Friday, October 1, 2010

A criminal justice system well designed for the well-heeled

It should not be a surprise to anyone, but the criminal justice system, like so much else in our society, is designed to benefit the wealthy and privileged… not only by the way in which laws are put on the books, but by the way they are carried out. In short, criminals belonging to society’s upper crust, are mainly saddled with a fine. Real serious crimes by the aristocrats might also include probation (unsupervised, naturally) and possibly community service (arbitrary and vague). Now for the rest of the people, which is mostly comprised of those living in poverty and those on the verge of living in poverty, if they commit a crime you can bet he/she will serve time behind bars. And, of course the penalty for crimes committed by the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color is disproportionately more severe than it is for crimes committed by those in high places.

Wealthy people in positions of prominence, for example, are often not even charged when they go afoul of the law, much less prosecuted. Look no further than what happened when North Carolina senator R. C. Soles shot an unarmed man who was walking away from him and posed no immediate threat. The police report, if one was taken, was never released. Mr. Soles was not arrested. He was not charged. The whole incident was swept under the carpet and the media was muzzled. For the average citizen who carried out such action, you better believe that he/she would be charged with “assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury” at the minimum. Factors such as Class and Color of the victim would determine the amount of bail, and the way in which the prosecution moved forward.

Although Mr. Soles acted criminally and exhibited extremely poor judgment in the shooting incident, the North Carolina State Bar refused to act on a complaint filed against Mr. Soles. Again, not surprising since the Bar is an unregulated agency that is drunk with power… so much that it disbarred former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong on baseless trumped up “ethics” charges; charges which were initiated by some anonymous person in the Bar for the sole purpose of removing Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case.

But businessmen are revered in our capitalistic society, and great pains are taken to look the other way when they commit crimes. Although most of the mainstream media has ignored the crimes of Somerhill Gallery President Joe Rowand, the weekly entertainment tabloid, The Independent Weekly, did expose his criminal activities. In short, Rowand defrauded artists out of at least $270,000 worth of commissions for artwork on consignment at the Durham gallery. And, according to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing, he owed $200,000 in unpaid rent, and owed hundreds of thousands of dollars to other creditors. He managed to amass this debt for the business while paying himself a salary of $15,000 per month (roughly $180,000 annually). Now Mr. Rowand is not even charged with a crime. Why? Because he is a businessman.

Heather Holley was not a businesswoman. So when she went on her identity theft spree, during which she tried to obtain some health insurance, and spent $1,800 at Best Buy, police and prosecutors and the courts were ready to throw the book at her. After her arrest, bail was set at $5 million. What made Ms. Holley’s crime so unforgivable was that she victimized a wealthy respectable lady. Had she targeted riff-raff in her crimes, she might have been released without bond, especially considering it was her first run-in with the law. When Ms. Holley had the audacity to ask the judge about her bail being excessive considering the charges against her, he retaliated by raising it an additional million. Of course, there was no outrage at her treatment in court by the media. No editorials in newspapers… in other words, this selective and unjust treatment is as acceptable to the media as the unjust disbarment and persecution of Mike Nifong. The media is well aware of which side its bread is buttered on, and who’s doing the buttering. To champion "equal justice for all" would undoubtedly garner consternation amongst the bigwigs who help support the media by paying for advertising and other contributions.

Recently Rusty Carter, a businessman and owner of Atlantic Corporation, was fined $100,000 by the State Board of Elections because he illegally funneled money to the campaigns of Governor Bev Perdue and two state senators. His company gave $266,900 to state and federal candidates during the 2008 election cycle, according to a sworn affidavit. According to The News & Observer the three recipients of the businessman’s largess “agreed to forfeit the donations.” What does that mean? Are they going to return it to Atlantic? Give the money to charity? And, who’s going to see that these politicians follow up on their promises? Is there going to be a public accounting? (I doubt it.)

Bob Hall, executive director of Democracy North Carolina asked the State Board of Elections to hand out a $200,000 fine to Carter, suggesting that a hefty fine “sends a signal that these kids of violations deserve to be punished.” Sure, these types of violations deserve punishment, but because he is a businessman, jail time is out of the question… not even a consideration. Regarding the amount of the fine, the Board, under Chairman Larry Leake couldn’t bear to issue a fine greater than $100,000. Hall considers the fine imposed, although half of what he sought, to be “some serious money.” Who does he think he is fooling? $100 grand is serious money to common folk (or “little people”), but to the owner and CEO of a large corporation, that amount probably is barely enough to cover his monthly bar tab. But the media, Mr. Hall, and the courts want the people to believe that Mr. Carter has been severely wounded fiscally. That amount is nothing more than pocket change to a businessman of Mr. Carter’s means.

The General Assembly, which is basically a reactionary body, responded to the Carter case by passing a law making it a felony if a donor gives more than $10,000 in illegal campaign donations, not a misdemeanor like Mr. Carter faced. From what I read from the newly passed law, a donor can make illegal donations up to the $10,000 limit and still be considered to have committed a misdemeanor crime. Why the big cushion? Keep in mind that laws are made by the wealthy and privileged, and they are going to have a definite slant towards benefiting the upper echelon.

Not long ago, I was nearly arrested on the Duke campus because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke, of course, denied this, with Michael Schoenfeld, a vice president, accusing me of repeatedly violating the school’s regulation against solicitation. What is their definition of solicitation? According to Mr. Schoenfeld it is passing out business cards (I passed out about a half dozen to people with whom I had had a conversation) and asking someone to visit your website. That is unbelievable, but it was the only excuse the university could come up with for kicking me off of its campus when I went to attend an event which was advertised as open to the public. Even if it was the reason behind my near-arrest… to arrest me for passing out business cards? This unjust and malicious behavior against me on Duke’s part is acceptable to the media, and subsequently, the masses because I do not matter when the issue is scrutinized through the lens of the state’s tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Laws, and the way they are applied are adjustable to the individuals involved, their standing in society, and the color of their skin.

With the media helping to direct public opinion, it will always be acceptable to the mindless masses for the well-heeled to pay for their crimes with their wallets, while the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and the majority of common folk will be expected to pay for their crimes by languishing behind bars at taxpayer expense (and at the benefit of corporations in the correctional institution business).

131 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "[The State Bar] disbarred former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong on baseless trumped up “ethics” charges; charges which were initiated by some anonymous person in the Bar for the sole purpose of removing Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case."

First, Sidney, since Mr. Nifong was wrongfully prosecuting three men, why should he not have been stopped? I challenge you to show how Mr. Nifong's prosecution was justified. You have admitted that forensic testing of the rape kit yielded no evidence of a rape. Why else would you repeatedly say that a sexual assault could have happened without leaving evidence.

I challenge you to show what makes the charges trumped up. Mr. Nifong did make pre indictment statements that Lacrosse players had perpetrated a gang rape. Mr. Nifong did not turn over to the Defense material he was legally obligated to turn over.

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

What has all this to do with the Duke case? None of the Duke Lacrosse players committed any crime.

Those accused of the crime had to spend millions of dollars defending themselves against charges not supported by the evidence sought by the indicting agency. How does that specifically show the system is biased in their favor?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Reasons cited by the justification for the NTO were that the evidence obtained would exonerate the innocent and and identify the suspects. The evidence obtained identified no one. It therefore exonerated anyone. So why was Mr. Nifong justified in prosecuting members of the Lacrosse team?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney,

What has all this to do with the Duke case? None of the Duke Lacrosse players committed any crime.

Those accused of the crime had to spend millions of dollars defending themselves against charges not supported by the evidence sought by the indicting agency. How does that specifically show the system is biased in their favor?"


First, we do not know that none of the Duke Lacrosse defendants committed a crime because the prosecutor did not have the opportunity to present his case and because no trial was held.

Secondly, we have no proof that the defendants spent millions defending themselves. The attorneys may have submitted outrageously high bills to give the appearance that the Carpetbagger families suffered financially. The Carpetbaggers really had nothing more to do than sit back and watch as the State Bar, the Attorney General's Office and the media made the case go away.

The reason this post applies to the Duke Lacrosse case is that it sets an obvious example for everyone to see. Had the defendants been disenfranchised, poor and of color, the State Bar would not have interfered with the prosecution of the case, the Attorney General's Office would have supported the prosecutor, and the media would have jumped all over the defendants. Also, the defendants attorneys would have probably sold their clients down the river while collecting fees from them.

In North Carolina, Class and Color matters.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "First, we do not know that none of the Duke Lacrosse defendants committed a crime because the prosecutor did not have the opportunity to present his case and because no trial was held."

The Prosecutor did present his case to the public and it became obvious that he, again I say, had no evidence either to establish that the alleged crime had taken place nor that the people he had charged could not have been connected to said crime.

An ethical pre trial investigation would have shown there was no probable cause to g\justify going to trial.

