Bad News for Duke

[Sonny]

Nifong has asked to be replaced on the case since he is under investigation for ethics violations:

Here is a link to a free article:
http://www.collegelax.us/news.php?actio ... ews&id=995

[somrandomguy]

Did anyone else watch the 60 minutes story on it tonight?


I personally felt that while it made it pretty clear-cut that the players are innocent, the parents didn't do much to endear themselves at all. They were so East Coast it was a little off-putting, honestly. Especially the mom who did most of the talking, I think she was Seliggmann's mother.

[StrykerFSU]

I didn't see it but was does this mean?

They were so East Coast it was a little off-putting, honestly.

[Adam G]

I didn't see it but was does this mean?

They were so East Coast it was a little off-putting, honestly.

I'm not so sure it was so being 'East Coast' as it was being defensive of (seemingly) false acusations.

[somrandomguy]

I didn't see it but was does this mean?

They were so East Coast it was a little off-putting, honestly.

You know the whole rich, East Coast prep-school parent stereotype? That was kind of the vibe I got from them. Of course, I could be totally off-base on this. Also, the woman who was like "He [Nifong] is going to pay for this for the rest of his life" probably didn't win herself alot of sympathy with that statement.

Personally, after seeing and reading the interviews with the players, especially Seligman, I think for the most part they're much better at interacting with the media than their parents.

[Sonny]

So if facts in the case suggest the 3 players are innocent, who really cares what "vibe" the parents put out? You spend millions of dollars to defend yourself against false charges and have your good name dragged through the mud in the process - we will see what vibe you put out when the media cameras coming calling.

Also note, 60 Minutes is going to cut and splice the best sound bites for TV from the parent interviews.

Question for the lawyers on this board - All three sets of parents last night on 60 Minutes claimed that Nifong has never once interviewed any of the 3 players about the night of the alleged crime. We also know that the DA's office waited some 10 months to interview the alleged "victim." Is that common or even acceptable legal behavior in criminal (felony) cases? Seems to me that that is almost as bad as Nifong telling the lab to intentionally exclude the DNA evidence from the original report.

[CPLaxGM]

As a born and bred Californian who has lived on the east coast at various times, I didn't get any "east coast vibe" from the parents (east coast accents aren't equivalent to an east coast vibe). I just got the impression they were concerned parents, who were really pi$$ed off that their sons had been falsely accused of a crime. Not just any crime, but gang rape, besides child molestation and premeditated murder, probably the most despicable crime one can be accused of. Considering that scenario, how exactly would you expect them to act?

They came off pretty rational to me. If I was in their situation I think I would have a hard time not allowing my anger to overwhelm me.

[echo 600]

Sonny

In felony matters such as this, the DA really shouldn't be interviewing the victim or the subjects until the police have finished their investigation and presented it to the DA. DA contact with the victim and the subjects will come later during trial prep.

The police gather evidence, conduct interviews, and conduct interrogations. When their investigation is complete they give to the DA, the AUSA, whomever, and then the DA will either take it and run with it, or flush it because it's a weak sister. On some cases, and I'm sure this is one of them, as the investigation is on-going, the DA can and will communicate with the police, telling them what more the DA's office is going to need from police to successfully prosecute the case, ie find another witness; reinterview so and so.

I don't find it too outrageous that Nifong hasn't spoken with the subjects, and also waited 10 months to speak with the victim. Now, if the police waited 10 months to speak with the victim and haven't interviewed or spoken with the three subjects, that would be malfeasance on an almost criminal level.

Here's a prediction: the Special Prosecutors Office is going to take a few months to review the case and utlimately end up dismissing the charges for lack of evidence. I don't think one of these guys is going to go to trial.

[echo 600]

Another quick thing about Nifong: Nifong telling the Lab to exclude exculpatory evidence from their report (also known as "Brady Material"), and then the lab acquiescing is huge! I don't know if it's criminal behavior, but I'm sure it's a North Carolina state bar ethics violation.

How can he ever prosecute another case with this on his record? The Defense can bring this up at every future trial he's a part of: they can bring this up during opening/closing arguments "the DA in the case has a history of suppressing exculpatory evidence, who's to say he's not doing it again?"

Same goes with the lab. How many cases are about to go to trial with evidence provided by this same lab, that now have to deal with the Defense playing the "they suppressed evidence then, why not now" card?

[Sonny]

Thanks for the quick analysis echo600.

[peterwho]

Continued unraveling of the career of Mike Nifong...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16786991/