Duke LAX Players: Rape Charges Dismissed!

[IntheNet]

FINALLY!
:thumbup:
Thank God!

SPORTS ILLUSTRATED (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/more/12/22/ap.dukelacrosseurgent.ap/index.html?cnn=yes)

DURHAM, N.C. (AP) -- Prosecutors dropped rape charges Friday against three Duke University lacrosse players accused of attacking a stripper at a team party, but the three still face kidnapping and sexual offense charges, a defense attorney said. Joseph Cheshire and attorneys for the other players have said for months the woman told several different versions of the alleged assault. Cheshire said Friday that the accuser now says she does not know if she was penetrated, which he said led District Attorney Mike Nifong to dismiss the rape charges.

I want Nifong fired...
I want Nifong arrested...
I want Nifong to lose his license...

[catman]

What a shocker. She does not know if she was penetrated or not? Is there a possiblity that she may have been lying about the entire situation?

[HibachiDG]

Why exactly do you want Nifong to lose his job, arrested, etc?

[catman]

Nifong is doing what a prosecutor should do -- bringing charges against people based on what an accusor says. As the evidence falls apart in the case, charges are dropped. I have no problem with him doing his job.

[HibachiDG]

That's what I was about to respond with, catman, however, I asked the question because Nifong may have done some things in the press that InTheNet may have disagreed with. If he feels that Nifong went beyond the scope of the position to get personal attention, that sort of thing.

[catman]

He may have made a few statements that were beyond what the normal person would consider acceptible, but his focus has been on the case at hand.
I, too, would like to hear the reasons for the demands.

[IntheNet]

Nifong is doing what a prosecutor should do -- bringing charges against people based on what an accusor says.

Sorry catman... you left out the most important part... a DA needs to make an assessment of the charge based on the likely evidence... you don't ruin peoples lives based on the word of a prostitute without evidence... if all the facts originally available to Nifong were brought to the Grand Jury, charges would never have been leveled!

Nifong used this case to get re-elected and ruin people's lives. I hope the same happens to him. District Attorney Offices across the nation level legitimate rape charges based on accusor's word but they do so after reviewing all the evidence and doing so without alterior motives... Even I knew this prostitute was lying and said so back then...

When all this is said and done, Nifong will be found guilty of reprehesible behavior as a DA and be removed from office. Whether he is charged is another matter but we can all hope...

[wufpax]

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: InTheNet!


Even though I'm not a Duke fan(should be obvious). This whole situation is bogus...how could she not remember that...If she was that intoxicated(looked like she arrived that way)...her "friend" should have never brought her there in the first place.

I do not condone all the actions that took place with the guys/girls...a hard lesson has been learned from this... Now they are tarnished for life, along with the school's reputation...

Nifong should get the best punishment allowed for his actions...I said when I first heard it...It was all a political ploy! Could I have been anymore correct?

[doublee]

Nifong may very well lose his job as there is a movement afoot to bring the Attorney General in to do a federal audit/review or whatever they call it on this case as some of the state's elected officials are convinced Nifong has not followed proper procedures and protocols from the onset of this case.

It has recently come out that the accuser is about to give birth to a baby. Now, it has already been established that she was given a pregnancy test at the hospital at the time she reported the rape and it came up negative. I cannot help but wonder if this played a role in the prosecutors dropping the rape charges as well seeing as the defense would likely have a field day over her going out and sleeping around within days of supposedly being raped.

It has also come out recently that the prosecution found DNA samples of several different people when they took samples from the accuser none of which were a match of the accused.

If these guys walk I can only imagine the lawsuits that are going to come of this.

[catman]

Again, the prosecutor is to bring charges to a grand jury when a criminal complaint is sworn out by someone in his/her jurisdiction. If the voters of his/her juristiction feel s/he has overstepped the bounds of the office, the remedy is to remove him/her from the office, either by petition or through the usual ballot.
If the voters of this district feel Nifong has overstepped his bounds, he may be removed from office through the proper procedures. Will these procedures be followed in this case? I hope so.

[Ravana]

I'm with catman. Procedure first.

Then hang the prick.

He's not going anywhere in the meantime....

