Subscribe"Last week, it was discovered that Nifong withheld 'key DNA evidence' from defense attorneys for six months despite a legal requirement for immediate disclosure. The DNA results exclude the defendants but include 'multiple' other men as sex partners of the accuser around the time of her alleged rape.
On Dec. 15, Brian Meehan, head of a private DNA lab, testified under oath that he and Nifong agreed not to report exculpatory DNA results to the defense. They conspired to hide evidence that weakened the prosecution’s case.
Meanwhile, as of Oct. 27 (and presumably to this day), Nifong hadn’t even interviewed the accuser about her alleged rape.
...there is a growing cry for federal intervention on the grounds that the defendants have been willfully deprived of their Constitutional rights: specifically, the 5th and 14th Amendment protections of Due Process."*
“I am greatly relieved for the students and their families that the most serious of the charges has been dropped. Given the certainty with which the district attorney made his many public statements regarding the rape allegation, his decision today to drop that charge must call into question the validity of the remaining charges.
“The district attorney should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can restore confidence in the fairness of the process. Further, Mr. Nifong has an obligation to explain to all of us his conduct in this matter.”
Defense counsel sought only to introduce evidence of the prior allegedly false statements for impeachment purposes and advised the court of their intent. We believe that the Legislature intended to exclude the actual sexual history of the complainant, not prior accusations of the complainant.
So even though it’s not an exception specifically outlined in North Carolina’s rape shield law, evidence of past false allegations are admissable."*
“When this case began, the accuser in this case, to numerous medical personnel, stated that she had been penetrated by the penis of these young men in her anus, vagina and her mouth.
In March — on March 16th — she told the investigator, Mr. Hyman, in his notes he relates that Brett and Matt — and you will remember, she referred to the three people that assaulted her as Brett, Matt, and Adam — that Brett and Matt put their penis in her anus and her vagina. And that Adam put his penis in her mouth.
‘In her handwritten statement, her statement, handwritten on April 6th, she said that ‘Matt had sex with me in my vagina and then placed his penis in my anus for about three minutes. Brett had sex with me in my vagina for about five minutes and then put his penis in my anus for about two minutes. And Adam ejaculated in my mouth and I spit it on the floor.’
At the time she made her identifications, of the young men, she said, on tape, which you can get referenced on the motion to suppress, about one of these young men, quote, he put his penis in my anus and in my vagina. About one of the other young men, she said he was the one standing in front of me and made me commit oral sex.
Almost the only consistent thing that the accuser has said, throughout the many varied different statements that she has made, was that a penis was used in the assault that she describes and that it was used in her vagina.
Last week, it was clearly demonstrated that significant exculpatory evidence had been purposefully withheld from the defense in this particular case. It should not be lost on you all, who have covered this case, that significant exculpatory evidence proved that there was no sexual contact between these young men and this woman.
Apparently, for the first time, yesterday, the first time, representatives of the district attorney's office talked to the accuser. This certainly begs the question, ladies and gentlemen, which I hope you all will ask, why, after all of these months, and all of what these young men have been through, did the district attorney's office first talk to this accuser, which leads to the dismissal of one of these charges, why are they investigating the case now, after they've brought it for months?
And when they did, ladies and gentlemen, it should be noted clearly by you that her story has now, yet again, changed — changed. And she now cannot remember the use of a penis in the vaginal rape that she described and which was used to indict these young men.
And let me say to you that the transparent coincidence between the proving of the failure of the state to give exculpatory evidence which shows that there was no sexual assault and this conversation leading to this young woman saying that she cannot now remember a penis being used is palpable.”
"...an intriguing video just surfaced in the case that shows the accuser identifying her alleged attackers, Duke lacrosse players David Evans, Colin Finerty, and Reade Seligman.
