over 60% of American students don't know Mexico is on our southern border. Trying to demeaning his brains and education is not not appropriate and or true. This question may or may not work its way up the judical system, but eventially there will be a ruling. The sad part for me is I have no faith in the North Carolina system. Stephens and Titus are a disgrace.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5610381270225984242007-02-10T18:11:00.000-05:002007-02-10T18:11:00.000-05:00SteveDinMD: Prof. Everett's brilliance is far from...SteveDinMD: Prof. Everett's brilliance is far from "obvious." His recent OpEd piece betrays reasoning that is either faulty or deliberately misleading. Moreover, I'm personally unaware of any ruling from the bench or argument made before any court by him that has had any widespread significance...<BR/><BR/>You may be "personally unaware," but Everett argued before the US Supreme Court four times in landmark litigation known as the Shaw-Cromartie cases, which have had very widespread significance on the subject of constitutional prohibitions of racial gerrymandering in establishing legislative disrict boundaries.<BR/><BR/>I think he's dead wrong about Nifong's nondisclosures, but let's be fair to the guy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-60563636987525379112007-02-10T17:48:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:48:00.000-05:005:07 said: "Professor Everett is a Harvard law sch...5:07 said: "Professor Everett is a Harvard law school graduate at the age of 22 and obviously a brillant man. Unlike Easley and many others, he is not from NCCU or Podunk U. I am sure he had and has great knowledge of the law. Chief Justice Roberts - please weigh in here on your view of the law per the DNA evidence or lack there of." <BR/><BR/>SteveDinMD: Prof. Everett's brilliance is far from "obvious." His recent OpEd piece betrays reasoning that is either faulty or deliberately misleading. Moreover, I'm personally unaware of any ruling from the bench or argument made before any court by him that has had any widespread significance which could be used as a counterweight to his slipshod scholarship so recently put on public display in Durham. Am I impressed with his Harvard pedigree? No. He matriculated at a time when intellectual competition was far less intense than it is today, and at an age not uncommon for the period. Remember, too, he is the progeny of great wealth. Even today, wealth enjoys its very own "affirmative action" program. Just ask the Kennedys. Everett is but a diletante exposed in his dotage. Now is not the time for such foolishness, but for the well-reasoned logic of serious professoinals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17203664097571655962007-02-10T17:33:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:33:00.000-05:00Judge Everett may very well be wrong as a substant...Judge Everett may very well be wrong as a substantial matter, but two points regarding the follow up commentary on this blog are, I think, worth pointing out.<BR/><BR/>First, as another commenter has pointed out, the legal issue is murkier than one might suspect and Judge Everett's actual op-ed is couched in fairly highly-qualified language (he "doubts," etc.). The condescending language here about his age, race, and assumed senility is hardly warranted, any more than the non sequiturs about what kind of grade his op-ed deserves.<BR/><BR/>Second, and much more important, much of the work of this blog in particular has been to criticize the way in which false and damaging assumptions were made about lacrosse players due to their race, class, educational backgrounds, etc. It hardly does those very valid critiques credit to use the same kinds of criteria to determine the motivations and character of Judge Everett.<BR/><BR/>Judge Everett has been a supporter of Mike Nifong, and he should have disclosed this. Mr. Nifong should have disclosed all the DNA evidence, in my opinion (and, by transition, I think Judge Everett is wrong on this count). But I had not thought of the rape shield statute and its implications, and am glad that it was argued by Judge Everett so that this particular facet of the issue could be worked out. I'm disappointed that some of the commenters here are so locked into the orthodoxy of Mr. Nifong's badness (for which there is quite a lot of proof), that they are willing to engage in the same kind of knee-jerking for which the G88 is rightly condemned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-62672476298233423142007-02-10T17:20:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:20:00.000-05:00TW 2:46 PM Oh, I think they do know the 4 or 5 nam...TW 2:46 PM <BR/><BR/>Oh, I think they do know the 4 or 5 names who belong to the 4 or 5 sperm samples.