Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Joseph Neff’s article, Part 2: Additional spin to protect David Hoke

Joseph Neff, the News & Observer’s designated Spin-Meister who masquerades as an investigative reporter, continued his “scapegoatization” of Dwight Ransome, the State Bureau of Investigation lead investigator on the Alan Gell case. Part two of the two part series, which appeared in the Sunday, October 4, 2009 edition of the News & Observer, aimed to distract the reader from Gell prosecutors and focus on the lead investigator of the ill-fated prosecution. The headline which read, “Gell investigator ignored blatant clues,” is an example of the gross bias and lack of objectivity regarding coverage of the wrongful capital murder prosecution of Alan Gell; the headline more objectively should have read, “Gell prosecutors ignored investigator’s report.”

The names of the Gell prosecutors, David Hoke and Debra Graves (from the Attorney General’s Office), appeared only twice in the Sunday article, once when it mentioned that the North Carolina State Bar reprimanded them for “withholding evidence and not reading their files.” Hoke and Graves did not just withhold evidence, they withheld “exculpatory evidence” from the defense; evidence that proved Alan Gell was innocent of the murder for which he was charged. Even a cursory observation of the article will show that the word “exculpatory” is never mentioned in the same sentence with prosecutors Hoke and Graves. However, the exculpatory nature of the evidence is emphasized later in the article when attention is turned to Investigator Ransome.

It has been my observation, from investigating the Duke Lacrosse case and other criminal cases, that the word “exculpatory” is purposely and incorrectly used by the courts, attorneys, and media. For example, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was constantly reported to have withheld from the defense “exculpatory” DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case. This is blatantly false, and is a willful deception to impart greater significance to the findings than they warrant. The other media deception used with great frequency against Mr. Nifong is that he “withheld” DNA evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defense team. Nothing could be further from the truth. By October 27, 2009, well before a trial date had even been set, Mr. Nifong had supplied the defense attorneys with all of the laboratory DNA findings. They had ample time to process the information and use it in preparation of their defense, unlike the Alan Gell case, where exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense team before the trial, during the trial, and nine years after the trial.

What is, perhaps, most curious is that even after the exculpatory evidence (which proved Alan Gell could not have committed the murder) became available, the prosecutors from the Attorney General’s Office proceeded to re-try Mr. Gell, at further taxpayer expense. I firmly see this as an abdication from their prosecutorial roles as “ministers of justice.” Naturally, once the jury got the case, the verdict of “not guilty” was quickly reached… it was a “no brainer.”

The reason the media went out of its way to protect David Hoke (Debra Grave was along for the ride) is because he was with the Attorney General’s Office, and was later promoted to Assistant Director of the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts. During his hearing before the State Bar’s Grievance Commission, many distinguished character witnesses spoke on Hoke’s behalf, including Superior Court Judge Erwin Spainhour of Cabarrus County. At Hoke’s hearing he said, “Everyone is appalled that he (Hoke) has had to go through this (disciplinary hearing). My question for the honorable Judge Spainhour is, “Is everyone appalled that Hoke’s misconduct landed an innocent man in prison for nine years, half of it on death row?”

The importance of this blog is to demonstrate that the media has the ability to craft the way an event is covered in order to sway the public’s opinion. Just as the two-parter in the News & Observer shifted the onus of responsibility from the Gell prosecutors to the Gell lead SBI investigator in order to protect David Hoke, media types, on a large scale, have manipulated words, definitions, intentions, and facts to wrongfully portray Mike Nifong in the most negative terms possible. The public needs to stand back and take a fresh and objective look at the Duke Lacrosse case and the disbarment and persecution of Mr. Nifong, a dedicated public servant of the highest integrity.

In the old days, people believed that the world was flat. It took time and education for them to realize the truth. The perceptions widely held by the public at large of Mike Nifong are also inaccurate. To realize the truth about the man, people need to open up their minds with objectivity.

3 comments:

Walt said...