In the video, she says she's 100% certain Finerty and Seligmann are the men involved, but is 90% sure that Evans is involved. She said he had a mustache at the time of the alleged rape, but Evans's lawyers insist he's never had a mustache."*
"‘Precious’ [the accuser] says in her written statement to police that Roberts, who as you may recall went by the stage name ‘Nikki,’ was actually present when ‘Precious’ says she was attacked by three men who called themselves Brett, Adam and Matt. When [Ed] Bradley asked Roberts about this in the interview, she seemed surprised and confused that ‘Precious’ would make such an assertion.
‘In the police statement she describes the rape in this way. 'Three guys – three guys grabbed Nicky,' that's you. 'Brett, Adam, and Matt grabbed me. They separated us at the master bedroom door while we tried to hold on to each other. Brett, Adam, and Matt took me into the bathroom.' Were you holding on to each other? Were you pulled apart? Is that true?’ Bradley asks Roberts.
‘Nope,’ she replies.
‘Yeah. Her statement continues. 'I heard Nicky on the other side of the door. And when Adam opened the door she rushed in and helped Adam to get me dressed.' so she's saying that you helped one of the rapists,’ Bradley says.
‘She was never undressed as far as I remember. As far as I remember, she was never undressed,’ Roberts says.
And, Roberts insists, she never assisted anyone in a rape, nor did she ever offer to engage in sexual acts with ‘Precious’ and one of the alleged rapists, which ‘Precious’ alleges in a statement she made that night.
‘And in her written statement 'Brett asked Nikki for a threesome with me' and she says you replied, quote, 'We need to stay and make more money,'‘ Bradley says.
‘I just don’t remember that conversation happening ever,’ Roberts says.
Asked if it could have happened, Roberts says, ‘No, I did not say those words.’
‘She goes on to say that when both of you went back in the house, she says, 'They were excited and angry. They were screaming, 'We’re going to f*** you black bitches,'‘ Bradley says.
‘I just don’t remember it that way at all,’ Roberts says.
Those are not the only questionable statements ‘Precious’ has made in this case. She has given different accounts about the number of men who raped her, saying at one point that night it was ‘five guys,’ ‘three men,’ and at one point, she said ‘no one had forced her to have sex.’"
"For Mr. Nifong, Friday’s announcement capped a week in which he seemed to be losing support and gaining critics from many quarters.
On Tuesday, the normally supportive editorial page of Durham’s main newspaper, The Herald-Sun, described some of Mr. Nifong’s actions as ‘flawed’ and ‘inexplicable.’ On Thursday, Irving Joyner, a law professor monitoring the case for the state N.A.A.C.P., said for the first time that Mr. Nifong should consider recusing himself. The N.A.A.C.P. has been watching the case because the accuser is black and the defendants are white.
Woody Vann, a Durham defense lawyer who said he respects Mr. Nifong as a prosecutor, said in an interview that he did not know of a single lawyer in town who thought Mr. Nifong had a winnable case.
Robert C. Trenkle, another Durham defense lawyer, said that while Friday’s retreat ‘makes perfect tactical sense,’ criticism was growing nonetheless. ‘I can’t exactly figure out what Mike Nifong’s doing other than committing career suicide and possibly inviting ethics charges,’ Mr. Trenkle said.
Led by defense lawyers, a team that includes some of the most prominent and experienced lawyers in the state, a growing chorus of critics is calling for Mr. Nifong to be removed from the case, and even investigated for prosecutorial misconduct.
[Joseph B.] Cheshire, [a] defense lawyer [for one of the players], asserted that Friday’s action fit a broader pattern: ‘Mr. Nifong and his accuser are continually changing their stories to fit new evidence.’ The woman, for example, first said the players did not wear condoms, but after initial laboratory tests did not show the presence of semen, Mr. Nifong said it was possible that her assailants did wear condoms.
‘I think he’s got a conflict of interest between defending himself and prosecuting the case,’ Mr. Cheshire said.
….Almost lost in the uproar of the past week, a 42-page defense motion filed on Dec. 14 raised new questions about the woman’s reliability in identifying the men who stand accused of kidnapping and sexual offenses.
The police showed her three sets of photographs during the first three weeks of the case, one with 24 lacrosse players, one with 12, and, after she failed to identify any suspects, one with all 46 white players.