Sidney, why should the lawsuits against Mr. Nifong not go to trial. Using your logic, if they don' go to trial how can nyone know that Mr, Nifong did not commit the torts of which he stands accused?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Your last comment shows you believe the case should have gone to trial. However under Mr. Nifong's leadership, it was the common practice not to take rape cases to trial. Most of the rape cases handled by the Nifong DA office were either dismissed or resolved before trial with the defendant pleading to something other than rape.

So, why was it so imperativee for this particular case to go to trial. Why have you never objected to Mr. Nifong's not allowing rape cases to go to trial?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "Had the defendants been disenfranchised, poor and of color, the State Bar would not have interfered with the prosecution of the case..."

Sidney, "Had the defendants been disenfranchised, poor and of color," the case would never have been prosecuted and Mr. Nifong would not have initiated a media frenzy over it.

Prosecuting "defendants...[who were] disenfranchised, poor and of color" would not have gotten Mr. Nifong any points with the Durham black electorate, without which he had no hope of getting elected.

Your allegation is meaningless.ablebo

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "...the Attorney General's Office would have supported the prosecutor [if the defendants had been poor, disenfranchised and of color]"

Sidney, there would have been no prosecution for the Attorney General to support. Rather than prosecute, Mr. Nifong would have raised no publicity about them and either dismissed the charges resolved them with a plea bargain to something less than rape.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "In North Carolina, Class and Color matters."

It certainly did in this case. Sidney prosecuted three innocent men because they were perceived to be privileged wealth caucasian athletes. Mr. Nifong would never have prosecuted poor, black, disenfranchised defendants. His office did not prosecute Michel Jermaine Burch. They offered him a chance to plead to lesser charges.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

You say you are not interested in the guilt versus innocence of the three men accused of the crime. Why do you insist they should have gone to trial. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt. If the prosecutor can not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the defendants are by law presumed innocent.

If you are insisting the case should have gone to trial, you are making an issue of the guilt or innocence of the men Mr. Nifong accused of the alleged crime.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

I again challenge you to explain why the crime as alleged by Ms. Mangum and the Durham police, did not leave any DNA evidence on the rape kit.

Do not say that Mr. Nifong charged them with Sexual Assault. Mr. Nifong had them charged with first degree rape. The First degree rape alleged could not have happened without the perpetrators leaving any DNA evidence. The Crystal was wiped down with a towel hypothesis is unsupported. No towel was ever produced with evidence it had been used on Ms. Mangum.aqfvtsub

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "The Carpetbaggers really had nothing more to do than sit back and watch as the State Bar, the Attorney General's Office and the media made the case go away."

Mr. Nifong's flagrant pre trial behavior got the State Bar involved. Mr. Nifong himself asked the Atorney General's off ice to take overr the case. Maybe they did make the case go away, only after they had documented that Mr. Nifong should have never initiated the case in the first placee>

Harr Supporter said...

I believe I understand why Dr. Harr believes the failure to find the players' DNA is not exculpatory and Mangum's written statement can be ignored.

Mangum made an allegation that she had been sexually assaulted. The details don’t matter (but only in this case). She selected defendants. The deliberately flawed selection procedure doesn’t matter (but only in this case). A specific allegation is not necessary to proceed with a prosecution: an allegation that “something happened” and the defendants committed that “something” (whatever it was) is enough to justify criminal charges as long as the accuser wants to proceed (but only in this case). Mangum's written statement thus can be disregarded (but only in this case).

The prosecution need not allege a specific crime in order to pursue a case (but only in this case). Rather, in order to justify dropping charges the defendants must prove with absolute certainty that they could not possibly have committed a sexual assault on Mangum of any type at any time (but only in this case).

The justification for a prosecution is obvious.

Mangum’s demonstrably false accusations contained in her written statement do not prove that a sexual assault of another type not alleged by her could not possibly have occurred. The different versions of her story do not prove that a sexual assault of some type did not occur. The lack of DNA evidence does not prove that a sexual assault of a type not leaving DNA could not possibly have occurred. Mangum’s lack of injuries does not prove that a less violent sexual assault than she alleged could not possibly have occurred. The contrived and deeply flawed selection process does not prove that those selected could not possibly have committed a sexual assault. Alibi evidence does not prove that the defendants could not possibly have committed a sexual assault at a different time. All other evidence can be disregarded for the same reason. Nothing can prove that a sexual assault could not possibly have occurred.

This case depended on Mangum’s credibility. Other evidence is unimportant and can be ignored. Evidence that conclusively proved specific allegations to be false, showing Mangum to be either a liar or delusional, was insufficient for a prosecutor to drop this case. Only a jury could decide whether Mangum was credible. She had the right to have her case heard so that a jury could assess her credibility. As a result, justice failed because Cooper did not take this case to trial.


Dr. Harr has summarized his definition of justice (but only for this case) in his defense of Nifong: "The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants."

Dr. Harr can fill in what I have missed. I am certain that you find Dr. Harr's analysis and his understanding of legal concepts to be as powerful as I do.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

You make a great big deal of the media coverage of this case. Mr. Nifong devoted a great many hours early in the case attracting media attention to the case. When he had their attention, he made public statements to the effect, again, that a gang rape had been perpetrated against Ms. Mangum, that members of the Duke Lcrosse team had been the perpetrators, that they had been racially motivated to perpetrte the crime.
If "

Would it have been appropriate for the prosecution in this case to have alleged that Eve Carson's murder was racially motivated?

At least one of your Nifong supporters has tried to excuse Mr. Nifong by saying he made those statements pre indictment. That means only that he publicly vouched that the people he indicted were guilty.

If "the defendants [had] been disenfranchised, poor and of color", would it have been appropriate for Mr. Nifong, before he had ever proven anything in court, to proclaim in public that the crime had been racially motivated? You would not.

What justified Mr. Nifong doing something you would have called unfair, and unconstitutional "Had the defendants been disenfranchised, poor and of color"?

Anonymous said...

"[Ms. Mangum] had the right to have her case heard so that a jury could assess her credibility."

Ms. Mangum had no such right. One does not go to trial just because an allegation has been made.

Ironically, in his defense, Mr. Nifong made the claim that once Ms. Mangum came forth with her complaint.

However, during Mr. Nifong's tenure as Durham DA, most rape accusers never got the chance to have their cases heard in court. Most of the rape cases handled during his tenure were not taken to trial. They were either dismissed or disposed of via plea bargains in which the defendants pleaded to something less than rape.

Mr. Nifong, himnself, before the rape case, admitted that a rape accuser has no right to a day in court.

Anonymous said...

"Ms. Mangum had no such right. One does not go to trial just because an allegation has been made."

I should have said, Ms. Mangum had no right to have someone charged with a crime just because she alleged a crime.

Had Ms. Mangum filed suit in civil court, she would have a right to have her case heard. If such a case went to discvery, and discovery showed her case had no merit, the defense could successfully move for a summary judgment in their favor.

Of course, Ms. Mangum has not filed any civil suit, which may indicate she does not have a case.

Sidney, what legal reason is there that the Lacrosse players should not have their suits heard in court? Your belief that the suits are without merit has no legal weight.

Neither does your belief that your dislike of Duke Lacrosse players justifies charging them with rape.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous presents no cogent legal arguments. He brings in what-ifs and different courts and hypothetical examples of which none bear upon what actually happened in the Duke Lacrosse case.

A prosecutor does not determine guilt or innocence. A jury does.

The grand jury indicted three lacrosse players.

The State Bar placed the DA into a conflict of interest which forced him to ask the Attorney General to take over the case.

The State Bar did not act upon the DAs media comments until a full nine months after they were said when it was clear that the DA meant to take this case to trial.

The defense and lacrosse players cooperated fully with the Attorney General in a way they refused to cooperate with both the police investigation and the DAs office.

The Attorney General declared the lacrosse players innocent which not even a jury can declare.

The AG made prejudicial comments to the media about the DA before the State Bar hearing.

Anonymous said...

"A prosecutor does not determine guilt or innocence. A jury does."

So why did Mr. Nifong, before any jury made any decision, publicly declare members of the Lacrosse team guilty of perpetrating a gang rape? How was that appropriate?

Anonymous said...

"Anonymous presents no cogent legal arguments. He brings in what-ifs and different courts and hypothetical examples of which none bear upon what actually happened in the Duke Lacrosse case."

Ad hominem attacks mean only that this Nifong supporter, that no Nifong supporter, including Nifong Supporter himself can address the issues I have raised or answer the questions I have posed.

Anonymous said...

That comment is not an attack. It's a statement. Hypothetical scenarios do not address this case.

To answer some questions:

Every prosecutor must believe the person for which he seeks indictment is guilty. To indict a person he feels is innocent is unethical.

A prosecutor does not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a grand jury hearing. Before the discovery process. He must prove that at trial.