Here we have the two wrongs make a right argument in full bloom. It fails again. Because the bar did not disbar Hoke and Graves, as they should have, does not excuse Nifong's misconduct. Unfortunately, it does explain why he thought he could get away with his misconduct.

I do take issue with this though: "The other media deception used with great frequency against Mr. Nifong is that he “withheld” DNA evidence from the Duke Lacrosse defense team. Nothing could be further from the truth. By October 27, 2009, well before a trial date had even been set, Mr. Nifong had supplied the defense attorneys with all of the laboratory DNA findings."

Nifong lied to the court in an earlier hearing when he assured the court that he had provided all the information in the defense discovery request. Nifong failed to provide the expert report required by the court's order on discovery and by state law (open file discovery) before November 16, long after he had assured the court he had already done so. These are facts that Nifong does not dispute.

"They had ample time to process the information and use it in preparation of their defense, unlike the Alan Gell case, where exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defense team before the trial, during the trial, and nine years after the trial."

That is not the standard. First, Gell was decided under a different set of discovery rules. The rules were changed. Nifong knew the rules changes. He decided to violate them and paid the price. As he should have. Second, Nifong was specifically asked by the court if he had provided the full information from the outside expert, and he said that he had. When in fact, he had not and he knew he had not. Even if the evidence was arguably not admissable, he was not honest with the court.

Further, Nifong was also dishonest with opposing counsel when he represented to them directly that he had provided all the requested information.

While I don't excuse Hoke and Graves conduct, Nifong did this to himself and got what he deserved.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...

To Walt:

I am pleased to see you admit that David Hoke and Debra Graves should have been disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct in their actions against defendant Alan Gell. They withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, and as a result he spent nine years behind bars. When that evidence became apparent, the Attorney General's Office persisted with a re-trial, in which Mr. Gell was instantly found "not guilty."

Mike Nifong did absolutely nothing wrong in his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case, and the only reason the ethics case was brought against him by the State Bar was to get him off the case. Mr. Nifong was too independent for the state and the State Bar.

You stated that Mr. Nifong lied to the court in an earlier hearing, which I seriously doubt, but the point is that that was not the statement for which he was disbarred. Regarding the case you mentioned, Mr. Nifong believed that all material had been presented to the defendants... and there had been a report that had inadvertently been omitted, then that does not qualify as a lie. Because the powers-that-be were anxious to bring charges against him, they resorted to using any innocent oversight on which to try and charge him with wrongdoing.

Also, as far as discovery goes, Mike Nifong has always maintained an open file discovery policy as a prosecutor. He was doing it throughout his 27 year career, 25 years before discovery changes which he had already adhered to were mandated by law.

Walt said...

"Mike Nifong did absolutely nothing wrong in his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse case,..."

Continuing to prosecute after he knew he had no probable cause. Making false, misleading or untruthful statements to the court. Making false, misleading or untruthful statements to counsel. Engaging in multiple media appearances where he opined about the guilt of the accused. Those are all absolutely wrong.

"You stated that Mr. Nifong lied to the court in an earlier hearing, which I seriously doubt, but the point is that that was not the statement for which he was disbarred."

Actually, it was part of the charges against him. Read the findings.

"Regarding the case you mentioned, Mr. Nifong believed that all material had been presented to the defendants... and there had been a report that had inadvertently been omitted, then that does not qualify as a lie."

In the September hearing, Nifong specifically said that he had provided all the information to the defense that was called for by statute and by the court's order on discovery. Yet a month later, his office provided 1800+ pages of documents that it had obtained in May. In fact, both the court and defense counsel had specifically questioned Nifong about the documents and he specifically said he had turned over everything. Q.E.D. He had not.

"Also, as far as discovery goes, Mike Nifong has always maintained an open file discovery policy as a prosecutor. He was doing it throughout his 27 year career, 25 years before discovery changes which he had already adhered to were mandated by law."

Rather obviously he was not pursuing open file discovery or he would have provided the 1800+ pages of documents to the defense when he got them.

Walt-in-Durham