Remember the post: “Duke lacrosse letter: So bad it's a good sign for the indicted?”
It concerned a letter the Raleigh N&O published from N. C. NAACP’s Legal Redress Chair, attorney Al McSurely, responding to a column by the NY Times’ David Brooks in which Brooks said in part:
[S]imple decency requires that we return to that scandal, if only to correct the slurs that were uttered by millions of people, including me. …Here's how McSurely responded to that:
[Law journalist] Stuart Taylor has written a devastating couple of essays on the weak case of the prosecutor, Mike Nifong [citing] lack of DNA evidence, the seemingly exculpatory digital photos and the testimony of a taxi driver.
Brooks conceded the team is "mostly white" (46 out of 47). He cited favorably a National Journal essay that estimated "an 85 percent chance" the men are innocent.McSurely’s words no doubt tell us more than he intended.
Brooks speaks at this summer's National Conservative Student Conference. Look for the students at this right-wing Republican recruiting ground to express support for the right's new heroes: "The Duke 3."
Of course, "Brooks conceded the team is 'mostly white,'" just as Brooks would concede the teams at N.C. Central University are “mostly black.”
What’s McSurely doing besides dealing N&O readers a race card?
Does anyone think McSurely’s "mostly white" has anything to do with what he wants us to believe his letter is all about: Justice?
And look at how McSurely treated Brooks’ remarks about Stuart Taylor.
All McSurely said in reference to Taylor is:
[Brooks] cited favorably a National Journal essay that estimated "an 85 percent chance" the men are innocent.But we all know what Brooks actually said is:
Stuart Taylor has written a devastating couple of essays on the weak case of the prosecutor, Mike Nifong [citing] the lack of DNA evidence, the seemingly exculpatory digital photos and the testimony of a taxi driver.Now before anyone says, “McSurely's just like any attorney,” let’s remember a few things.
Some attorneys, like some people, say whatever suits their purposes. And some attorneys, like some people, say what fits the facts.
So what McSurely says tells us about him and not about attorneys.
Finally, let's note this from McSurely’s letter:
Brooks speaks at this summer's National Conservative Student Conference. Look for the students at this right-wing Republican recruiting ground to express support for the right's new heroes: "The Duke 3."What is McSurely telling us when he makes remarks like that instead of asking for the release by Nifong of DNA results, the medical report from Duke that McSurely references in his letter, and detailed information about Durham police lineup ID procedures in the Duke case?
When I first read McSurely’s letter it suggested how weak the prosecutors’ case is.
A second look at his letter only strengthens that suggestion.
5 comments:
I thought you may like to know of the re-airing on C-Span this past weekend of a lecture by David Horowitz cititical of Afro-American programs at universities including Duke. Mr. Horowitz appeared at Duke about a week before the alleged incident at the Duke lacrosse party. I only saw the last part of the program but Horowitz implied that many Afro studies professors did not meet professional university standards and he seemed to include the Duke professors as well. My point is that the Afro-centric community at Duke may have already been up in arms based on Horowitz's comments at Duke well before the alleged Duke lacrosse incident had occurred and may have been why there was even greater outrage than one may expect.
It is also interesting to note, reported in today's (June 5, 2006)News and Observer that a number of black professors are leaving Duke. It seems to be spun that they are leaving because of the alleged lacrosse incident but perhaps it is because Mr. Horowitz's comments may have had some impact.
Anon-
I read that (very poorly written) article and the prof's are not leaving Duke b/c of any environmental issue.
They're liberal arts guys not economists but they understand supply and demand.
They're leaving b/c they get $$$, endowed chairs, lower teaching duties , etc.
If you compared minority prof's teaching schedules you'd see that they are pretty light - they get lots of funding to use to buy graduate students. (This does not apply to female prof's.)
Now, they may or may not be qualified, but I believe they are b/c the quoted minority prof was upset by Brodhead pointing out that Duke will only hire qualified minority profs.
The lesson Ward Churchill is not lost on the Dukes.
-AC
Blind to evidence
On Monday, May 15, a Durham County grand jury handed up a third indictment in the nothing-short-of-notorious Duke rape case. This latest indictment charges the lacrosse team's captain, David Evans, with first-degree rape, first-degree sexual assault, and first-degree kidnapping.
The charges against Evans are identical to those handed up last month against fellow players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. Still, this final indictment does come as a bit of surprise. As I detailed in a prior column, the cases against Seligmann and Finnerty appear quite weak. As I'll discuss in this column, the case against Evans may be even shakier. It's true that the grand jury did return indictments against Evans, and previously against the other two. It's also true that the District Attorney, Mike Nifong, is forging ahead -- seemingly undeterred.
But Nifong's judgment has been poor all along- and the old adage that a D.A. can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich" shouldn't be forgotten. Without defense attorneys there to test the prosecutor's evidence via the invaluable process of cross-examination, weak evidence can be made to look pretty convincing. It's not the grand jury's fault; it's just the reality that if you only hear one side, you tend to believe it.