This case never went to trial because of the actions of the State Bar and AG.

Anonymous said...

"The grand jury indicted three lacrosse players."

The grand jury did not hear the exculpatory evidence. Mr. Nifong, by the admission of a Nifong supporter, considered evidence either inculpatory or irrelevant.

Would the Grand Jury have indicted if it had been aware that a) what was alleged was a rape in which the perpetrators had left their DNA b) forensic analysis showed that no DNA on the rape kit c) the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum did not match any of the members of the Lacrosse team, all of whom had been designated via the NTO as suspects.

How is a question which raises questions about why Mr. Nifong prosecuted the Lacrosse players irrelevant to the case?

The only people who would question the relevance are Nifong supporters, including Nifong Supporter himself, who believe that Mr. Nifong's gross, obvious wrongful prosecution of innocent men should have been accepted as legitimate.

Anonymous said...

"The State Bar did not act upon the DAs media comments until a full nine months after they were said when it was clear that the DA meant to take this case to trial."

If 9 months is a significant number, then why should Mr. Nifong have been allowed to prosecute the Duke Lacrosse players after he had delayed 9 months before actually interviewing the complaining witness. How can he make a case without interviewing the complaining witness?

It is a matter of record that Mr. Nifong did make comments to the public before anything went to any jury, statements that members of the Lacrosse team were guilty of a racially motivated gang rape. Via those statements, how did Mr. Nifong meet his obligation to respect the presumption of innocence? Only an uninformed individual would claim he was not obligated to do so.

Mr. Nifong also made public comments to the effect that retention of counsel was an indication of guilt even though the right to counsel is Constitutionally guaranteed.

Mr. Nifong made comments to the effect that the suspects' refusal to talk to the police was an indication of guilt, even though the Fifth amendment guarantees them the right not to do so. At a criminal trial, does the judge not instruct the jury not to make any inference of guilt from a defendant's refusal to testify?

Sidney Harr has lamented that other prosecutors who had committed misconduct had never been prosecuted at all. How does that justify not prosecuting Mr. Nifong. Mr. Nifong committed misconduct and was prosecuted for that, even it it took time to enumerate his multiple acts of misconduct.

Why are statements pointing out Mr.Nifong's misconduct irrelevant to the case? Only people who would accept without question Mr. Nifong's wrongful prosecution of innocent men. Only people who do not like having Mr. Nifong's misconduct pointed out.

Anonymous said...

"The defense and lacrosse players cooperated fully with the Attorney General in a way they refused to cooperate with both the police investigation and the DAs office."

The Durham DA's office, the actions of which the DA is ultimately responsible for, via the NTO, designated all Caucasian members of the Lacrosse team.

The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States unequivocally says a suspect in a criminal case is not required to give information to the police or to the DA's office. You have no legal basis to question their lack of cooperation.

Anonymous said...

"The defense and lacrosse players cooperated fully with the Attorney General in a way they refused to cooperate with both the police investigation and the DAs office."

Mr. Nifong's concept of cooperation was that Lacrosse players come forth with testimony incriminating other members in a gang rape. Since there was no gang rape, no Lacrosse player could have truthfully given incriminating anyone in said gang rape.

If any team member who had given testimony under oath incriminating anyone in said gang rape would have been committing perjury.

You condemn members of the Lacrosse team for refusing to give perjured testimony so that Mr. Nifong could have made his case.

If Mr. Nifong was basing his case on perjured testimony, how can you, how can any Nifong supporter, how canNifong Supporter himself say a prosecution based on perjured testimony is justified.

Anonymous said...

"Every prosecutor must believe the person for which he seeks indictment is guilty. To indict a person he feels is innocent is unethical."

How does that relieve a prosecutor of his obligation to presume the defendant is innocent?

How does that relieve a prosecutor of his obligation, should he take a case to trial, to prove guilt beyond any and all reasonable doubt?

To seek indictments against individuals when there is no evidence of a crime, no evidence of to incriminate those individuals in said crime, how is that ethical?

Mr. Nifong had information which should have lead him to question the guilt of the men he accused. He did not do so.

Anonymous said...

The facts of the action of the state stand.

The hypothetical situations you propose do not.

Anonymous said...

"A prosecutor does not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a grand jury hearing. Before the discovery process. He must prove that at trial."

That is true. All he is required to do is prove probable cause.

I remind you again, the alleged crime was one in which the perpetrators would have left DNA. Testing of the rape kit revealed there was no DNA that matched the men suspected of perpetrating the alleged crime.

Mr. Nifong could not have proven probable cause had he presented those facts.

Why would an ethical prosecutor seek indictments against men whom he could not implicate in the crime he was charging them with?

How is the above question not relevant to the Duke Lacrosse case? Are you saying that unjustified indictments should be accepted?

How can you call the indictments justified in the face of the Rape kit test results?

Anonymous said...

"This case never went to trial because of the actions of the State Bar and AG."

And this action was justified because there was no probable cause to take the case to trial.

Anonymous said...

"That comment is not an attack. It's a statement. Hypothetical scenarios do not address this case."

Yes it was.

Anonymous said...

"A prosecutor does not have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a grand jury hearing. Before the discovery process."

However, a prosecutor is required to give the defense any evidence he turns up that casts doubt on the guilt of the defendants. Mr. Nifong did not do that.

A prosecutor is obligated not to dismiss as irrelevant any evidence which casts doubt on the guilt of the accused. Mr. Nifong had a pattern of excluding such evidence.

Anonymous said...

"The Attorney General declared the lacrosse players innocent which not even a jury can declare."

Mr. Nifong declared Lacrosse players guilty before any jury had a chance to deliberate.

Anonymous said...

"To answer some questions:"

Answers to what specific questions I asked?

Those answers you give do not show that Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players was justified. Nor do they show that the ethics charges brought against Mr. Nifong were trumped up.

Anonymous said...

Every prosecutor declares an indicted individual guilty before a trial.

Anonymous said...

Nifong gave all evidence to the defense during the discovery process.

Anonymous said...

If a prosecutor thought an indicted individual was not guilty that would be unethical.

Anonymous said...

"To answer some questions:"

You answer nothing. You dodge the questions.

How was Mr. Nifong's prosecution justified when there was no evidence of the alleged crime, let alone evidence to implicate any Lacrosse player in said crime.

Why did Mr. Nifong say the testing of the rape kit would identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent, then declare the lack of DNA to implicate anyone was irrelevant.

Why did Mr. Nifong claim the event was a "non ejaculatory" event when the medical record and a police affidavit showed it was?

Why did Mr. Nifong say the perpetrators might have used condoms when the medical record said none were used?

Would a grand jury have indicted any Lacrosse player had they been aware of the DNA evidence. I am asking you for an opinion. It would be nice if you could explain why you hold that opinion.

Anonymous said...

To whatever Nifong supporter who said that a jury can not declare anyone innocent

An individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. A jury which finds a defendant not guilty says that a prosecutor has not proven the defendant guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

You are saying that defendant is not entitled to the presumption of innocent.

Anonymous said...

"The facts of the action of the state stand.

The hypothetical situations you propose do not."

Facts of the case, with which you do not want to deal, are, again:

The crime as described was a crime in which the perpetrators would have left DNA evidence.

Testing of the rape kit by the SBI crime lab revealed no blood, semen, saliva, material which would have been left.

The testing by DNA Security revealed DNA from multiple males, none of whom were members of the Duke Lacrosse team.

How does that add up to probable cause to indict three members of the Lacrosse team for rape? Deal with the facts.

Anonymous said...

"The State Bar placed the DA into a conflict of interest which forced him to ask the Attorney General to take over the case."

Mr. Nifong's actions are what made it necessary for the State Bar to file ethics charges against him. Had there been no ethics charges, Mr. Nifong would not have had to recuse him.

You are saying that the State Bar should have ignored Mr. Nifong's ethics violations so he could carry on his wrongful prosecution of innocent men.

Anonymous said...

"Every prosecutor declares an indicted individual guilty before a trial."

The prosecutor in the Ben Rothlisberger(sp?) case did not.

Anonymous said...

"Nifong gave all evidence to the defense during the discovery process."

No he did not.

Anonymous said...

"If a prosecutor thought an indicted individual was not guilty that would be unethical."

How does that relieve a prosecutor of his obligation to respect the presumption of innocence?

A prosecutor may indict if he has probable cause to believe an individual has committed a crime. He is obligated to not to proceed as if guilt has already been proven.

You are arguing that Mr. Nifong's belief that a crime had been committed was all that was necessary to convict.

Anonymous said...

"Every prosecutor declares an indicted individual guilty before a trial."

So, why does he say to the jury before a trial that he/she will prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

During the trial, if a prosecutor were to declare the defendant guilty, a judge would declare a mis trial.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Your claims of a "Carpetbagger Jihad" are not only unsubstantiated, they are an ad hominem attack directed against the Lacrosse players, their families, their lawyers.