<BR/><BR/>Now, I guess we need to wait and find out what they knew and when they knew it...and who in Durham set this up.Gary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75405736064811196212007-02-10T17:12:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:12:00.000-05:005:04 That is what I am looking for on this blog. I...5:04 That is what I am looking for on this blog. I don't know if you legal opinion is right or wrong, but thanks for expressing it. Please, no personal attacks attacks, particularly from those who can't write without cussin or describing body parts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-39641122226765842682007-02-10T17:07:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:07:00.000-05:00Professor Everett is a Harvard law school graduate...Professor Everett is a Harvard law school graduate at the age of 22 and obviously a brillant man. Unlike Easley and many others, he is not from NCCU or Podunk U. I am sure he had and has great knowledge of the law. Chief Justice Roberts - please weigh in here on your view of the law per the DNA evidence or lack there of.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20548540650722467672007-02-10T17:04:00.000-05:002007-02-10T17:04:00.000-05:00To clarify my position, which I agree could have b...To clarify my position, which I agree could have been stated with more precision: <BR/><BR/>In Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145(1991) the Supreme Court held that the application of a state's rape shield law may violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, and may only be applied to exclude the offered evidence if a state's interest in excluding the evidence outweighs a defendant's interests in being able to confront his or her accuser. Lucas, 500 U.S. at 150-53. <BR/><BR/>Where evidence is excluded because of concerns about its reliability, the state's interest will almost always outweigh those of the defendant, and could not be considered *reasonably* necessary for the defendant's defense. However, where the offered evidence is reliable and highly probative of innocence, the defendant's right to confront his or her accuser will *almost* always outweigh the interest of a state in keeping the evidence from the jury. (Exclusion of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, for example, would be an exception.)<BR/><BR/>Since I think that N.C.'s rape shield law contains sufficiently broad exceptions to be constitutional in most or all cases, I doubt that the sixth amendment argument would ever be necessary in this case. But I stand by my contention that regardless of how one interprets the exceptions to the rape shield law (and remember that Mr. Everett doubted that the exceptions apply in this case), the defendants in this case would nonetheless have a constitutional right to the introduction of the evidence in question. In light of Mr. Everett's extremely narrow view of the exceptions in the rape shield law, he should have considered the possibility that the evidence in question would nonetheless be admissible for constitutional reasons.<BR/><BR/>T.S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53194095181150093852007-02-10T16:59:00.000-05:002007-02-10T16:59:00.000-05:00My son-in-law is a Harvard law school graduate. He...My son-in-law is a Harvard law school graduate. He passed the bar in a lot less than a year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28084478481294632042007-02-10T16:45:00.000-05:002007-02-10T16:45:00.000-05:00Professor Everett certainly has the credentials to...Professor Everett certainly has the credentials to make a legal opinion on the evidence - and he has everyright to do so. We have the Supreme Court to judge the difference in legal disputes. It is one thing to go after folk who are misrepensenting the facts as we know them, quite another to make a personal attack on a highly educated lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5445859047798539642007-02-10T15:38:00.000-05:002007-02-10T15:38:00.000-05:00Interestingly, or maybe not, Everett's mother-in-l...Interestingly, or maybe not, Everett's mother-in-law died three days shy of her 94th birthday just six days before this op ed was published. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.legacy.com/news-record/Obituaries.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonID=86288512" REL="nofollow">Grace McGregor obit</A><BR/><BR/>MaggieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80469516938697551052007-02-10T15:10:00.000-05:002007-02-10T15:10:00.000-05:0012:21PM12:21PM linkHere is how you make permalinks...12:21PM<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/02/10/news/wyoming/641691779991671a8725727d0072f707.txt" REL="nofollow">12:21PM link</A><BR/><BR/>Here is how you make permalinks:<BR/><BR/><a href="<B>url</B>"><B>text to display</B></a><BR/><BR/>replace <B>url</B> with: <BR/>http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/02/duke-fever.html<BR/>leave the quote marks <BR/><BR/>replace <B>text to display</B><BR/>with <BR/>Duke Fever<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/02/duke-fever.html" REL="nofollow">Duke Fever</A>M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52670474177029688272007-02-10T15:07:00.000-05:002007-02-10T15:07:00.000-05:00Carolyn asks:In California, no lawyer is allowed t...Carolyn asks:<BR/><BR/>In California, no lawyer is allowed to practice law until after he passes the state's bar exam. This takes at least a year (studying for the exam, taking it, awaiting results). Even then, you must still practice a minimum of 3-5 years more before you know the law enough to even attempt to argue it in court. <BR/><BR/>Yet Everett was appointed to the Duke law faculty to teach law the SAME year he graduated from law school (1950). In other words, Duke appointed someone to teach a subject they had no real world knowledge of. <BR/><BR/>Yo - Gang of 88. A rich white boy got there ahead of you!