She identified only one person with 100 percent certainty in two photo arrays as having been present at the team party. But that person, Dan Ross, was not there. He was 24 miles away in a dorm room in Raleigh.
The woman also identified the wrong player as having held up a broomstick while making a sexually crude remark to the two dancers.
As previously reported, she did not identify two of the defendants — Mr. Seligmann and David F. Evans — as attackers when she saw their pictures in the first photo arrays. She said it was harder than she thought because ‘the people in the photos looked alike,’ police investigators wrote. Yet she later identified Mr. Seligmann with 100 percent certainty and Mr. Evans with 90 percent certainty, saying he ‘looks just like him without the mustache.’ Mr. Evans has never had a mustache.
The final identification procedure contained photographs the police had taken of all 46 white lacrosse players. By not including any filler photographs of people who could not possibly be involved, the procedure appeared to violate Durham police, state and national standards for photo lineups and was called by the defense ‘a multiple-choice test in which there were no wrong answers.’
Mr. Nifong said this technique was not a photo lineup as that term is applied to police guidelines. ‘What is a lineup?’ he asked. ‘What if I have no idea who did the assault?’
Defense lawyers, though, said the identification procedures were so flawed and suggestive that the accuser should be barred from making an in-court identification at trial. Their motion attacking the lineups will be heard starting Feb. 5.
Mr. Cheshire, the lawyer for Mr. Evans, said he relished the opportunity to cross-examine the woman he calls ‘the false accuser.’ Mr. Nifong said it would be the most important pretrial hearing in the case — in part because of the ruling, in part because it will be the first time ‘my victim’ is back in a room with members of the Duke lacrosse team.
‘I have told the defense attorneys that if at any time the victim in this case tells me that she thinks that one of these people who have been identified was not her assailant, as soon as she tells me that, then that case will go away,’ he said. ‘I’ve said I’m not interested in prosecuting somebody that’s innocent. But until she tells me that, until she tells me these are not the right guys, we’re prosecuting this case.’"
‘‘‘I don't understand why all the charges aren't being dropped at this time,’ said Norm Early, a former Denver prosecutor who works with the National District Attorneys Association and had previously approved of Nifong's handling of the case. ‘It's such an incredible credibility problem that you wonder how the prosecution could rehabilitate her on the other charges.’
….’He got a rape indictment, so presumably he must have felt there was unequivocal evidence there was penetration,’ said Duke law professor James Coleman, a frequent critic of Nifong's handling of the case. ‘And for him now to say the only person who could have established that now isn't sure, that's pretty extraordinary.’
Without DNA evidence linking the three players to the accuser, the woman's testimony figures to be the key element of the prosecution's case. Both Early and John Banzhaf, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said Friday that means the defense is sure to make the dismissal of the rape charge — and what it implies about her credibility — an issue at trial.
Banzhaf said no jury is likely to believe a witness who for months contended she had been raped, but now isn't sure.
‘This is the beginning of the end,’ Banzhaf said. ‘If they couldn't make the rape case, I don't see how they could make the others.’
….Nifong's commitment to case and the accuser, Coleman said, shouldn't come as a surprise.
‘To all of a sudden drop it and admit he doesn't have evidence to proceed to trial would be a fairly damning admission. I don't expect that to happen,’ Coleman said. ‘On the other hand, I don't think the case has credibility. How can anyone believe there's evidence to support the remaining charges?’’’
"The accuser's new uncertainty also continues to point up problems with how Nifong has pursued this case. His first statements, made to television reporters with national audiences, included iron-clad assurances that a rape had occurred and that the defendants were guilty. Those statements about the men seemed to cross the line of prosecutorial propriety.
Then it turned out, as The News & Observer reported, that the D.A. had never interviewed the dancer about the events of that March evening, a puzzling fact given the certainty with which Nifong seemed to vouch for her truthfulness. The photo lineup in which the woman identified her alleged attackers included photographs only of lacrosse team members, a violation of Durham's photo ID policy and clearly skewed against the players.