Thereby, you do admit you can document neither that Mr. Nifong's prosecution of the Lacrosse players was justified, nor that the prosecution of Mr. Nifong on Ethics violations was not justified, nor that the charges against Mr. Nifong were trumped up.

Anonymous said...

"The facts of the action of the state stand."

And those acts of the state for which Mr. Nifong was responsible were truly unethical.

Anonymous said...

"Every prosecutor declares an indicted individual guilty before a trial."

Not if he respects Ethics Rules which forbid him from doing so.

Anonymous said...

To indict an individual, the prosecutor must believe that that individual is guilty of the crime.

In the trial, he tries to prove that the individual is guilty.

To believe the person is not guilty and indict him is unethical.

Assumption of innocence applies to a jury. Not a prosecutor.

To seek indictment is a declaration of guilt by every prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

To indict an individual, the prosecutor must believe that that individual is guilty of the crime.

In the trial, he tries to prove that the individual is guilty.

To believe the person is not guilty and indict him is unethical.

Assumption of innocence applies to a jury. Not a prosecutor.

To seek indictment is a declaration of guilt by every prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

"Assumption of innocence applies to a jury. Not a prosecutor."

A prosecutor is required to treat the accused as presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Anonymous said...

"To seek indictment is a declaration of guilt by every prosecutor."

To seek an indictment is a declaration of intent by a prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

Anonymous said...

"To believe the person is not guilty and indict him is unethical."

To indict a person is to seek to prove a person guilty beyond reasonable doubt at a trial. To declare people guilty before indicting is what is unethical.guttedsh

Anonymous said...

"If a prosecutor thought an indicted individual was not guilty that would be unethical."

How is that compatible with a prosecutor's obligation to determine the truth.

How does that then justify Mr. Nifong's action in seeking indictments against obviously innocent men.

Anonymous said...

"In the trial, he tries to prove that the individual is guilty."

The prosecutor has to prove the individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

How can a prosecutor do that when he has no evidence of a crime, no evidence of involvement of the accused in said crime?

Anonymous said...

To whoever talked originally about What If situations.

In his last post, Sidney called upon readers to play a game, What Would You Do.

Sidney invited readers to create what if situations. You object to what if situations which call into question both the appropriateness of Mr. Nifong's prosecution of three obviously innocent men and the appropriateness of the State Bar's action against Mr. Nifong for doing so.

For Sidney, it was obvious in the early part of the case that the Lacrosse players were innocent. So why do you object to Mr. Cooper stating the obvious.

Anonymous said...

"In the trial, he tries to prove that the individual is guilty.

The prosecutor has to prove the individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

The accused is entitled to a defense. To subvert the accused's right to a defense is unethical.

Anonymous said...

"In the trial, he tries to prove that the individual is guilty."

I say again, the accused is entitled to a defense.

Mr. Nifong in his pre indictment statements, i.e. statements he made before he had proven anything to any jury said: a)a crime had happened; b)that members of the Lacrosse team were guilty of that crime; c)exercise of their constitutionally guaranteed right to retain counsel was an indication of guilt; d)exercise of their right not to remain silent was an indication of guilt.

Mr. Nifong made those statements to the public from whom he intended to draw the jury before which he intended to try the defendants.

What was the effect of those statements? A number of people said Mr. Nifong they believed Mr. Nifong would not have made such statements unless he had conclusive evidence of guilt. They already believed, early in the case, anyone Mr. Nifong charged was guilty.

Mr. Nifong directly undermined the right of the accused to a defense, their right to a fair trial.

For you Nifong lover Cooper haters, Mr. Cooper made statements explaining his conclusion that the accused were innocent. He did not make those statements directly to the State Bar officials who would be trying Mr. Nifong.

Anonymous said...

For Mr. What if objector

Constitutionally guaranteed rights are no what if situation.

What stands is that Mr. Nifong violated his suspects' Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Arguing that Mr. Nifong should not have been called to account is arguing that his Constitutional violations should have been allowed to stand.

Anonymous said...

"To seek indictment is a declaration of guilt by every prosecutor."

Are you arguing that this justifies a prosecutor going before prospective jurors and declaring, before he has proven anything, This defendant is guilty?

Anonymous said...

"Assumption of innocence applies to a jury. Not a prosecutor."

I ask again, Are you arguing that this justifies a prosecutor going before prospective jurors and declaring, before he has proven anything, This defendant is guilty?

Anonymous said...

"Assumption of innocence applies to a jury. Not a prosecutor."

This comes from Wikipedia, "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law. … "

The quote comes from Coffin v. United States, an 1895 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The presumption of innocence in our judicial system has the force of law.

Is a prosecutor obligated to uphold the law? Yes. May a prosecutor ignore the law? No.


Therefore, the presumption of innocence does apply to a prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

"The defense and lacrosse players cooperated fully with the Attorney General in a way they refused to cooperate with both the police investigation and the DAs office."

Mr. Nifong showed himself hostile to anything exculpatory from the defense. When Mr. Moez Elmostafa provided a statement supporting Mr. Seligman's alibi, Mr. Nifong had Mr. Elmostafa arrested on a weak charge and told to change his Seligman statement. When Mr. Elmostafa refused to do so, he was charged with the crime and tried. He was also found not guilty. It is no wonder that none of the suspects exercised their Constitutional right to remain silent.

Regarding the verdict, to prove a defendant guilty, the prosecutor must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence is that a criminal defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

What gives anyone the right to use a not guilty verdict as justification to strip an individual of his/her innocence?

Mr. Roy Cooper did not make anyone innocent by virtue of his opinion. Under the law, they were innocent.

Any one who questions that does not understand the legal system.

Harr Supporter said...

Anonymous 9/28 3:23pm/7:58pm 9/29 5:29am:

Thank you for your comments on an earlier thread and continued here.

You appear to describe the prosecution as having two objectives: (1) select defendants and (2) avoid liability. You do not describe a prosecution with a genuine desire to solve a crime they believed had (or may have) occurred.

You describe a prosecution that used rules unfairly stacked in their favor. You conclude they did nothing wrong.

Not only can you indict a person on a 100% victim identification, you can convict a person on a 100% victim identification. So they felt they were OK on Finnerty and Seligmann.

You argue simply that the law permitted indictments.

Nifong, Gottlieb and Himan knew that Mangum’s “100% victim identifications” were unreliable. The procedure violated accepted guidelines. Mangum’s earlier descriptions matched none of the players. She had failed twice to make identifications. She made known mistakes in the April 4 procedure. She was inconsistent in her identifications of partygoers in her three attempts.

The prosecution did not attempt to confirm those selections. They did not interview the players selected. They did not interview other players identified as attending. They did not confirm Mangum’s allegations. They ignored the DNA and other evidence when it proved some of Mangum’s specific allegations to be demonstrably false.

At best, they knew they had an incredibly weak case, based exclusively (except for a non-exclusion and scratch related to Evans; they knew the towel was irrelevant) on the inconsistent allegations of a tainted witness and an opinion from a SANE trainee that was not supported by the report. They realized that if an attack had actually occurred (and there was no compelling evidence to support that assumption), Mangum’s identification of the actual assailants was purely accidental. Yet, they made no bona fide attempt to investigate.

You argue merely that they were not required to do so.

Harr Supporter said...

…continued

But this circumstantial evidence was put before the [grand] jury and they indicted [the players].

You argue that the law permitted indictments rather than arrests.

Contrary to the standard policy of arresting rape suspects, Nifong chose to seek indictments (as he clearly has the power to do). He left three violent gang rape “suspects” on the streets for two to six weeks. Why?

Suspects indicted by a grand jury are not entitled to a probable cause hearing. The proceedings before NC grand juries are not recorded. The prosecutor selects the witnesses. There is no enforceable requirement to provide exculpatory evidence. The grand jury spends a few minutes on each case and with few exceptions hands down true bills. It serves as a rubber stamp.

Grand jurors later stated publicly that they might have reached a different decision if they had seen additional evidence. Gottlieb stated in his deposition that he testified that Mangum’s story was consistent once she had calmed down, raising questions of perjury.

You argue that because the grand jury handed down indictments (even if the evidence presented was incomplete or false), a third party ratified that decision, and the prosecution has no responsibility.

You are more honest than our host. Sidney claims Nifong behaved honorably. You make no such pretense. You concede that the prosecution used rules unfairly stacked in their favor. You conclude they did nothing wrong because they obeyed the rules.

NC leaders do not seek a system of fairness. No one has fixed any fundamental flaws. Grand jury proceedings are not recorded. There is no right to a probable cause hearing. The right to a speedy trial is only loosely enforced. The prosecutor unfairly controls the proceedings through the case management system. Law enforcement officials face little discipline when they break the rules.