At least a ham sandwich has some weight to it. As I'll explain in this column, the Evans indictment - like the two that preceded it - does not. The very evidence that may have convinced the grand jury - accuser identification and new DNA evidence - is just the kind that will ultimately fall apart when defense attorneys finally do get to cross-examine the witnesses presenting it.
The Mounting Evidence in Favor of Defendants' Innocence
All three defendants in the Duke lacrosse case have unfailingly and repeatedly proclaimed their innocence - Evans doing so most eloquently, on behalf of all three men, in a brief public comment following his being formally charged.
In fact, in a highly unusual move, newly indicted defendant Evans went to so far as to volunteer to take a lie detector test at the direction of law enforcement. When the D.A. refused, Evans enlisted a top polygrapher to administer the test anyway. He passed.
Thus far, the defense camp has come forward with a host of seemingly reliable, exculpatory evidence -evidence that will be admissible in court, and that is likely to sway a jury. I'm not talking about, maybe, kinda, sorta, or could be, exculpatory evidence either. I'm talking about weighty evidence - receipts, photos, phone records, alibi witnesses, an absence of DNA, and now actual DNA - that directly supports the defendants' claims of innocence.
A plethora of proof supporting a defendant's claim of innocence - not just the government's failure to carry its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt -- is a rare pearl in the practice of criminal defense. It should cause the D.A. to reassess his case.
The Problems with the Accuser's "Identification" of Evans
In my prior columns, I discussed the problems with evidence against Seligmann - who has strong evidence supporting an alibi - and, to a lesser extent, against Finnerty. The evidence against Evans is also weak, maybe even more so.
Evans reportedly was not initially indicted, with the other two, because the accuser couldn't identify him with certainty (only with "90 percent certainty," in her words) from a photo lineup. Ten percent doubt sounds like a lot like reasonable doubt to me - and perhaps, at least initially, it sounded that way to D.A. Nifong too. And if the accuser herself has reasonable doubt, how can a prosecution go forward?
The accuser's lack of certainty is even more worrisome in light of the fact that the photo lineup was grossly biased. It included only Duke lacrosse players - meaning that the accuser had no choice but to select a Duke lacrosse player if she were to select anyone at all. And this photo lineup was apparently the sole means of identification for all three defendants.
Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, the accuser is reported to have said that Evans's photo "looks just like [one of my assailants] without the mustache." According to Evans's defense lawyer, Evans has never worn a mustache. And party photos support this contention.
For all these reasons, the accuser's identification testimony is likely to be destroyed upon cross-examination.
The Problems with the New DNA Evidence
Besides the accuser's testimony, prosecutors also presented to the grand jury the results of a second round of DNA testing.
Readers may recall that the first round of DNA testing was, if anything, exculpatory: There was no DNA match whatsoever linking any of the forty-six lacrosse players whose DNA was taken, to the accuser.
Following those results, D.A. Nifong reportedly hired a private lab to re-test certain samples. In so doing, the new lab found a possible connection between defendant Evans and the accuser's discarded fake fingernail, found in the trash bin inside the bathroom.
To begin, it's awfully odd that the fake fingernail found its way into the trash bin in the first place, if a rape really occurred, and if the fake fingernail broke off during the victim's struggle, as she claims. No victim would clean up after her accusers; she would flee the scene. And if a culprit had the presence of mind to clean up -- realizing that the fake fingernail might be evidence against him -- surely he wouldn't just drop it in the trash can in the very room where the rape occurred, for police to easily find.
Significantly, too, defense attorneys claim the DNA material was found on the front of the nail -- not on the underside, where it would logically have lodged had the accuser scratched and clawed at her attackers as she claims.
But even putting these points aside, the DNA connection to Evans is weak. To begin, this isn't remotely close to the kind of "match" you may be familiar with from CSI - the kind where the odds of a false positive are infinitesimally small. Indeed, "match" here is a misnomer. All that can be said is that the DNA is "consistent" with DNA voluntarily supplied early on by Evans.
Shocking? Hardly. Evans lived in the house, and therefore may have, from time to time, blown his nose, swabbed an ear, or otherwise disposed of DNA-laden waste into that very trashcan.
Moreover, it was reportedly Evans himself who fished the fake nail from the garbage, voluntarily handing it over to police and maybe, just maybe, shedding some skin cells in the process.
As for direct evidence of sex, there is none; none from any of the forty lacrosse players, that is.
While the second round of DNA testing proved that semen was found inside the accusers vaginal cavity, spokespersons close to the defense are confident the source of the semen is the accuser's own boyfriend.
In sum, after cross-examination, there is little, if any, chance that a jury will give weight to this DNA evidence. It clashes with the accuser's own story, and it's as fully consistent with Evans's innocence as it is with his guilt.
The D.A.'s Unusual Hostility to Even Viewing Defense Evidence
Defense lawyers have repeatedly implored District Attorney Nifong to meet with them and to examine the evidence that favors the defendants. But Nifong has said no - with an attitude that boils down to, "Talk to the hand."
That's unusual. More often than not, prosecutors are quite open to exchanging - or at least being entertained by - the defense's evidence. After all, it provides them with a valuable preview of what the defense's case may ultimately look like in court. Prosecutors are legally required to turn over certain evidence to the defense, but no obligation runs the other way. And since the defense goes second, prosecutors may not be able to effectively counter defense "surprises."