[doublee]

Again, the prosecutor is to bring charges to a grand jury when a criminal complaint is sworn out by someone in his/her jurisdiction. If the voters of his/her juristiction feel s/he has overstepped the bounds of the office, the remedy is to remove him/her from the office, either by petition or through the usual ballot.
If the voters of this district feel Nifong has overstepped his bounds, he may be removed from office through the proper procedures. Will these procedures be followed in this case? I hope so.

Well, the thing is he just got re-elected due in large part because he ran against two opponents instead of one and the folks who were simply voting against him could not figure out who to vote for and he is the one who prosecuted the Peterson trial that got all sorts of publicity. He got re-elected, but he did not receive a majority of the vote, just the most votes.

[Jaguar Rick]

I think the grandstanding prosecutor and the alleged "victim" should be locked-up in the same Turkish prison cell.

[doublee]

North Carolina Bar Association filed ethics charges against Nifong Thursday:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2710747

[catman]

Apparently those that matter did not like his responses to their questions in this matter. As I said, I have no problem with the charges being filed, but when the story changed daily, there is a very slim chance that a conviction will be obtained in the case. It was time to drop these charges a long time ago.
This said, I am certain that the Duke LaCrosse team did not behave like "little angels", but the accusor's story did not follow with the evidence collected.
As to Mr. Nifong remaining in office, if the penalty is great enough -- in the case he is found guilty of the charges against him -- he may not have that chance. If he has his license revoked or suspended, he will be unable to fulfill his responsibility to his constituents, therefore, a resignation will be in the offing.

[IntheNet]

'In good standing'
Two accused in lacrosse case invited back to Duke
Posted: Wednesday January 3, 2007 2:32PM; Updated: Wednesday January 3, 2007 3:18PM/Sports Illustrated
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/more/01/03/duke.lacrosse/index.html?cnn=yes
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) -- "Duke University has invited two of the lacrosse players accused of sexual assault to return to school as students in good standing, a defense attorney said Wednesday."

GOOD!

I urge these innocent players to return to Duke and avail themselves of our legal system to sue for civil damage all those responsible... Nifong et al... even down to such hangers-on as Rev. Jesse who disparaged the boys time and again... sue them for every penny they have... so too sue the lying plaintiff in the case... not for money which she evidently lacks due to poor business lately but for the point of order.

[catman]

At work, one of the guys was watching Fox News and they were discussing this case -- Greta Van Sustrand (I think that's her name) and 3 other people. One of the panelists was a black guy (I missed his name), who said that he felt that Nifong "used" the blacks to get re-elected last fall. He wanted Nifong to resign and be held liable for any damages these players wanted. The other panelists were a bit kinder to Nifong, but wanted him to come clean about the charges and why he did not allow evidence that proved one of the defendants could not have committed the crime to be given to the Grand Jury (the defendant was shown on a time-stamped video at an ATM across town from the party at the time of the alleged attack).
Makes me wonder about the credibility of the DA here.
Again, I have no problem with him filing the charges in the first place, but when he gets evidence that proves the innocence of someone, he must allow it to be seen by the courts.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by catman
The other panelists were a bit kinder to Nifong, but wanted him to come clean about the charges and why he did not allow evidence that proved one of the defendants could not have committed the crime to be given to the Grand Jury (the defendant was shown on a time-stamped video at an ATM across town from the party at the time of the alleged attack).

I served on a grand jury last year (and maybe Kansas is different from North Carolina) and it was us jury member's that sought out the evidence and we deliberated without the presence of the district attorney.

During testimonies, those testifying would have their own attorney present and they could submit any evidence they wanted us to look at. The district attorney was present during the testimonies, but that was strictly at our request and at any time we could excuse the district attorney and/or seek out new representation for the grand jury.

So, I guess it doesn't add up to me (again, unless state laws concerning grand juries vary a great deal) why the defendant and his defense attorney didn't have access to the ATM video and submit it to the grand jury, which didn't need a district attorney's approval to become evidence in the case.

[HibachiDG]

The prosecutor doesn't need to provide conflicting testimony to a grand jury. The defense doesn't present evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury is only to determine certain aspects of the case...probable cause, enough to bring charges.

The other panelists were a bit kinder to Nifong, but wanted him to come clean about the charges and why he did not allow evidence that proved one of the defendants could not have committed the crime to be given to the Grand Jury (the defendant was shown on a time-stamped video at an ATM across town from the party at the time of the alleged attack).