NC leaders do not want to cede this power. The avalanche of publicity this case attracted exposed these flaws. In order to deflect attention, these leaders needed to end the scrutiny and find a scapegoat to take all of the blame.

Nifong was punished not because he tried to frame innocent defendants, but because he did so too publicly.

Anonymous said...

That's correct.

The law permitted Nifong's actions. He did nothing illegal.

If you have a problem with the law or the justice system, change it.

Nifong did not act outside the justice system. He was not a rogue prosecutor.

I disagree with the sentiment that the justice system always works in the great state of North Carolina but for this one incredible exception.

All prosecutor's must believe those they seek to indict are guilty. (You can argue technicality until you are blue in the face).

Nifong's mistake, as he admitted, was that he said that out loud. To the press. He should have said no comment. But that is not enough to have him disbarred.

More was needed to cleanse the State and the justice system in the eyes of the nation, to take the national media heat off and to get rid of the case.

Joe Cheshire provided this. Joe found a way out for his client Evans and the State found a way out to deflect attention from themselves. It was a great and mutual benefit. That's why the defense cooperated fully with the AG.

The State Bar never proved that Nifong intentionally withheld anything from the defense. They did not have to legally. It was only a hearing. Not a criminal court. They just pronounced that he did.

Even though Cheshire and others threatened to charge Nifong with criminal charges in this matter, they never did. Because they would most probably lose in a more strict criminal court. (As one poster keeps making us all aware so we really understand that a criminal court must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.) There's more than reasonable doubt that Nifong did not intentionally hide evidence.

The criminal contempt case, legally, does not deal with Nifong intentionally lying to the court. Only that he made an inaccurate statement. Which Nifong readily admitted as soon as he found out, according to him, just before the Dec. 15th hearing, that explicit reference to the male DNA was not included in the summary report.

If the court or the justice system really felt Nifong was a danger to society or did anything really bad they would not have given him a slap on the wrist, a symbolic gesture, a public reprimand of only one day in jail to appease the national blood lust and make it technically look good.

This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not.

So good luck to all.

I'm not saying that Nifong should have done what he did, I'm saying he did nothing illegal.

A lot of prosecutors operating in the justice system today have been proven to have done illegal actions and they continue to be supported and defended by the State Bar, Cooper and the system.

Harr Supporter said...

I'm not saying that Nifong should have done what he did, I'm saying he did nothing illegal.

Nifong has absolute immunity in his role as prosecutor. He faces no criminal or civil sanctions for his decision to prosecute—as long as he followed applicable rules. You argue he was permitted to indict as a result of 100% victim identifications—even if he knew (or should have known) those identifications were unreliable. As a result, he cannot lose this immunity.

He faces potential liability only to the extent that he acted outside of his role as prosecutor.

Because the State Bar found that his public statements violated ethics rules, it may be difficult to claim that those statements are a valid prosecutorial function. You focus on the N&O’s interview with Magnum: that interview—and not Nifong’s statements—created the hostile environment.

You maintain that Nifong was not responsible for the DPD investigation. This may not eliminate potential exposure faced by DPD investigators, who have qualified immunity, but, if correct, should get Nifong off the hook.

I note that there have been credible allegations of obstruction of justice by members of the prosecution team. Himan's affidavits contained false statements. Gottlieb’s June report is almost certainly false. Observers have questioned whether anyone coached Mangum prior to the April 4 selection procedure. Nifong’s lack of responsibility for the investigation is unclear. The N&O has not disclosed its source for the Magnum interview. The accuracy of the testimony before the grand juries has been questioned. I can go on.

I am sure that you agree that these allegations require investigation (as did Mangum's). A trial would be justified only if the investigation produced sufficient evidence. There is no irony in that requirement.

As you know, no authority has investigated these allegations in the 3½ years since the AG announced the results of his investigation. The US DOJ claimed that it is the responsibility of the state. NC claimed that it lacks the power to conduct an investigation. Durham has an obvious conflict of interest. The State Bar hearing and the criminal contempt trial were limited in their focus.

Thus, discovery in the civil suits remains the only alternative. If you are correct, Nifong has little to fear from an investigation. However, he remains a valuable witness. I relish the opportunity to read his deposition and hear him testify under oath as he explains the role of others in this fiasco. I thank you for your support.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'The Attorney General declared the lacrosse players innocent which not even a jury can declare.'

Mr. Nifong declared Lacrosse players guilty before any jury had a chance to deliberate."


Mr. Nifong was prosecuting the case against the three defendants, but no where did he proclaim them "guilty." Mr. Nifong would have allowed the jury to determine their innocence or guilt.

Attorney General Roy Cooper, on the other hand, made the proclamation of "innocent" which the biased media used as a misleading basis to state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been exonerated.

Anonymous said...

Agree with Harr Supporter.

The last thing the State of North Carolina wants is an investigation into anything further about the lacrosse case.

They do not want an investigation into the actions of the police department. It's better to just say Nifong ran it and he's been dealt with.

They do not want an investigation into the actions of Linwood Wison. It's better to say that Nifong told him what to do and he's been dealt with.

But not just the police and DA's office.

They do not want an investigation into the actions of the defense attorneys and their leaking of court materials to the press. Constantly. Even after an angry judge told them specifically to stop doing it.

They do not want a hearing on Joe Cheshire's misusing scientific data saying that the DNA report that did not exclude Evans from the fingernails exonerated his client. This action could be against the code of professional conduct of the State Bar. No one is interested in bringing ethics charges against Cheshire.

Nor against Brad Bannon for delivering materials, personal property, not owned by him to the media. Actions that could get him disbarred.

No one speaks of the hypocrisy of the defense leading the charge against Nifong for ethics violations when their own actions are at the least questionable. No one is questioning these tactics because the players were declared innocent.

No investigation into 60 Minutes role of promising the defense and the families that they will stop the trial in NC if they cooperated with 60 Minutes exclusively.

Whether you agree with the results 60 Minutes and CBS obtained during this case, what if in another case, you disagreed with them?

Does a TV show have the right to use their power to target a state justice system and intentionally go into that state's justice system and disrupt it?

Do we want TV shows to decide our court cases through their power to sway public opinion or do we want our justice system, as flawed as it is, to operate beyond the influence of media pundits?

Focusing on Nifong exclusively covers the questionable actions of others in this complicated cultural phenomenon that goes further than this individual case and makes the implications of this case much smaller than what it is.

Harr Supporter said...

No investigation into 60 Minutes role of promising the defense and the families that they will stop the trial in NC if they cooperated with 60 Minutes exclusively.

You make an interesting allegation. Can you provide any evidence that 60 Minutes promised to deliver an end to the case?

Cheshire was terrified that the line of rape counselors, Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley...

You have stated on several occasions that rape counselors and numerous attending medical personnel were prepared to testify that they believed that Mangum had been raped.

There is no public record that the DPD ever interviewed any DUMC personnel except Levicy (and Arico). Most of Himan's report is public and all of Gottlieb's report (written in June) is public.

Manly stated to the defense that she had never been interviewed by the prosecution.

These alleged statements appear to be inconsistent with the medical report (admittedly not public, but described by several journalists and in defense filings) and the manner in which Mangum was treated at DUMC (left to sleep it off until Levicy showed up hours later).

The DPD did not do their job and investigate. Did these statements simply drop out of the sky?

Can we see some evidence?

Anonymous said...

The following are Mike Nifong quotes.

Between March 27 and March 31, 2006, Nifong stated to a reporter for for the New York Times, "The thing that most of us found so abhorrent, and the reason I decided to take it over myself, was the combination of gang-like rape activity accompanied by the racial slurs and general racial hostility."

Between March 27 and March 31, 2006, Nifong stated to a reporter for CBS News, "The racial slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset ... involved in this particular attack" and "obviously, it made what is already an extremely reprehensible act even more reprehensible."

On March 31, 2006, Nifong stated to a reporter for MSNBC, "Somebody had an arm around her like this, which she then had to struggle with in order to be able to breathe ... She was struggling just to be able to breathe" and "[i]f a condom were used, then we might expect that there would not be any DNA evidence recovered from say a vaginal swab."

In an April 2006 conversation with a representative of the Raleigh News and Observer newspaper, Nifong compared the alleged rape to the quadruple homicide at Alpine Road Townhouse and multiple cross burnings that outraged the city of Durham in 2005 and stated "I'm not going to let Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl in Durham."

While discussing DNA testing at a public forum at North Carolina Central University on April 11, 2006, in the presence of representatives of the news media, Nifong stated that if there was no DNA found "[i]t doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means nothing was left behind."


These comments show that he most certainly considered the defendants guilty. Sid will undoubtedly argue that Nifong did not use the word "guilty"....

Anonymous said...

It's true there's no reference in the police reports to other counselors. But the defense knew there were. From their own investigation.