For prosecutors, meeting with the defense is thus typically a win-win situation: If they are convinced to drop the case, then that's embarrassing - but far less than as a loss at trial would have been. If they aren't convinced to drop the case, they've gotten a precious new edge at trial. And either way, both the reality and appearance of fairness to the defendants are enhanced.
Giving a defendant a lie detector test, in contrast, isn't a win-win situation: It may hurt prosecutors' case if the results are released to the public. (Lie detector results are rarely - if ever - admissible in court.) But at the same time, a lie detector test - while risky, and far from perfect - is likely to get prosecutors closer to the truth, which is supposed to be what they are after.
As noted above, in this case, Evans claims Nifong refused to give Evans a lie detector test. (He ultimately took one himself, and passed.) In my professional experience, a prosecutor's refusing to administer a lie detector test to a defendant is nearly unheard-of. The defendant's answers - and the lie detector's response to them - may provide the prosecutor with a road map to what his vulnerabilities on the stand may be.
Just as meeting with the defense previews the defense case for prosecutors, administering a lie detector can preview the defendant's testimony, as well as his on-the-stand demeanor, showing prosecutors what kind of a witness he will be. (Confident? Nervous? Shifty? Solid?)
I can't help but believe that, were any of these defendants to assert that they had proof that a crime was indeed committed, this district attorney would be all ears. Suppose, for instance, that Seligmann or Evans were to turn on Finnerty, to try to save themselves - surely Nifong would happily hear them out. So how can the prosecutor justify, then, turning a blind eye to evidence of any of the accused's innocence?
If There's A Card Up the D.A.'s Sleeve, the Law Requires Him to Play It Soon
Some pundits have suggested that the only explanation for the District Attorney's pressing on in the light of strong evidence that the defendants are innocent, is that he has a card up his sleeve. If so, then he needs to show that card, pronto.
The discovery statutes in North Carolina - as in most states - do not allow prosecutors to play "hide the ball." This is a judicial proceeding, not a magic show. So D.A. Nifong will have to reveal this evidence sometime before trial.
He ought to opt to reveal it right now - to give the defense a chance to counter it. When evidence suggesting innocence is as strong as it is in this case, it's wrong to just let the case go to trial and "see what the jury says." These three young men's live will be forever affected, even if they are acquitted. Even an arrest leaves a scar; the scar of trial is far deeper.
D.A. Nifong should listen to the defense, and should drop the case unless he has strong evidence supporting the accuser. Moreover, if he does have such evidence, he should show it to us now. The defendants have been forthcoming - especially Evans, who volunteered to, and then did, take a lie detector test. The prosecution should follow their example.
I am a lawyer in a rural county in a rural state, and although most of my work these days is taken up practicing civil law, for the first 5 - 7 years I did a lot of criminal defense work.
Anyway, as a result of the demographics of my practice area, I have had the opportunity to defend clients charged with rather heinous and violent criminal acts, including rape, murder, etc.
Two observations:
1. whether this woman was raped or not, these young men are going to found not guilty if they go to trial — barring some unforeseen discovery by the police, the facts for the PA flat-out stink and most competent criminal defense attorneys will run him out of the courtroom on these — drunk, verge of being passed-out stripper with criminal record for car theft and tried to run over police officer who is smiling in photos taken as she is leaving the place — if the accusations are true, it’s tragic, but as a lawyer you work for the guy paying the bill, so she will be destroyed when she testifies. I had a similar case once where the alleged victim admitted during cross-examination at the preliminary hearing that prior to the "rape," by a college athlete — football player at a party, that she had stopped to pick up a six-pack to drink on the way to the party, she had drunk six -eight 16 ounce plastic cups half full of wine and had smoked a joint with one other person. She was a recent graduate (graduated two months after the alleged incident and had to fly in from Texas to testify) in Nursing and after leaving the "rape scene" in the early morning hours, instead of driving to the emergency room at the local hospital one mile from her former college dorm room, she drove for 3 hours to a hospital near her parent’s house. There was testimony from other partygoers — acquaintences of hers and who did not know my client — that she "fell asleep" for a little while after she smoked the pot. This poor girl even brought a squeeze ball to use while testifying to relieve stress (her psychologist had receommended it). Unfortunately for this young woman, the facts left me, as the young man’s lawyer, but to dig and berate, and ridicule and demean everything she had done and flat-out state that everything was inconsistent with her allegations — by the time we got to trial, she backed out on the first day and told the PA she would never testify about the rape again. My guy walked. He always told me he was innocent. You never really know, though.
2. I suppose the PA is running with this b/c he is facing an election in 2008, and this is a great time to start appealing to his voter base. The Duke students don’t vote there.
There are so many people whose friendship, kindness and humour have helped me through this period away from home. ur blog is also a great place to relax. thanxs. car loans
So far, two people have come out and said they think that Day By Day is at leastsometimes funny. Neither has provided any physical evidence of this. so please have a look at quick payday loan
Post a Comment