Results of two separate DNA tests showed genetic material from several males found on the accuser's undergarments and body but none from the former players. It didn't help the district attorney's public case when the director of a company, hired by Nifong to do the second DNA tests, this week testified that with Nifong's knowledge, he hadn't included results showing that none of the players' DNA was detected.
Only later were those results released to the men's lawyers, which does little for Nifong's credibility as a justice-seeker -- not just a prosecutor trying to win -- regardless of the circumstances surrounding a criminal case.
The accuser, if she can offer a coherent account and stand by it, deserves to have her allegations heard in court, but she too may have been ill-served by a D.A. who seems to have built his case on a shaky foundation. For example, problems with the lineup procedure could mean that key evidence, or what the prosecution regards as evidence, could not be introduced.
From here on out, Nifong needs to be fair and cold-eyed in evaluating evidence as it continues to come to light and in assessing the strength of his case. He properly is being watched, and his conduct will need to be examined by the N.C. State Bar if the case continues to break apart."
‘‘Brian W. Meehan, director of a private laboratory that performed extensive DNA testing on rape kit swabs and underwear collected from a stripper only hours after she said that she had been gang-raped by three Duke lacrosse players after performing at a team party in March. Mr. Meehan’s tests on the swabs and underwear had detected traces of sperm and other DNA material from several men.
But his tests had found something else, too: none of that DNA material was from the three players, or any of their teammates.
Mr. Meehan had promptly shared this information with Michael B. Nifong, the Durham district attorney. Yet his summary report — the one that would be turned over to the defense — mentioned none of this.
It was an awkward omission that Mr. Meehan struggled to explain under withering cross-examination from defense lawyers. At one point, he was forced to admit that the incomplete report violated his laboratory’s own protocols.
Finally, a defense lawyer asked Mr. Meehan if the decision not to report complete test results was ‘an intentional limitation’ arrived at between him and Mr. Nifong.
‘Yes,’ Mr. Meehan replied.
….Perhaps more than anything else, that testimony added substantially to the long list of questions about the accuser’s credibility and Mr. Nifong’s judgment. The woman had told investigators that before the party, she had not had sex for about a week. How, then, to explain the DNA?
And given her description of a brutal gang rape, how could the most sensitive DNA test available fail to find even a single incriminating cell? Finally, why had Mr. Nifong failed to disclose this information for so many months, and repeatedly told the judge that there were no such results?
….Mr. Nifong conceded he erred in not providing all of Mr. Meehan’s test results to defense lawyers months earlier than he did. ‘Obviously, anything that is not DNA from the people who are charged is potentially exculpatory information,’ he said. ’’
* - "The accuser's new uncertainty also continues to point up problems with how Nifong has pursued this case. His first statements, made to television reporters with national audiences, included iron-clad assurances that a rape had occurred and that the defendants were guilty. Those statements about the men seemed to cross the line of prosecutorial propriety.
Then it turned out, as The News & Observer reported, that the D.A. had never interviewed the dancer about the events of that March evening, a puzzling fact given the certainty with which Nifong seemed to vouch for her truthfulness. The photo lineup in which the woman identified her alleged attackers included photographs only of lacrosse team members, a violation of Durham's photo ID policy and clearly skewed against the players.
Results of two separate DNA tests showed genetic material from several males found on the accuser's undergarments and body but none from the former players. It didn't help the district attorney's public case when the director of a company, hired by Nifong to do the second DNA tests, this week testified that with Nifong's knowledge, he hadn't included results showing that none of the players' DNA was detected.
Only later were those results released to the men's lawyers, which does little for Nifong's credibility as a justice-seeker -- not just a prosecutor trying to win -- regardless of the circumstances surrounding a criminal case.
The accuser, if she can offer a coherent account and stand by it, deserves to have her allegations heard in court, but she too may have been ill-served by a D.A. who seems to have built his case on a shaky foundation. For example, problems with the lineup procedure could mean that key evidence, or what the prosecution regards as evidence, could not be introduced.
