An attorney I was talking with the other day gave me a lesson.
The attorney said the public still has no idea “just how extraordinarily important and powerful” the DNA evidence is that DA Nifong and DNA Security Lab director Brian Meehan conspired to withhold from the defense.
What follows is a close paraphrase, using a first person voice, of what the attorney then said:
Suppose it’s 1985 and those three guy are accused and indicted just as they were. Everything’s the same as it is now except no DNA.The attorney’s words were quite a lesson, at least for me.
At the trial it’s only the woman’s word and she’s changed her story a couple of times.
But that’s no problem. The prosecution puts expert witnesses on the stand who tell the jury it’s normal for a woman to change her story.
I’ve seen cases where prosecutors have told juries that the woman changing her story is one more proof she was raped.
Factor in the media onslaught you had against those kids and you get convictions. They’re sent away for life.
Twenty years goes by.
Now it's 2006 and DNA evidence identical to the evidence Nifong and Meehan tried to hide is brought forward in an actual innocence claim on the players' behalf.
That evidence, in and of itself, is enough to set those guys free. Just that DNA evidence. It’s that powerful. It's that important.
Not only that, and I could cite the appellate court decisions for you, in circumstances like that states have been directed by the courts to expunge any records of the charges, the convictions, and the imprisonments. The state is supposed to also make formal apologies to the guys.
It's all an attempt to “make the person whole;” only you can’t really make a person whole in those circumstances.
The state is also supposed to look at the case again.
Did the woman lie? Was she drugged and just didn’t know who? Did she just ID the wrong guys? Is she still claiming rape? ( The attorney mentioned that when North Carolina prosecutors seek indictment for rape, they almost always also seek indictments for sexual assault and kidnapping as happened in the Hoax case. Attorneys and judges refer to the practice of linking the three as “boxcaring.” - JinC)
If the state believes the woman is confused but still has some credibility or if it believes on some other basis a sex crime was committed against her, it should treat the other men, excluding the driver, whose DNA was found in her as suspects; and then either eliminate them as suspects or weigh bringing charges.
They helped strengthen my belief the State Bar will disbar Nifong. Given the seriousness of what he did and the public's growing awareness of that, the Bar doesn’t dare do otherwise, even if it’s so inclined.
The attorney's lesson also helped strengthen my belief that what Nifong and Meehan did was so wrong and so serious that they ought to go to prison.
6 comments:
John,
That is exactly right. Furthermore, the NAACP was demanding that Darryl Hunt be exonerated, despite the fact that the DNA evidence was like the Duke case in which the DNA of someone else was on the body of Debra Sykes.
Yet, in the Duke case, the NAACP suddenly insists that DNA no longer matters.
Nifong should go to prison, but we shall see. Prosecutors always get a free pass for lying and committing crimes. I really have soured on anyone in the prosecutorial profession having even a smidgen of honor. Yet, while these people break law after law, they still are given the right to throw the rest of us into prison.
If I sound bitter, it is because I am. We have watched these cretins and liars destroy the law before our very eyes, and nothing is done. Yes, the Bar might slap Nifong on the wrist, but the man needs to see some real crowbar motel time. Nothing less will suffice, as far as I am concerned.
John, I've been saying that for months.
The DNA is the alleged crime. Boiled down to its essentials, the false accuser asserted that the three defendants transferred DNA to her via semen, blood, and skin. If you don't have the DNA, she is lying. Not only is it that simple, but Nifung knew it was simple when he said the DNA would be conclusive. No reasonable person can explain why the DNA is missing. Indeed, not even the kooky nutjobs try to explain. You ever hear Wendy Murphy offer an explanation---nope.
This is no different than somebody claiming that a vandal spraypainted a house with red paint and, when the police come by an hour later, no red paint. Actually, it is different as it is more likely that the red paint was cleaned off than millions of cells of the defendants and defendants alone vanished.
It is amazing.
If you believe the woman's story, that she was raped, and that she may have been confused as to the events of that night, then you must treat the 5 dna samples as evidence of the real rapists- especially as she claimed she hadn't had intercourse with anyone else for more than a week.
If the DA refuses to investigate the source of the "real rapists" DNA, then it's clear that he knew all along that there was no rape- and he clearly deserves some sort of sanction for this.
A lawyer once cautioned me: "don't expect justice in the courtroom. The only thing you can expect is the law." When scumbags like Nifong use the law as a wedge to gratify their own greed, it should make you want to vomit.
Great post.
Keep up the good work.
You're blogging is making a difference.
Post a Comment