Magnum was seen by several counselors specifically at the access center. For instance when the counselor originally asked if she had been raped.

A doctor was also present when Officer Shelton confronted Mangum. The doctor did not like the manner in which Shelton confronted Mangum yelling at her and calling her a liar.

Shelton did not do himself any favors with the access center staff. Which made the staffers more sympathetic toward Mangum.

It was this aggressive behavior at the access center and his aggressive manhandling of Mangum at the convenience store that (some would say unfortunately) discredited him within the police dept.

At Duke Hosp., there were social workers but they needed to wait for the SANE nurse who did not come on until an early morning shift. By that time, Mangum did not seem disoriented.

It's true, no one interviewed Dr. Manly which she has said was bizarre. However, it was not Manly's job to determine whether Mangum was raped. So the police & DA felt Manly was not as useful to them since Levicy was so adamant. As well as, it turned out, feeding wrong information to Gottlieb.

However, Manly has stated that she felt at the time, even though she has no legal weight in her job to determine this, that she felt Mangum was raped. And that Mangum's behavior was consistent with someone who had been traumatized.

It would have been in the police's interest to get that statement. They didn't.

Harr Supporter said...

Any explanation why the DPD did not get a statement from anyone at Durham Access until June?

As you know, that was where Mangum first alleged a rape--in response to a leading question.

I believe that Himan said that the phone number in the report was incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Not that I can recall.

Harr Supporter said...

Not that I can recall.

And what is that supposed to mean? That no one connected with the prosecution felt that it was appropriate to interview anyone at Durham Access on a timely basis?

I can think of only two explanations: (1) everyone connected with the prosecution was unspeakably incompetent, including their supervisors, or (2) the prosecution was engaged in a deliberate frame.

Harr Supporter said...

Magnum was seen by several counselors specifically at the access center. For instance when the counselor originally asked if she had been raped.

A doctor was also present when Officer Shelton confronted Mangum. The doctor did not like the manner in which Shelton confronted Mangum yelling at her and calling her a liar.

Shelton did not do himself any favors with the access center staff. Which made the staffers more sympathetic toward Mangum.


Are you sure that your facts are correct? Or where the stories in the press incorrect?

I recall that Off. Barfield took Mangum to Durham Access--not Shelton. (You recall that Mangum at one point claimed that she left $2000 in Barfield's car.) When she claimed that she had been raped in response to a leading question, Barfield took her to DUMC. Shelton met them at DUMC--not DA as you claim.

I am relying on my recollection of the press coverage. If either my recollection or the coverage is incorrect, I ask that you provide links. An anonymous commenter is not necessarily a credible source. I am sure that you understand.

Anonymous said...

"
However, Manly has stated that she felt at the time, even though she has no legal weight in her job to determine this, that she felt Mangum was raped. And that Mangum's behavior was consistent with someone who had been traumatized."

Afterward, when told the rape kit did not corroborate a rape, Dr. Manly said the only thing she found was a whitish fluid she thought was semen. Rape kit testing revealed no semen on Ms. Mangum's person. Dr. Manly later said she no longer believed Ms. Mangum had been raped.

Anonymous said...

"They do not want a hearing on Joe Cheshire's misusing scientific data saying that the DNA report that did not exclude Evans from the fingernails exonerated his client."

The report said the DNA was consistent with but not a match to David Evans' DNA. I do not think anyone ever made a claim that the fingernail exonerated Mr. Evans. DNA Security said it did not incriminate him.

How does male DNA on a fingernail indicate a rape?
Remember, the way Ms. Mangum described the alleged crime, as recorded in the Medical record, was that the perpetrators had left DNA. Mr. Evans was one of the accused. NNo DNA matching any of the accused was ever found on Ms. Mangum.

Why does the presence of consistent but non matching DNA on a fingernail outweigh the lack of consistent let alone matching DNA on Ms. Mangum's person?

How did that not exonerate Mr. Evans and the other accused.

I think Mr. Cheshire might have said the lack of DNA evidence exonerated the accused.

Anonymous said...

"They do not want a hearing on Joe Cheshire's misusing scientific data saying that the DNA report that did not exclude Evans from the fingernails exonerated his client."

The report said the DNA was consistent with but not a match to David Evans' DNA. I do not think anyone ever made a claim that the fingernail exonerated Mr. Evans. DNA Security said it did not incriminate him.

How does male DNA on a fingernail indicate a rape?
Remember, the way Ms. Mangum described the alleged crime, as recorded in the Medical record, was that the perpetrators had left DNA. Mr. Evans was one of the accused. NNo DNA matching any of the accused was ever found on Ms. Mangum.

Why does the presence of consistent but non matching DNA on a fingernail outweigh the lack of consistent let alone matching DNA on Ms. Mangum's person?

How did that not exonerate Mr. Evans and the other accused.

I think Mr. Cheshire might have said the lack of DNA evidence exonerated the accused.

Anonymous said...

"However, it was not Manly's job to determine whether Mangum was raped."

So why did Dr.Manly do the physical exam which was crucial in obtaining evidence?

Tara Levicy was a SANE in training, not a SANE.

Anonymous said...

Sidney says, "Mr. Nifong was prosecuting the case against the three defendants, but no where did he proclaim them "guilty." Mr. Nifong would have allowed the jury to determine their innocence or guilt."

Prior to indicting anyone, Mr. Nifong went public to declare that members of the Lacrosse team had perpetrated a gang rape on Ms. Mangum, specifically three members of the Lacrosse team.

What else did that mean other than any Lacrosse player he indicted would be a perpetrator? How is thatr
anything other than attempt pre anything to convince potential jurors they were guilty?

Explain yourself, Sidney.

Anonymous said...

"Attorney General Roy Cooper, on the other hand, made the proclamation of "innocent" which the biased media used as a misleading basis to state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been exonerated."

Mr. Cooper stated the conclusion of his investigation was, the accused were innocent. Ye was stating no more than what should have already been obvious to Mr. Nifong months earlier.

Sidney, your unsupported opinions are what have no legal weight.

Anonymous said...

"Do we want TV shows to decide our court cases through their power to sway public opinion or do we want our justice system, as flawed as it is, to operate beyond the influence of media pundits?"

Do we want rogue prosecutors using the media to sway public opinion in favor of guilt to decide how court cases shall be judged? That is the relevant question.

Mr. Nifong is the individual who made this a media circus by his attempts to sway the public about the guilt of members of the Lacrosse team before anything went to court.

Anonymous said...

Sidney says, "Mr. Nifong would have allowed the jury to determine their innocence or guilt."

So again I put this to you.

Mr. Nifong would have to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

The crime alleged was a crime in which the perpetrators left evidence, left DNA.

The DNA testing, sought by Mr. Nifong's office, found no evidence of rape kit, no evidence of DNA from anyone named as a suspect in the crime.

DNA Security testing showed the only DNA found on Ms. Mangum's person did not anyone who had been named as a suspect.

How could Mr. Nifong proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

I remind you, Mr. Nifong had to prove that a crime DID happen, not that a crime COULD have happened.

Anonymous said...

"
Cheshire was terrified that the line of rape counselors, Tara Levicy, Dr. Manley... "

No he wasn't. He could have easily impeached any testimony that a rape had occurred. Testing of the rape kit material showed unequivocally that a rape had not occurred.

Anonymous said...

"Nifong did not act outside the justice system. He was not a rogue prosecutor."

Yes he did. He charged three men with a crime when he had no evidence a crime had occurred.

Anonymous said...

"The law permitted Nifong's actions. He did nothing illegal."

The principles of due process and presumption of innocence require that a prosecutor NOT make prejudicial, inflammatory public statements which would prejudice a defendant's right to a fair trial. Mr. Nifong did just that.

Anonymous said...

"To believe the person is not guilty and indict him is unethical."

Is it ethical to indict the person when the prosecutor has evidence the person is innocent?

Anonymous said...

"Does a TV show have the right to use their power to target a state justice system and intentionally go into that state's justice system and disrupt it?"

Maybe not, but a TV show that recognizes a wrongful prosecution does something proper and appropriate when it targets the state justice system which is perpetrating the wrongful prosecution.

Anonymous said...

"This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

So you are copping out with another ad hominem attack.

Anonymous said...

"All prosecutor's must believe those they seek to indict are guilty. (You can argue technicality until you are blue in the face)."

It is not a technicality but the law that a prosecutor, regardless of his or her personal beliefs, must regard the accused as innocent until and unless he/she can prove the accused guilty beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

A prosecutor's obligation is to uphold the law, is it not?

You are not going to respond to this because you have no respose but ad hominem attacks.

Anonymous said...

"Whether you agree with the results 60 Minutes and CBS obtained during this case, what if in another case, you disagreed with them?"

Are you presuming I would automatically agree with anything 60 Minutes said? I would not. In any event, the question is moot.

