Duke lacrosse: Judge Stephens and his critics

Back on May 21 I posted "Why I admire the Duke lacrosse judge."

Based on many professional experiences with Stephens over the years, mostly as an expert witness, I said I admire him as a judge and as a person. We’re not personal friends, and I've had no professional contact with Stephens in the last six years or so.

As you might guess, I've received a lot of criticism for that post.

The criticisms have all been civil and well-intentioned but I've not gotten into a lot of back-and-forth with the critics.

One reason is many of the criticisms are based on subjective judgments having to do with Stephens’ motives. Example: He's gone along with requests from DA Nifong because they've worked together over the years with Nifong serving as Asst. DA when Stephens was Durham DA.

How do you refute that charge?

I'm not an attorney but attorneys I've spoken with who are not directly connected to the case say Stephens has not done anything procedurally that's outside the bounds of reason and law.

But ten attorneys swearing to that won't change the mind of someone who believes Stephens is motivated by personal rather than legal considerations

The bails Stephens has set seem high to some, me included. Others say there should have been no bail given the seriousness of the charges. Stephens made his judgment.

The threats and taunts in the courtroom? I'm told by people who work at the courthouse that Stephens was not in the courtroom when they happened but, having learned about them, when he entered the court he said any such remarks and demonstrations would not be tolerated. Those who engage in them he said he would jail.

As events unfold I'm betting Stephens will be seen by most people as a fair, "follow the law" judge who keeps an orderly courtroom.

Could I be wrong about Stephens?

Yes. And if, as events unfold, attorneys I respect, legal scholars and others expert in the law are critical of Stephens, I'll pay close attention to what they say.

If it turns out I misjudged the judge, I say so and tell readers I'm sorry for what I posted.

But right now, I'm standing with what I posted.

I plan to continue to avoid posting on complex legal matters about which I don't have competence.

I plan to stick to simple things I’m competent to do. Examples:

I’ve reported that on Mar 24 in the very first story published on the Duke lacrosse case, the Raleigh News & Observer seven times referred to the accuser as "the victim" or with the possessive "victim's", never once preceding them with "alleged" or "reported."

I’ve asked why the Raleigh N&O published on Apr. 2 the infamous "vigilante poster," despite warnings that doing so would make it more likely unstable individuals and hate groups would target the players, something that's unfortunately happened.

I’ve asked why, after refusing to publish the Danish cartoons and the Daily Tar Heel cartoon of Mohammed because of fears for its own staffs' safety, the N&O turned around and published the "vigilante" poster.

I’ve posted and asked how four people could struggle violently for 30 minutes in a bathroom without any of them sustaining a serious physical injury as a result of the struggle.

I’ve posted and asked why if 3 men were planning to rape a women they would all crowd into the bathroom with her instead of going to, say, a bedroom.

I’ll be posting on recent misleading statements the N&O’s executive editor for news Melanie Sill’s made to readers concerning the paper’s Duke lacrosse coverage.

Those are the sorts of things I’m competent to do.

I hope you’ll keep visiting.
___________________________________________
Post URLs:

http://www.newsobserver.com/742/v-print/story/421494.html

http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-i-admire-duke-lacrosse-judge.html