Posted on 09/22/2006 1:20:40 PM PDT by Howlin
Three Duke lacrosse players took five to 10 minutes to sexually assault a woman hired to perform as a stripper at a team party, and not the 30 minutes she originally described to investigators, a prosecutor said Friday. "When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes," District Attorney Mike Nifong said.
Nifong's comments came as Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III denied a defense request that prosecutors provide a detailed accounting of the alleged assault, including the exact time, place and type of sexual act the accuser said each defendant committed.
A grand jury has indicted three lacrosse players _ Reade Seligmann, 20; Collin Finnerty, 19; and David Evans, 23 _ on charges of rape, kidnapping and sexual offense. The accuser, a student at nearby North Carolina Central University, told police she was raped in a bathroom by three men at a March 13 off-campus party. Defense attorneys have strongly proclaimed the players' innocence.
Kirk Osborn, who represents Seligmann, said the defense needed the "bill of particulars" because the accuser has told several different versions of the alleged assault, and his client has a right to know which version prosecutors will present at trial. In search and arrest warrants issued early in the investigation, police stated the accuser told investigators she was assaulted for 30 minutes.
Nifong said he is not required to state the exact time of the alleged attack, but offered that authorities believe it took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the accuser arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived and found no one at the house.
Friday's hearing was the first since Smith was appointed to take over the case, and it was scheduled to continue Friday afternoon.
Before the hearing began, Nifong gave defense lawyers 615 pages of evidence, a compact disc and a cassette tape. He said it included much of what was requested by defense lawyers, who had asked for handwritten notes from police officers involved with the case, reports outlining procedures used at the labs that tested the DNA of the players and notes from a mental health facility where police took the accuser after the party.
In doing so, these lawyers simply followed Nifong's lead.
Nifong should quit the case because the defense team has successfully used the media? And the MSM wonders why their readership is down. No, Nifong should drop this case because he has no DNA, the ho can't keep her story straight and the accused have good alibis. If Nifong was a real man he would have dropped this case a long time ago and went after the lying drug addicted mentally unstable hooker.
Mine too. I hope Kevin Finnerty grinds Nifong into dog meat. He has every right, after what Nifong has done.
My reaction to that opinion piece was the same as yours.
The defense lawyers 'used the media' and now there can be no conviction?
Perhaps Nifong should drop the case because there is something just a little bit wrong with trying to railroad young men into prison on the basis of a crude hoax--all for one's personal gain and profit.
(found on another board, but worth repeating)--
This is an election year. So, here's an email survey to send around to your congressmen and all congressional candidates :
"Hi,
Here are two hypothetical questions being asked of all Congressmen and Congressional candidates. (Results of those who respond will be posted on the Internet, by name and district.)
1) Do you think the FBI should be sent to investigate KKK intimidation of potential jurors and witnesses, and death threats made against defendants in criminal cases?
2) Do you think the FBI should be sent to investigate the beating of black civilians by off-duty drunken white police officers, especially if they use racial epithets like "N---r!" and "boy!"?
Thank you for your response.
Sincerely,"
Post results here (if any).
Try the following to get email addresses :
http://www.emailcongress.net/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm
http://webcom.com/~leavitt/cong.html
One click, and you can do a lot to help.
I disagree.
This was a bad decision. It's been 6 months. The DA has had more than ample time to determine exactly what forms the crime took and when it occurred within the sequence of events that night. It was not too soon to move for a bill of particulars and the judge was wrong to wholly deny it.
This doesn't look good.
Nifong is counting on a biased Durham jury to convict no matter what and how many absurdities they must hurdle over to reach a guilty verdict.
But the poll just happened. It seems to me that Durham Rules allow for at least 6 months of rifling around to locate all the questions and that they shouldn't need to be exactly what was asked anyway. After all, if the boys aren't entitled to know what acts they supposedly committed and when, I just don't see any need to supply anybody with those questions.