From here on out, Nifong needs to be fair and cold-eyed in evaluating evidence as it continues to come to light and in assessing the strength of his case. He properly is being watched, and his conduct will need to be examined by the N.C. State Bar if the case continues to break apart."
"Fueled by stereotypes of race and class, as well as a zealous prosecutor, the criminal case against three Duke lacrosse players emerged as a test of the ability of the justice system to sift evidence through a prism of prejudices. Now, after the key charges of rape were dropped Friday, the case is also being seen as a cautionary tale for prosecutors and pundits alike, emblematic of how cultural stereotypes and perceptions don't always add up to hard facts on the ground.[more…]
The fuse was lit last March in Durham, N.C., at an off-campus party for lacrosse players - many of whom were Northerners enjoying an exclusive Southern university. Add to the scene two black exotic dancers, who grew up in the predominantly black city walled off from the school. Soon after, three of the white players were charged with kidnapping, assaulting, and raping one of the exotic dancers, allegedly amid a litany of racial slurs.
Yet since then, it's hardly been an open-and-shut case."
“When this case began, the accuser in this case, to numerous medical personnel, stated [on March 14th -- the date of the alleged rape] that she had been penetrated by the penis of these young men in her anus, vagina and her mouth.Also, recall that she had originally told investigators that she had not had sex with anyone for a week before the alleged rape, but we now know that the newly released DNA test results (which Nifong and the lab had kept from the defense attorneys) found DNA from 5 men (on her body and "clothing = undergarments = underwear = panties"). None of the DNA samples matches any lacrosse team member(s) -- all of whom (besides the sole black player) provided DNA samples a week after the alleged event.
In March — on March 16th — she told the investigator, Mr. Hyman, in his notes he relates that Brett and Matt — and you will remember, she referred to the three people that assaulted her as Brett, Matt, and Adam — that Brett and Matt put their penis in her anus and her vagina. And that Adam put his penis in her mouth.
‘In her handwritten statement, her statement, handwritten on April 6th, she said that ‘Matt had sex with me in my vagina and then placed his penis in my anus for about three minutes. Brett had sex with me in my vagina for about five minutes and then put his penis in my anus for about two minutes. And Adam ejaculated in my mouth and I spit it on the floor.’
At the time she made her identifications, of the young men, she said, on tape, which you can get referenced on the motion to suppress, about one of these young men, quote, he put his penis in my anus and in my vagina. About one of the other young men, she said he was the one standing in front of me and made me commit oral sex.
Almost the only consistent thing that the accuser has said, throughout the many varied different statements that she has made, was that a penis was used in the assault that she describes and that it was used in her vagina.
Last week, it was clearly demonstrated that significant exculpatory evidence had been purposefully withheld from the defense in this particular case. It should not be lost on you all, who have covered this case, that significant exculpatory evidence proved that there was no sexual contact between these young men and this woman.
Apparently, for the first time, yesterday [Thursday, December 21, 2006], the first time, representatives of the district attorney's office talked to the accuser. This certainly begs the question, ladies and gentlemen, which I hope you all will ask, why, after all of these months, and all of what these young men have been through, did the district attorney's office first talk to this accuser, which leads to the dismissal of one of these charges, why are they investigating the case now, after they've brought it for months?
And when they did, ladies and gentlemen, it should be noted clearly by you that her story has now, yet again, changed — changed. And she now cannot remember the use of a penis in the vaginal rape that she described and which was used to indict these young men.
And let me say to you that the transparent coincidence between the proving of the failure of the state to give exculpatory evidence which shows that there was no sexual assault and this conversation leading to this young woman saying that she cannot now remember a penis being used is palpable.”
"When prosecutors dropped rape charges on Friday against three Duke lacrosse players -- all white -- accused of attacking a stripper -- who is black -- there was no hype to speak of.
No news conferences rife with ministers lamenting the moral schism that hinders progress in this supposed mosaic called America.
Predictably, there was no sign of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, either.
Perhaps there should have been, though.
For once, maybe the tide should be turned. Maybe mea culpas should be placed on the front pages, apologizing to the three who were accused: Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann.