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87104716592787310312007-02-10T14:57:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:57:00.000-05:00I suspect Everett does not know the facts of the c...I suspect Everett does not know the facts of the case. That is the simplest explanation for his ridiculous argument. <BR/><BR/>IF the complainant had averred that she had had sexual contact with several men other than the players and if she had also averred she was sure that the players had used condoms, then the presence of others' DNA would have been obviously irrelevant to possible impeachment of the complainant. Such evidence would not have been exculpatory and almost certainly would not have been admissable under a rape shield law. I have no idea whether, under NC law, evidence that is clearly not exculpatory must be provided to the defense, but I suspect that even if such provision were required, failure to provide evidence that could not possibly be construed as exculpatory might well be viewed as at worst a technical, not a substantive, violation of legal ethics. <BR/><BR/>Before anyone jumps all over me for defending Nifong, that is of course NOT what the testimony of the complainant was and is NOT a defense of Nifong, who seems to me a disgusting criminal. I am merely saying that no one needs to construct theories that Everett is repenting for his family's purported racist past, is unable to construct a legal argument despite years on the bench, has Alzheimer's, etc. I suspect he shot his mouth off without doing any serious research. That is a rather common human failing. <BR/><BR/>JeffMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-4655639853588291302007-02-10T14:46:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:46:00.000-05:00Legal jibber-jabber aside, the real "common sense ...Legal jibber-jabber aside, the real "common sense test" here is; wouldn't a responsible investigation have identified the other sperm donors as part of a 'rape investigation' ?<BR/><BR/>I mean, if the DPD/DA really believed a rape occurred, wouldn't they want to identify the owners of those little buggers?- After all, they still could have been "Dukies", which is what they were gunn'in for.<BR/><BR/>To me, the very fact that DPD/DA never looked for these 'guys' (never mind the crime that they supressed the evidence) is prima facia evidence that they "NEVER BELIEVED HER" themselves.<BR/><BR/>TWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-89708495339827485502007-02-10T14:14:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:14:00.000-05:00I just asked my Duke law grad husband (who's not r...I just asked my Duke law grad husband (who's not really keeping up with this case) about Everett. His reply was, "Yeah, I had him. A lot of people revered him, I guess because he's old and rich and gave a lot of money to Duke. I thought he was an idiot."<BR/><BR/>MaggieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64427987152262764002007-02-10T14:01:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:01:00.000-05:00Also interesting from the link - Everett was a Jim...<I>Also interesting from the link - Everett was a Jimmy Carter appointee. So he probably is not 'politically neutral'.</I><BR/><BR/>Jimmy Carter appointee?<BR/>I'm SHOCKED, shocked.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, I thought most of them were impeached by now (one Carter appointed judge removed from office by congress is now sitting in congress as a proud member of black caucus and Nancy Pelosi's pick to head the house intelligence committee..That judge sold FBI wiretapping info to mafia).<BR/><BR/>I'm afraid that congress is the likely place for Gang88/Nifong/Everett if they are ever held accountable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71435813728625380922007-02-10T13:41:00.000-05:002007-02-10T13:41:00.000-05:00JLS says....re: 1:06I think your examples are abou...JLS says....<BR/><BR/>re: 1:06<BR/><BR/>I think your examples are about whether evidence is reliable or not which is an issue that I guess must be decided at some level but one level could be the jury, but you are correct the government and judges routinely do not allow defendats to assert defenses that they wish to. I think it is a outrageous, but there are media reports of this happenning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com