Readers' Note: This post was first published Apr. 29, three days before Mike Nifong won the Democratic primary. I was reminded of it when interviewing attorney Alex Charns who, on behalf of an unindicted player, is requesting an official investigation and apology for the Durham CrimeStoppers poster which told the community:“The victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community.”
Noting that the poster was distributed before police had finished their investigation, Charns likened CrimeStoppers' actions to an "Alice in Wonderland" world in which people are first found guilty and them investigated.
My Apr. 29 post examined some actions of Mike Nifong's which reminded me of "Alice in Wonderland." Hense, the repost. Take a look.
_____________________________________________________
Regarding attendance at the Duke lacrosse party the night of Mar. 13/14:
News14Charlotte.com reports:
A noise violation and an alcohol possession violation against David Evans, a team captain, is being reinstated, [Durham DA Mike] Nifong said, because the party was held at the house where Evans lived.WRAL.com reports:
Nifong said he will reinstate the charges against players with active deferred prosecution deals if they can't prove they weren't at the party. …
[The second dancer, Kim] Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 -- eight days after the party -- on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.Got that?
On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent.
District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.
Nifong has no problem with Roberts attending the party, even being one of its principal professional performers.
Afterwards he approves a reduction in her bail terms.
But Nifong thinks its pretty bad stuff for certain lacrosse players to attend the same party.
So bad that he's revoking agreements his office made with them.
What’s more, Nifong’s going to revoke agreements his office made with some lacrosse players who say they weren’t even at the party but just can’t prove it.
If what Nifong's doing bothers you, try chanting to yourself, “Guilty until proven innocent.” That's the mantra of a lot of his Durham supporters.
But if it doesn’t work for you, remember what Humpty Dumpty told Alice: “A word can mean whatever I want it to mean.”
In DA Nifong's world, being at a party can mean whatever he wants it to mean, including the same as not being at the party.
If you like DA Nifong’s Alice in Wonderland brand of justice, you can vote for him on May 2.
1 comments:
From dukebasketballreport.com:
Meanwhile, attorney Kirk Osborn, who represents Reide Seligmann, is boring in on Mike Nifong's handling of the case. Arguing that the vast majority of the documents turned over to the defense were just meaningless, he is asking for some pretty specific information, to which he is entitled, as we understand the law (limited, but we can read):
1. Exactly where, when, at what time, and how does the State contend the Defendant committed a first degree rape?
2. Exactly how does the State contend the alleged rape was committed with another person by force and against the will of the accuser, and who was this person or these persons.?
3. Was a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article used during the alleged rape, which the accuser reasonably believed to be a dangerous or deadly weapon employed and/or displayed; and if so, by whom was it displayed or employed?
4. Was a serious personal injury inflicted up the accuser or another person during the alleged rape; and if so who inflicted this injury?
5. Was the alleged first degree rape committed by someone aided and abetted by one or more other persons; and if so, who was this person or these persons who aided and abetted, and exactly how did such person aid and abet?
6. The factual information which is the basis for the state's allegations of a first degree rape.
7. Exactly where, when and how the state contends the defendant committed a first degree sexual offense, and a specific description of the exact sexual offense?
8. Was the alleged first degree sexual offense committed with another person by force and against the will of the complaining witness?
9. Was a dangerous or deadly weapon or an article used during the alleged sexual offense which the accuser reasonably believed to be a dangerous or deadly weapon employed and/or displayed; and if so, by whom was it displayed or employed?
10. Was serious personal injury inflicted upon the accuser or another person during the alleged sexual offense; if so who inflicted this injury?
11. Was the alleged first degree sexual offense committed by someone aided and abetted by one or more other persons; and if so who was were the person(s) who aided and abetted, and exactly how did such person or persons aid or abet?
12. The factual information which is the basis for the state's allegations of a first degree sexual offense.
13. In regard to the first degree kidnapping charge, how does the state contend the accuser witness was unlawfully confined, restrained, or removed from one place to another?
14. Was the alleged confinement, restraint or removal for the purpose of holding the accuser for ransom or as a hostage or using such person as a shield; or facilitating the commission of any felony or facilitating flight of any person following the commission of a felony?
15.Was the alleged kidnapping to do serious bodily harm to or terrorize the person so confined, restrained or removed or any other person?
16. Was the alleged kidnapping to hold the complaining witness in involuntary servitude in violation of G.S. 14-43.2?
17. Was the person kidnapped released in a safe place or was the complaining witness seriously injured or sexually assaulted?
18. The factual information which is the basis for such allegations regarding the first degree kidnapping.
19. A detailed statement of the factual information upon which the State will rely to prove each of the elements of each charge in each indictment.
20 The names, addresses, telephone numbers and current occupations of each witness the prosecution expects to cal to establish each of the elements of each circumstances listed in the answer to paragraphs above, along with a statement of the expected testimony of each witness.
21. A copy of any statement obtained from witnesses regarding any charge or element of any charge in this case.
22. Any information in the prosecution's files or known to the prosecution or which with the exercise of reasonable diligence could become known to the prosecution which establishes or might tend to establish the existence of any element of any of the alleged charges.
Second Motion For Specific Discovery
Motion For Bill Of Particulars
Post a Comment