Not so much for presuming their guilt before all the evidence came in. Mainly for using it to promote a black cause.
We have serious problems all across America, but nothing compared to the kind that exists in the black community, and the perverse pleasure it evokes from those who watch from afar.
On more than a few occasions, when something insidious occurs involving an African American and a white person, race is automatically attached, dividing black and white America even further.
We still don't know what happened to this 28-year-old from N.C. Central. All we know at this moment is that she was hired to perform at a party on March 13, that she accused three men of raping her in a bathroom.
We know that all the players immediately maintained, unequivocally, they were innocent -- and that, as of Friday, the district attorney, Mike Nifong, has some serious explaining to do.
Now we've learned that the rape charge was dropped after this stripper told investigators she was no longer certain whether she was penetrated vaginally. Yet Nifong has not dropped kidnapping and other sex charges.
You want to fight?
Rodney King was worth it because we saw the beat-down the Los Angeles police put on him on videotape years ago.
Sean Bell, an unarmed 23-year-old murdered hours before his wedding when New York police sprayed his vehicle with 50 bullets weeks ago, is worth it.
A stripper claiming she was raped by Duke students, suspect in ways crystallized by DNA findings, is worth an investigation by the proper authorities and even some media coverage.
But an issue like this is not worth another referendum on race relations.
Enough already. It's time to wake up!
Long before we learned about race, we were taught morals and decency. We were taught not only to judge folks by the content of their character but to have character if we were to ever sit in judgment of anyone.
We will fall as a people if we don't start reminding ourselves of this. We'll languish in self-inflicted purgatory. Unlike our ancestors, we won't be a position to garner sympathy because we won't have any excuses.
Black America will have no one to blame but itself and those we allowed to lead us, operating with impunity on the strength of our ignorance and indifference to what they do, purportedly, on our behalf. It's time for a morality check. By every one of us.
Don't look at the white man. This is a black man talking.
"The so-called ‘Duke rape’ case is no longer a rape case. Those charges have been dropped by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong after it was revealed that his office withheld exculpatory DNA evidence that showed the accuser had recently had sex with some men but not any of the Duke lacrosse players she accused of raping her.
However, kidnapping and assault charges remain against the three players, who have adamantly proclaimed their innocence since being charged earlier this year.
The case is a mess and has been for months even before Nifong opened himself up to legal charges of prosecutorial misconduct.
A North Carolina congressman has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate allegations that Nifong abused his power for political gain.
At the time the accuser, an African-American stripper, made her claim of being sexually assaulted, Nifong was running for re-election in a district where the black vote is extremely important.
The racially incendiary charge that a group of white, privileged males at Duke had raped a local ‘disadvantaged’ black woman required cool heads and fair dealing by people in positions of responsibility.
Nifong was anything but a model of blind justice. He referred to the entire Duke lacrosse team as a ‘bunch of hooligans.’ He allowed a rigged photo lineup that included no one other than members of the squad.
When the accused picked out the three who allegedly raped her in a small bathroom, one had an alibi of receipts and photographic records that made it nearly impossible for him to have been anywhere near the scene of the ‘crime.’ He was charged anyway.
There is not a shred of evidence, other than the accuser’s statements (and she has given at least three conflicting ones) that a crime ever took place. Her own fellow stripper at the scene at one point said her story was a crock.
And yet, three young men remain charged with crimes that could put them behind bars for decades.
In 2005, when serious questions were raised about a sexual abuse charge filed against a local high school principal, Delaware County District Attorney G. Michael Green moved reasonably quickly to drop all the charges. That’s what a responsible prosecutor does under such circumstances.
But Nifong has shown himself to be anything but a responsible prosecutor.
He has consistently overstated the evidence against the defendants and ignored and/or withheld exculpatory evidence that pointed to their innocence.
In an interview with the New York Times last week, Nifong signaled that he might drop all the charges against the three defendants if the accuser testifies that she is anything but 100 percent certain of her identification.