I was originally outraged at the Lacrosse team when I first heard the story. Then I learned that DNA testing failed to confirm the occurrence of a rape. I learned about Mr. Nifong's publicity blitz. That is when I started believing in the innocence of the Lacrosse team. That was before 60 Minutes said anything about the case.

Anonymous said...

"Even though Cheshire and others threatened to charge Nifong with criminal charges in this matter, they never did."

I believe this is inaccurate. Mr. Cheshire and the other defense lawyers may have said that Mr. Nifong should face criminal charges, but they never said they would have him charged, with one exception.

They did say they would seek to have him charged with criminal contempt of court for withholding relevant evidence from the Defense and lied about it to the court. That is what happened.

Anonymous said...

"...that one hysterical poster ... [is] saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

What is hypothetical about the Presumption of Innocence or the prosecutor's obligation to presume innocence?

Anonymous said...

"This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

How can I re-try a case which never went to trial?

I do admit that was because or Mr. Cooper's investigation of the case. Mr. Cooper was asked by Mr. Nifong to take over the case. He concluded, based on his investigation. that the case had no merit.

Would it have been ethical for the Attorney General to take a case to trial when he believed the case had no merit?

Anonymous said...

""This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

How can I re-try a case which never went to trial?

I do admit that was because or Mr. Cooper's investigation of the case. Mr. Cooper was asked by Mr. Nifong to take over the case. He concluded, based on his investigation. that the case had no merit.

Would it have been ethical for the Attorney General to take a case to trial when he believed the case had no merit?"

Let's go at this again.

You have said it is unethical for a prosecutor to indict someone unless he thinks the individual is guilty.

Is it ethical for a prosecutor to take to trial a case which has no merit?

I say again, in the Lacrosse case there was no evidence of a crime, no evidence to implicate the defendants in said alleged crime. That is not a hypothetical situation. That is the truth.

Anonymous said...

"This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

If that is really the case, then you can easily dispute what I say. So why are you withdrawing?

Is it because you can not stand having someone dispute what you say? If that is the situation, then why are you posting at all.

To paraphrase a cliche, if you can not stand heat, why go into a kitchen?

Anonymous said...

"What is hypothetical about the Presumption of Innocence or the prosecutor's obligation to presume innocence?"

To clarify, the Presumption of Innocenc has the force of law. A prosecutor, as a court officer, has an obligation to uphold the law. Regardless of his/her personal beliefs, she/he is legally obligated to treat the accused as innocent. If, for personal reasons, the prosecutor can not do that, then the prosecutor has a legal obligation to recuse himself/herself from the case.

Does my critic question that?

Anonymous said...

"Does a TV show have the right to use their power to target a state justice system and intentionally go into that state's justice system and disrupt it?"

I admit, TV does get it wrong, e.g. Dan Rather and the allegations over President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

On the other hand, TV got it right with the Army-McCarthy hearings, with the Watergate Hearings. Do you question the right of the public to know of Governmental abuse of its power?

Anonymous said...

"This may be the last time I post here. Because that one hysterical poster will now quote every single line I've written out of context and repeat his same repetitious re-trying of the case and saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

If you are going to abandon the field because my comments are hysterical and hypothetical, how are you offering any support to either Sidney Harr or Michael Nifong. How are you displaying the courage of your convictions?

Anonymous said...

"Focusing on Nifong exclusively covers the questionable actions of others in this complicated cultural phenomenon that goes further than this individual case and makes the implications of this case much smaller than what it is."

If the lawsuits filed by the three accused and the non indicted Lacrosse players go forward, then the others involved in this wrongful prosecution will be exposed.

Anonymous said...

"To believe the person is not guilty and indict him is unethical."

If a prosecutor can establish probable cause to believe an individual did perpetrate a crime, is he ethical if he did not indict because of a personal belief the individual was innocent?

Should a prosecutor's personal beliefs be the only factor in his/her decision to either indict or not indict?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Are you going to respond to any of this.

You do have the courage of your convictions.

Anonymous said...

To all the Nifong supporters who like to refer to SANE-in-training Tara Levicy:

Ms. Levicy did say something to the effect that she was not surprised the rape kit testing found no semen, that rape was a crime of power not passion, did she not?

Ms. Levicy did acknowledge that testing of the rape kit revealed no evidence corroborating any claim of rape, did she not.

Why do you not highlight that part of Ms. Levicy's activity in the Duke Alleged Rape Case?

Anonymous said...

"The criminal contempt case, legally, does not deal with Nifong intentionally lying to the court. Only that he made an inaccurate statement. Which Nifong readily admitted as soon as he found out, according to him, just before the Dec. 15th hearing, that explicit reference to the male DNA was not included in the summary report."

If Mr. Nifong unintentionally withheld the evidence from the defense, then he was negligent.

To whoever commented that the Defense decides what is exculpatory, here is a situation which I freely admit is hypothetical. I also maintain that it is relevant to the Duke Alleged Rape Case:

You are a defense attorney. You believe the prosecution has evidence which is relevant to your client. Who should actually decide if the evidence is relevant? Would an ethical prosecutor withhold such evidence from the defense?

Anonymous said...

I add to my previous comment:

Should the evidence not be relevant or helpful to the defense, how does it compromise the prosecutor's case if the prosecutor reveals the evidence to the defense?

Anonymous said...

One more addition:

If the evidence does prove to be helpful to the defense in establishing reasonable doubt, then the prosecutor was legally, ethically and Constitutionally obliged to have shared the evidence with the defense, was he not?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "Attorney General Roy Cooper, on the other hand, made the proclamation of "innocent" which the biased media used as a misleading basis to state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been exonerated."

What exonerated the Duke Lacrosse defendants is that Mr. Nifong had no evidence in the first place to establish a crime, no evidence in the first place which implicated any of the Duke Lacrosse Defendants in said crime.

Sidney, you address this situation by saying that Mr. Nifong dropped the rape charge and kept the sexual assault charge and that Mr. Nifong did not need evidence to prove rape.

I remind you, the crime as alleged was a crime in which evidence would have been left. The crime for which the Duke Lacrosse Defendants were indicted was a rape in which evidence would have been left.

Anonymous said...

"The criminal contempt case, legally, does not deal with Nifong intentionally lying to the court. Only that he made an inaccurate statement. Which Nifong readily admitted as soon as he found out, according to him, just before the Dec. 15th hearing, that explicit reference to the male DNA was not included in the summary report."

Did Mr. Nifong bring this up before Brad Bannon cross examined Mr. Meehan? I think not.

Do you think it curious that Mr. Nifong himself did not bring this up?

Anonymous said...

"At Duke Hosp., there were social workers but they needed to wait for the SANE nurse who did not come on until an early morning shift."

I remind you again. Ms. Levicy was a SANE-in-training, not a certified SANE.

Was any certified SANE ever called upon to examine Ms. Mangum? No.

Why was no certified SANE ever brought in to examine Ms. Mangum? If the Social Workers were aware of the situation, why did they not insist that a certified SANE examine Ms. Mangum?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "...the Bar ...[on] charges which were initiated by some anonymous person in the Bar for the sole purpose of removing Mr. Nifong from the Duke Lacrosse case.

Sidney, if the person is anonymous, how can you document that this person trumped up any charges against Mr. Nifong.

Judging from what Professor Mosteller published about the Duke Alleged Rape Case, charges were not drawn up against Mr. Nifong until sub committee of the Grievance Committee thoroughly investigated the allegations and recommended to the entire Grievance Committee that charges be filed.

Are the members of the State Bar all anonymous?

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, " What made Ms. Holley’s crime so unforgivable was that she victimized a wealthy respectable lady."

Are you arguing that it is acceptable to target wealthy respectable people for a crime?

Do you mean that if an individual robbed and killed a wealthy man, that individual should not be charged with a crime?

Your arguments regarding why the Lacrosse players seem to say it is acceptable to charge a respectable wealthy individual with a felony if you believe the wealthy individual behaves badly.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

You refer to "the unjust disbarment and persecution of Mike Nifong."

Prove by evidence that the disbarment of Mike Nifong was unjust. Your opinion is not evidence.

You have asserted the disbarment was unjust. In our legal system the principle is, he who asserts must prove.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, "Not long ago, I was nearly arrested on the Duke campus because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong."

Sidney, do you have the police report? If so, why don't you publish it?

Anonymous said...

"...that one hysterical poster ... [is] saying I'm saying things in hypothetical situations that I'm not."

Are you saying the Presumotion of innocence is hypothetical and hysterical?

Anonymous said...

Sidney says, "Mr. Soles was not arrested. He was not charged."

The Star News on line reported on January 7, 2020, "State Sen. R.C. Soles, the state's longest-serving legislator, was indicted Thursday on a felony charge of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious bodily injury."

