I’ve just been searching to learn more about one of Collin Finnerty’s attorneys, Michael Cornacchia. The Raleigh News & Observer reports today ("DA's critics ask bar, feds to intervene"):
“[Cornacchia] wrote to the U.S. attorney general, the FBI director, the congressional delegations of North Carolina and Long Island and others, saying Nifong had violated the civil rights of the three players. The case merits an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote Cornacchia, a former prosecutor who recently served as chief investigative counsel for the probe of the United Nation's oil-for-food program.”I found an April 19 USA Today story reporting on the court hearing Finnerty attended in Durham on April 18, the day after a grand jury indicted Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
The story includes a color photo of Finnerty leaving the courthouse with his father and Cornacchia, who is the man in suit and tie just behind Finnerty’s right shoulder.
USA Today makes no mention of Cornacchia but does quote a number of attorneys. Some are directly involved in the case. Others are not directly involved but were interviewed by USA Today to provide “background and context” for its story.
Two of the attorneys not directly involved but providing “background and context” are Duke Law School professors Erwin Chemerinsky and James Coleman.
Chemerinsky, Coleman and all the other attorneys USA Today quoted were speaking before any of them or us knew about a host of investigative travesties DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham police officers committed in order to obtain indictments of then two and later a third lacrosse player, David Evans. All three are clearly innocent of the charges.
I found it very interesting to read what the attorneys were saying more than eight months ago and then to consider what subsequently happened.
In Coleman's case we know that weeks after what we read on April 19 he'll release the Coleman Report. Also, that on June 12 he'll write a letter to the N&O calling on DA Mike Nifong to step aside and allow a special prosecutor to take over the case.
Still later on 60 Minutes Coleman will describe in chilling detail the rigged identification procedures ("there could be no wrong answers") that were essential for the indictments; and which I feel comfortable saying were part of a deliberate frame-up of the indicted players.
In Chemerinsky's case some of you may not be aware that blogger and historian KC Johnson got him on the record speaking about the case in August.
Folks, I want to propose that you do something.
First, read the USA Today April 19 story bearing in mind all that the public, including Chemerinsky and Coleman, didn't know at that time.
Then read the letter Coleman wrote to the N&O almost two months later and Chemerinsky's comments reported in Johnson's post in August.
If you do that, I think most of you will say to yourselves something like:
"Chemerinsky and Coleman didn't come to the positions they came to because of 'what defense attorneys say'. So why do N&O editorial page editor Steve Ford and Durham Herald Sun editor Bob Ashley use the "defense attorneys" excuse to justify their continued support of Nifong?"I'll be interested to read your comments regarding the April 19 story and what followed.
6 comments:
Good find, John. Coupla things I noticed:
Osborn's comment - The two indictments did not spell out the evidence against Finnerty and Seligmann, but Osborn indicated the accuser identified them by inspecting photographs.
"We all know how reliable that is," Osborn said.
It wasn't until a bit later with the first production of discovery that we learned just how tainted the photo IDs were, right?
USA Today prose - Earlier court documents stated "the victim had signs, symptoms and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally" and that an examining nurse at the hospital where she was treated said "the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience."
Again, later discovery showed just how wrong this was, or had they seen the SANE reports at that time?
Atty comments - Bill Thomas, a lawyer for a player who has not been charged, said one of the two men under indictment did not even attend the party, though he did not specify which one, saying only that "multiple witnesses and a commercial transaction" would provide an alibi.
Appears to be referring to the ATM / fast food receipts? Other atty comments in the article indicate that the evidence shows that the accused wasn't at the party 'at the relevant time'.
Cheshire comment - Attorney Joe Cheshire, who represents one of the team's captains, said at a news conference then that the DNA report indicated authorities took samples from the accuser's body, including under her fingernails, and from her possessions, such as her cellphone and clothes.
"They swabbed about every place they could possibly swab from her in which there could be any DNA," Cheshire said.
Gratifying to see that they didn't just look in the obvious place(s). I'm surprised by this thoroughness given LEs horrid performance in the investigation. The actual swabbing procedure was done by medical personnel, of course...
From another 4/19/06 USA Today piece, Jon Saraceno's column linked from the article you posted:
Atty Roy Black comment - "It almost reaches the level of absurdity," Black said. "I think it's driven more by local politics, race and class. How often do you see prosecutors give 30 press conferences before charges are filed? Based upon what we know, the lack of physical evidence (beyond a hospital exam that cited injury consistent with rape), corroboration and conclusive DNA argue against a strong case here. What you have here is her word, one certainly subject to serious credibility questions."
The same misinformation regarding the examination of the AV / Hoax instigator.
John, We need to remember that there really was NO evidence to warrant indictment, save the accuser's statements. In another situation, the DA simply would have refused to take the case further, citing lack of credibility.
But we have to remember that Nifong sees this as a winnable case, and at the present time, he wants to WIN, not find out the truth. He will try to use rape shield laws, the race card, and anything else that either will keep out exculpatory evidence or inflame the jury.
Good grief! This is beyond trolling! I had no idea these guys would do this.
To gprestonian,
Responding to both you messages:
"Coupla things I noticed"
You offered a lot more than a couple of things a very intelligent person would notice.
Thanks for first-rate analysis and commentary.
I'll get a post up for readers and will call attention to you comments.
Dear Bill,
"the DA simply would have refused to take the case further, citing lack of credibility."
Bingo!
You remind us of what we should all never forget.
On whether Nifong thinks the case is winnable I'm doubtful that he thinks he can.
To Anon@5:22 pm,
O those trolls and spammers.
But this latest is flushed.
Thank you all three.
John
How may I email you something?
Post a Comment