If the prosecutor with good faith believed that times given to him by the victim weren't completely accurate and a bit vague, then I don't think he would be required to present this evidence. I don't know the specifics of this Duke case, but if she was telling him "it happened between 11-1am, I believe around 12:30" and the ATM of the defendant is at 12:30, I'm fairly sure the prosecutor does not have to show them that videotape.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
The prosecutor doesn't need to provide conflicting testimony to a grand jury. The defense doesn't present evidence to the grand jury. The grand jury is only to determine certain aspects of the case...probable cause, enough to bring charges.

The defense attorney may not be able to technically present evidence to the grand jury, but the defense attorney can be present during the testimony of the defendant and (considering the defendant is going to be well-coached in the matter prior to testifying) the defendant can raise new questions or suspicions to the grand jury for those jury members to consider and (if they so desire) seek out as evidence without every having to consult the district attorney in the case.

Correct?


QUICK EDIT: I would trust Doug's word over mine in a heartbeat if I was you (simply because he has more knowledge in this types of cases), but I want to clarify that when I served on a grand jury this past year we were allowed to ask questions of the defendant, including his opinion as to why he feels he is being wrongfully charged. A couple of people who testified suggested that the district attorney (who represented us, the jury, in the case) had a personal vendetta against them, and the judge in the case (who was only present during jury selection and on our final presiding day) informed us that we would be more than able to look into that personal vendetta issue if we wanted.

So, I don't understand why the same could not have been done in this case.

[HibachiDG]

I don't know if the defense attorney can be present when the defendant testifies at a grand jury. I think generally, they can't, but some states may vary. I don't know how often defendants testify in front of grand juries, though. I would guess minimal. Grand jury testimony of a defendant can be used at trial and the grand jury stage is so early on that you don't want a defendant saying much of anything. And, I think the prosecution has to call the defendant to testify...or maybe the grand jurors can. But, at that early stage, I wouldn't imagine the defendants are all that well coached and the defense is likely still developing strategy.

I guess technically, a defendant could say "yeah, I was here at this time and there is videotape of it"...which would lead to the grand jury asking for the videotape. But, I don't really think the defense attorney would want that.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by Doug Graham
I think the prosecution has to call the defendant to testify...or maybe the grand jurors can. But, at that early stage, I wouldn't imagine the defendants are all that well coached and the defense is likely still developing strategy.

In the grand jury case I served on (which you can read about the conclusion of the case here (http://www.bladeempire.com/web/isite.dll?1150311110203~Grand)), we did not have a prosecutor.

After a petition was certified, a grand jury was convened with the district attorney serving as our representation, but we the jury members determined ourselves what evidence we would like to see, who we wanted to testify, and we conducted the questioning ourselves. The district attorney could ask questions, but in a number of cases we asked him to step out of the room and conducted the questioning without him present (because of the personal vendetta issue I mentioned earlier).

The defendants would have attorneys with them, but those attorneys are not allowed to cross-examine or ask any questions of the defendant. And the only questions in which the defendants could not answer would be any questions that would incriminate themselves.

Many times, though, the defendant would have a prepared opening and closing statement for the grand jury which led me to believe that they were coached very well by an attorney prior to testifying.

[HibachiDG]

States have different aspects of the grand jury system that are different and with different cases the process is likely to be different. I don't know everything about them, especially not the particularities in given jurisdictions. Even with a well coached defendant, I don't think that the defense attorneys in the Duke case are going to take the coaching steps to get that defendant to reveal that the videotape of the ATM purchase exists. Especially not at the grand jury stage.

From a strategical standpoint, the defense attorney doesn't want that tape in at the grand jury stage.

[tobynosker]

Sorry to continue hijacking this thread, but I didn't intend for my comments to mean the defendant is coached into saying that a videotape exists of him at the ATM.

But, doesn't it seem likely that a question would have come out during the grand jury proceedings about where the defendant was at the time of the alleged rape, and wouldn't the defendant have said he wasn't around and in fact he went to the ATM at that time?

Then, as a grand jury member, I would immediately demand to see bank records.

[HibachiDG]

Well, if I was defense attorney, I wouldn't want the defendant, my client to answer that question. Like I said before, the testimony of the defendant at grand jury proceedings can be used at trial. So, say at the grand jury the victim says she was raped at such and such time. The defendant says he was at the bank at that time, but also says he has no alibi for other times. He shows the bank records that he was at the bank across town at that time. Grand jury indicts the defendant.