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

"R.C. Soles entered a guilty plea for A1 misdemeanor assault with deadly weapon in court, just before 2:15." That was published by WECT news on February 25, 2010.

Why did you say, and I quote, "Mr. Soles was not arrested. He was not charged."?

Anonymous said...

Sidney says, "The whole incident [regarding R. C. Soles] was swept under the carpet and the media was muzzled."

Why was I able to locate several accounts by the media of what happened to Mr. Soles and you were not?

Did you look before you alleged that "...the media was muzzled."?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

Rape is a felony, is it not.

R. C. Soles was charged with a felony but allowed to plead to a misdemeanor, according to the media which you allege were muzzled.

Under the Nifong regime, people charged with rape either had the charges dismissed or allowed to plead to a lesser charge.

How does that show that the system is biased in favor of Mr. Soles, whom you falsely claim was never charged with anything?

Anonymous said...

From News 14 Carolina, "Police said they charged Kristen Snipes, 26, of Morrisville with felony hit-and-run."

From http://wake.mync.com, "Town of Cary Public Information Officer Susan Moran said Kristen Marie Snipes, 26, of Seagrave Place in Morrisville, was arrested by police in Lancaster, S.C."

Snipes is accused of hitting Gustavo Angalo, 26, of Cary at 9:45 p.m. as he rode his bicycle on Chapel Hill Road between N. Harrison and Academy Streets.

Sidney said in an earlier blog in which he mentioned Heather Holley, and I quote "Kristen Snipes, a 26 year-old Morrisville, NC woman, was recently charged with drunken-driving and having unsealed alcohol in the passenger area of her car."

Anonymous said...

Regarding Heather Holley, Sidney did not mention that Ms. Holley was also charged with fraudulently trying to cash a $34,000 business check. He did admit that in a previous post.

Sidney, are you trying to conceal information from your readers?

It doesn't work when the information is already public.

Anonymous said...

Sidney said, in a post on September 11, 2010, "39 year-old Raleigh woman Heather Holley was recently booked in jail and saddled with 29 misdemeanor and felony charges with offenses including burglary, breaking into three homes, identity theft, and stealing mail, checks, passports, and other identifying information. She is also alleged to have went on a $1,800 shopping spree using a stolen credit card, and attempting to cash a $34,000 business check.

Sidney, do you know what mutually conflicting accounts means?

Anonymous said...

Sidney

I ask again if there a police report of your arrest?

Hypothetical situation(for you who object to hypothetical situations, well the parables of Jesus were all hypothetical situations):

Sidney goes to court to sue the Duke Police for false arrest. He would have to produce police report. Without it, he would not be able to document to the court that he was arrested.

Anonymous said...

Sidney

I acknowledge you did mention Kristen Snipes' arrest on the hit and run.

I point out, Heather Holley was a first time offender only because it took law enforcement a long time to catch up with her. She was an habitual offender.

Anonymous said...

"Nifong has absolute immunity in his role as prosecutor. He faces no criminal or civil sanctions for his decision to prosecute—as long as he followed applicable rules."

Mr. Nifong did not follow the rules. Specifically, he made public statements disregarding the principle of presumption of innocence, he made statements disregarding the right to remain silent, he made statements regarding the right to counsel. Last but not least, he indicted three men without having evidence that there had been a crime for them to have committed.

Anonymous said...

An earlier post I made:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

From News 14 Carolina, "Police said they charged Kristen Snipes, 26, of Morrisville with felony hit-and-run."

From http://wake.mync.com, "Town of Cary Public Information Officer Susan Moran said Kristen Marie Snipes, 26, of Seagrave Place in Morrisville, was arrested by police in Lancaster, S.C."

Snipes is accused of hitting Gustavo Angalo, 26, of Cary at 9:45 p.m. as he rode his bicycle on Chapel Hill Road between N. Harrison and Academy Streets.

Sidney said in an earlier blog in which he mentioned Heather Holley, and I quote "Kristen Snipes, a 26 year-old Morrisville, NC woman, was recently charged with drunken-driving and having unsealed alcohol in the passenger area of her car."


I admit, again, I goofed. Mr. Harr did note in the original Heather Holley blog that Kristin Snipes was arrested on the hit and run.

I apologize and accept responsibility for my error.

Harr Supporter said...

10/26 10:46 am:

Read the rest of my comment.

Nifong's comments were not made in his role as prosecutor. The decision of the Bar that these comments violated ethics requirements underscores the conclusion that they were not made in role limited role as prosecutor. He has qualified immunity associated with his role as "spokesperson" as would be the case for a DPD spokesperson, such as Addison.

Nifong has absolute immunity in connection with his role as prosecutor--even if he breaks ethics rules by prosecuting a case with no credible evidence. He faces no criminal or civil sanctions in this limited role.

Because the law permits a prosecutor to bring a case based only on complaint and identification by an alleged victim (even if the prosecutor knew or should have known that the accuser was not credible and thus acted unethically), the decision to prosecute--no matter how unjustified by a complete lack of credible evidence--apparently is protected.

I don't support absolute immunity for prosectors (prosecutors in most other nations do not enjoy that protection), but the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of absolute immunity for prosecutors--but only in that limited role.

If Nifong is found to have served in an investigative capacity, he has only qualified immunity. Our anonymous critic has disputed the allegation that Nifong had responsibility for the DPD investigation.

We await the findings of the investigation of that allegation. Let discovery begin.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney said, 'Not long ago, I was nearly arrested on the Duke campus because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong.'

Sidney, do you have the police report? If so, why don't you publish it?"


I do not have a police report but I do have part of my conversation with the guard recorded, and will present it on the website, along with its transcription. The guard did threaten to arrest me, and he admitted that he was kicking me off campus but did not know why. Later, in a written response to my demands for the reason I was mistreated, I was told that I had repeatedly violated the university's policy against solicitation by handing out a few business cards and asking people to visit my website. That laughable excuse is the best reason they could come up with. The real reason I was harassed and humiliated was because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. There will be much more published on my website about the brazen incident.

Anonymous said...

"I was told that I had repeatedly violated the university's policy against solicitation by handing out a few business cards and asking people to visit my website."

Did you bother to familiarize yourself with the solicitation policies of Duke University prior to this? It is easy to find -- According to Duke's Office of Student Activities and Facilities, "Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission."

by this definition, you were indeed guilty of solicitation. Basically, an off-campus organization can solicit at Duke only if sponsored by a recognized student organization.
Ignorance of the law is (as always) no excuse.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'I was told that I had repeatedly violated the university's policy against solicitation by handing out a few business cards and asking people to visit my website.'

Did you bother to familiarize yourself with the solicitation policies of Duke University prior to this? It is easy to find -- According to Duke's Office of Student Activities and Facilities, 'Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.'

by this definition, you were indeed guilty of solicitation. Basically, an off-campus organization can solicit at Duke only if sponsored by a recognized student organization.
Ignorance of the law is (as always) no excuse."


The definition of solicitation is extremely vague, and what I did could hardly be interpreted as solicitation. For example was it the act of handing a business card that defined solicitation? I've seen many people hand out business cards, and they weren't carted off the campus. Was the act of solicitation me telling someone to visit my website? Since when does asking a simple request of someone to visit one's website or Facebook page, or whatever constitute solicitation.? That's absurd. But it was the best excuse Duke could conger up in lieu of the truth... which was that Duke University discriminated against me because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong.


Next, let's discuss another issue of disparate treatment in our state's criminal justice system which makes North Carolina the nation's laughing stock.

Anonymous said...

I'll take that as a "No -- I did not check the solicitation policies at Duke prior my visit." Why is it so difficult to get a simple answer from you, Sid?

Back to your post --
"For example was it the act of handing a business card that defined solicitation?"
Yes -- This is solicitation as per Duke policy.
"I've seen many people hand out business cards, and they weren't carted off the campus."
Do you know if these people were either Duke students, invited by a recognized student organization(and approved by the OSAF), or Duke employees? If they met any of that criteria, they may solicit on Duke Property.
"Was the act of solicitation me telling someone to visit my website?"
Yes--This is solicitation as per Duke policy.

Anonymous said...

"what I did could hardly be interpreted as solicitation."

How do you know? You didn't bother to look up Duke's solicitation policy.

In this instance THEIR definition of "solicitation" is the one you must abide by, not your own.

Anonymous said...

To quote Anonymous @ October 7, 2010 11:54 AM:

"'what I did could hardly be interpreted as solicitation.'

How do you know? You didn't bother to look up Duke's solicitation policy.

In this instance THEIR definition of "solicitation" is the one you must abide by, not your own.

Sidney thinks his own definitions of things like "exculpatory evidence" and "prosecution which was withing acceptable standards" trump the legal definitions.

He also thinks his opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants should trump any other consideration.

It is not surprising that he takes offense at Duke's failure to accommodate his own definition of "solicitation".