But the dropping of the charges after nearly a year of dragging the names of the defendants through the mud will prove little concerning Nifong’s integrity as an officer of the court.
There are few people more dangerous to the civil rights of individual citizens in this country than an ambitious prosecutor with a political agenda.
Such men and women need to be held accountable for their actions.
Mike Nifong has shown by his actions and behavior during this case he is everything that a prosecutor should not be."
"Nifong isn't the only one who profitably could engage in an examination of conscience. Those who seized on this case as an emblem of a 'larger truth' — a racial double standard in rape prosecutions, the historical exploitation of black women by white men, the arrogance of adolescent privilege — did not contribute to a clarification of the factual questions that are at the heart of any criminal case. It may be true, as a Washington Post feature put it, 'she was black, they were white, and race and sex were in the air.' But in a criminal case, atmosphere is no substitute for evidence. "
"Y-STR profile: 'could be BM.' The BM may stand for Brian Meehan, the lab director of DNA Security who performed some of the testing in this case. Dr. Meehans Y-STR profile...is consistent with the identifiable alleles at every locus in the Section 2 public hair comb profile. However, there are two loci where there is additional male allele which does not match any of the four male analysts employed by DNA Security, and the first of which does not match any of the indicted Defendants in this case." *
Duke Rape Case Narrative.They provide background and details of the case.
Rape, Justice, and the ‘Times’ [New York Magazine]
60 Minutes' Ed Bradley Talks To The Accused Lacrosse Players
"It is in the interest of justice and the effective administration of criminal justice that Mr. Nifong immediately withdraw and recuse himself from the prosecution of these cases and request the cases be assigned to another prosecutorial authority."
"It has become plainly obvious that a gross miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated against the three Duke University lacrosse players who were charged last spring with raping a stripper at a raucous house party.
Enough evidence has unfolded to conclude that Collin Finnerty of Garden City, L.I., Reade Seligmann of Essex Fells, N.J., and David Evans of Bethesda, Md., are the targets of an irresponsible prosecution by a race-baiting, politically craven district attorney.
Durham, N.C., DA Michael Nifong played the race card early and often in branding Finnerty, Seligmann and Evans, who are white, as having gang-raped a black woman. He called them 'racists,' and 'hooligans' whose 'daddies could buy them expensive lawyers.'"
“The Dec. 28 ethics charges are expected to be expanded when the state bar's grievance committee meets again Jan. 18. Like a grand jury, the committee meets periodically; the current ethics charges stem from its most recent meeting in October and cover public statements Nifong made about the case last March and April. At its next meeting, the committee will deal with revelations from a Dec. 15 court hearing in which the state's DNA expert admitted he and Nifong agreed to keep secret from the defense early DNA results showing no Duke lacrosse player could be implicated in an attack upon one of two exotic dancers hired for the March 14 house party.
....Now that the North Carolina State Bar has filed a 17-page, 41-count ethics complaint against District Attorney Michael Nifong's handling of the Duke rape case, there's a different kind of New Year's countdown taking place in Durham: when and under what circumstances will Nifong leave office…All of this would be moot, of course, if Nifong were to resign from office or be forced off the case by the presiding judge. The North Carolina governor's office, which appointed him to the post, could also ask him to resign from office.”
"It started as an open dialogue between mothers. Mary Ellen Finnerty, whose son Collin was indicted in the Duke lacrosse incident, broke the silence of the three families involved and agreed to speak to Chapel Hill writer Sharon Swanson in an exclusive interview for Raleigh Metro Magazine.Interview is here.
The result is a profound and frank inside view of how a family has suffered — and transcended — the anger, shock and dismay created by the apparently false charges against their son."
"District Attorney Mike Nifong has requested that he have himself removed from prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse rape investigation, ABC News has learned.
A source close to the investigation said Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking his office to assume responsibility of the case. Calls to the Attorney General's office and Mike Nifong's office were not yet returned."
« Older We all know of Confederate General Stonewall Jacks... | The Agronomist.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ericb at 2:47 PM on December 22, 2006