Now, at trial, prosecution can use the statement that he was at the bank at a certain time, with no alibi for the other times.

All the defense has really done in that situation is narrowed the scope of a time frame. Exact times aren't always the first thing that rape victims remember.

So, I see where the situation you're saying could potentially come up, but I also would completely see where the defense attorney in the NC case would not want the defendant to testify to that.

[tobynosker]

But, as I understand it, unless his answer will ultimately incriminate himself, he has to answer the question.

[HibachiDG]

A lot of answers can ultimately incriminate a defendant. The example I gave based on the Duke case is covered under the privilege.

[tobynosker]

Gotcha.

Thanks.

[doublee]

At work, one of the guys was watching Fox News and they were discussing this case -- Greta Van Sustrand (I think that's her name) and 3 other people. One of the panelists was a black guy (I missed his name), who said that he felt that Nifong "used" the blacks to get re-elected last fall. He wanted Nifong to resign and be held liable for any damages these players wanted. The other panelists were a bit kinder to Nifong, but wanted him to come clean about the charges and why he did not allow evidence that proved one of the defendants could not have committed the crime to be given to the Grand Jury (the defendant was shown on a time-stamped video at an ATM across town from the party at the time of the alleged attack).
Makes me wonder about the credibility of the DA here.
Again, I have no problem with him filing the charges in the first place, but when he gets evidence that proves the innocence of someone, he must allow it to be seen by the courts.

The thing that is going to kill him is the defense is now going to call the head of the DNA lab they used to test the samples and he is going to testify that he and Nifong agreed to supress certain aspects of the results, specifically that there was DNA from several different men taken from the samples on her panties.

[IntheNet]

The prostitute in this case gave birth today...

[doublee]

And a former member of the LAX team is suing the university claiming he got an F in a course because he was a member of the team.

[buckeyefan78]

UPDATE:

Looks like it's finally over. All charges will be dropped.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265187,00.html

[doublee]

No surprise here. I figured the gig was up once the state's Attorney General took the case over. Not only did they drop the case but it seems, on the surface, that they did so because there was not sufficient evidence that anything happened and not solely because they did not think they would get a conviction.

[buckeyefan78]

The story that never dies...

**********************************************************

RALEIGH, N.C - More than three dozen current and former Duke lacrosse players filed a lawsuit Thursday claiming they suffered emotional distress during the furor over the now-discredited rape case against three of their teammates.

The lawsuit accuses the private university of implying the highly ranked team was guilty by canceling its season after the rape allegation surfaced. It also accuses Duke of ignoring, suppressing and discrediting evidence that proved the players innocent, and of idly standing by while players suffered abuse and harassment on campus.

Mike Baker

Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/duke_lacrosse

**********************************************************

Click on the link for full details.

Think they got a case?

[Tarkus]

I have no legal mind for this but on the surface, I'd say Duke definitely has some responsibility here. They sold out their students with a rush to judgment to satisfy their money sources & save face by cutting them loose.

Now that may just be a charge of being greedy self-centered assholes & not guilty in the eyes of the courts but I still think they should share in the pain & suffering.

The City of Durham should also be held responsible since it was their employee & especially that this drug on so long with no involvement from above even after the red flags were waving on the weaknesses of the case. Let 'em burn & careers stopped in their tracks. ;)

p.s. Glad to see InTheNet back even if it's just a Norman Bates kinda 'stuff him & put him in the window' kind of resurrection by bringing back up his thread. :thumbup:

[buckeyefan78]

I'm pretty much with ya Tark (including the sentiments on IntheNet :lol:).

When rich folk (the kids/ the school/ the city) start to do battle...I find the hypocrisy that unfolds to be quite entertaining.

So in that sense, this should be a good show.

:P

[catman]

All of the hysteria over the lady's story was overblown. The lead prosecutor in the case, Mike Nifong, has had his career shattered. Duke University got a "black eye". The plaintiff has her reputation damaged. Al and Jesse got more headlines for the wrong reasons. The players involved had to prove their lack of guilt, although none came out looking like "angels".
Hopefully, everyone can get past this and move on with their lives.