Here in Durham our ABC affiliate, Eyewitness 11 News, reported yesterday:
Eyewitness News has learned among other witnesses in the case, Nifong has met with the special prosecutors at the Attorney General's Office.I’ve got questions about this story as well as the responsibilities the special prosecutors have with regard to all the evidence they have in those boxes. Maybe you do, too.
A spokeswoman for the Attorney General declined to comment on the details of the meeting, but confirms the discussion took place within the past week. It comes nearly two weeks after defense attorneys for the three charged players in the case met with special prosecutors for several hours at the Attorney General's office. […]
Special prosecutors James Coman and Mary Winstead have spent weeks sorting through several boxes of evidence including thousands of pages of documents. They are conducting interviews with several key witnesses in the case as they prepare for a hearing scheduled for May 7th.
I hope Betsy’s Page, Durham-in-Wonderland, The Johnsville News, La Shawn Barber, Liestoppers, Right Angles and other bloggers covering the Duke Hoax case can help answer some of those questions. Readers too, especially attorneys.
Are the special prosecutors responsible only for determining whether the Hoax case should continue or be dismissed?
As they go through all those boxes of evidence and they see, for example, Crystal Mangum’s charge that she was robbed, do they have any responsibility to consider whether charges should be brought concerning it?
And if they decide to drop the charges against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann in part because Nifong conspired to hide exculpatory DNA evidence, do the special prosecutors have a responsibility to consider whether Nifong committed a crime by hiding exculpatory evidence?
If yes, what do they then do?
If no, why not?
Is it possible Nifong met with the special prosecutors because they have questions about his conduct that might lead them to go beyond the single question of whether or not that Hoax prosecution should proceed?
If any of the evidence the special prosecutors examine suggests that investigative officers may have committed a crime, what are the special prosecutors supposed to do in that case?
I would think the AG’s office will make copies of everything that’s in those boxes and retain the copies. Does anyone know if I’m right about that?
I’m sure there's a lot more many of us want to know about what the special prosecutors are responsible for doing.
Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann are not only innocent of the charges brought against them; they're crime victims, with the crimes committed against them perpetrated by, among others, officers who swore to uphold the law and at least one attorney who swore to administer justice.
Is the NC State Attorney General’s office charged with investigating the crimes committed against those three young men or is that the responsibility of Durham DA Mike Nifong’s office?
6 comments:
Nice post, JinC.
We are hungry and thirsty for this knowledge and we are being served a sh!t sandwich with unsweetened toilet water by the NC 'justice' system.
Here's my view as an ex-prosecutor but not from NC.
Generally, special prosecutors replace the DA who has withdrawn from the case, and have sole responsibility for deciding whether it should proceed or they should seek dismissal. In most jurisdictions, the dismissal recommendation is made to the judge assigned to the case, who may accept or reject it.
A preliminary hearing, which Mr. Nifong avoided, would have determined whether a crime probably occurred and whether those charged probably committed it. That's the legal standard and if the special prosecutors cannot answer each question affirmatively, they have an ethical responsibility to recommend dismissal.
Mr. Nifong claimed that he had a duty to proceed just because the complainant had claimed she was raped, or whatever she claimed. However, that is wrong, and the special prosecutors can find themselves civilly liable if they believe this to be the case.
Generally, citizens, lawyers included, have no responsibility to report a crime, such as if I see my neighbor's car being broken into. However, lawyers have a duty to report misconduct by another lawyer, and they may find some additional improper acts by Mr. Nifong. This would include evidence of a crime, although they have no duty to report it to the Durham police department, who should investigate.Reporting would be to the state bar, which might report a crime.
The replacement prosecutors are really in the cross-hairs, because misconduct on their part could lead to ethics charges against them as well as civil liability. In my opinion, if they want to proceed with this case, they must do a complete investigation to make sure the case is viable. Proceeding without this being done could subject them to civil liability if the case is lost.
It is standard procedure for replacement prosecutors to discuss the case with the DA they replace. What is telling to me is that they met first with defense lawyers before meeting with Mr. Nifong. The first meeting should have given them plenty of ammunition for the second. I expect they would have asked him why he supplanted the police in the investigation, set up the illegal lineup, refused to meet with defense counsel before bringing charges, etc.
This is the most egregious case of DA misconduct that I have ever seen. Distill the misconduct of DAs in other cases, mix them together, and the blend can't approach the misdeeds of Mr. Nifong. Personally, I'd rather pass consecutive kidney stones than prosecute this case.
"This is the most egregious case of DA misconduct that I have ever seen. Distill the misconduct of DAs in other cases, mix them together, and the blend can't approach the misdeeds of Mr. Nifong. Personally, I'd rather pass consecutive kidney stones than prosecute this case."
Ex, great post (certainly beats the hijacking of KCs excellent blog by commenters), if possible, post again, most of us are non-lawyers, and the normal Byzantine nature of the legal profession boggles the mind.
I'd rather pass a kidney stone every day for a year than to be caught in our system of justice.
I'm a North Carolina resident, subject to being summoned for jury duty. When I get the next summons, I intend to tell the Judge and/or counsellors that I cannot in good conscience find against any defendant who has been indicted under the grand jury system currently in effect in my state, nor can I believe any statement from any North Carolina law enforcement officer. Nifong has done irreparable harm to my State and I detest the bastard for it!
4:56 PM
I, too, am a North Carolina resident and totally agree with your statement. I'll follow your lead and state my intention to a judge should I ever be called for jury duty not to convict anyone who has gone through the NC Grand Jury (aka Star Chamber) process.
NC needs to get with the program and pass a law that requires written transcripts of Grand Jury proceedings. If enough of us take a position that we'll refuse to convict otherwise, the members fo the NC legislature will have no choice but to pass a law. The current situation makes this state a laughingstock.
Nifong did a document dump on the AG also. He could not keep the documents straight. I don't know, but when stuff came in, I think he just threw the stuff in the boxes. I had no idea when he was riding high how stupid and incompedent this guy was. No wonder he was in traffic court.
Post a Comment