Yeah, "We are trying to convict you on very serious charges. Now keep your mouth shut." "When we are ready for you to proclaim your innocence, we'll let you know."
She hasn't paid restitution yet? I guess she wasn't able to spin that story to her advantage and profit from it all that well.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/09/m-nifong-revisionist_27.html
We all know of high-profile cases in which defense attorneys made early, bold pronouncements of innocence, only to revise their opinions as more facts about the case came to light.
The lacrosse case, however, represents a rare reversal of this pattern: defense statements have been consistent from the start, while the person revising his statements in light of new evidence is the prosecutor. It's almost as if Mike Nifong didn't read any of his case file before proceeding with indictments.
[end excerpt]
Edmisten dinner draws DA opponents
By Ray Gronberg, The Herald-Sun
September 26, 2006 10:46 pm
DURHAM -- A former state attorney general sponsored a dinner meeting two weeks ago that gave key opponents of District Attorney Mike Nifong a platform to try convincing write-in challenger Steve Monks to drop out of the upcoming DA's election.
The meeting began at a Raleigh restaurant, the 42nd St. Oyster Bar & Seafood Grill, and continued in the South Salisbury office of former attorney general, Democratic gubernatorial candidate and N.C. Secretary of State Rufus Edmisten, Monks said Tuesday.
Monks and his campaign manager, Charlotte Woods, said they conferred at the meeting with Edmisten and four Nifong opponents, former Durham County Sheriff Roland Leary, state juvenile justice official Ed Pope, Durham lawyer Jerry Clayton and former DA candidate Freda Black.
The group was trying to convince Monks to end his write-in candidacy so another erstwhile Nifong challenger, County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, can go one-on-one against Nifong in the Nov. 7 election, Monks and Woods said.
"Obviously, they're concerned, or they wouldn't have had this meeting," Woods said. "It's quite obvious that they have a huge concern that Cheek will not win as long as Steve is in the mix. And guess what: They're right."
Cheek has said that though he won't serve if elected, a victory for him would allow Gov. Mike Easley to appoint Nifong's successor.
Nifong's critics fear the possibility that Cheek and Monks will split the opposition vote and allow Nifong to win. Monks and Woods said that specter shaped the discussion that unfolded at Edmisten's table and later in his office.
But rather than agreeing to bow out of the race, Monks says he asked the Durhamites to support him instead of Cheek. That counterstroke was also unsuccessful. Pope and Leary left after dinner, telling Woods, she said, that they "were not about to change their position." The follow-up talk with Clayton and Black at Edmisten's office also failed to change any minds.
"We left agreeing to disagree," Monks said.
Monks -- chairman of the Durham County Republican Party -- said his determination to stay in the race stems from his opposition to the idea of letting Easley once again choose Durham County's chief prosecutor. The Democrat appointed Nifong to the job last year after former District Attorney Jim Hardin gained a judgeship.
Woods added that Monks would only consider withdrawing if there's certainty about Nifong's successor -- which could emerge if Cheek changed his mind about serving, or if the governor went public with the name of a prospective replacement.
"As I told [Edmisten, withdrawal] might be a viable option if we absolutely had a guarantee of who the governor was going to appoint," she said. "And we're not going to have that. I don't think anybody truly knows, and that's the Catch-22. If the governor made a public statement, that 'this is what I'm going to do,' then we could talk again. But that's not going to happen."
Such details about the substance of the conversation were available Tuesday only from the Monks camp. Black and Leary both confirmed that they attended the dinner. Clayton, Pope and Edmisten didn't return phone calls seeking comment.
Leary declined to discuss the substance of the meeting. "I was invited. I attended. I stayed about an hour and I left ... after two cups of coffee," he said, adding that beyond that, he wouldn't comment.
Black said Edmisten is "a close family friend" of hers and had issued the invitations. She denied participating in any conversation about the DA's race, and said the group went to Edmisten's office after dinner to look over some mementos of the former attorney general's political career, including a subpoena for White House tapes he served on former President Richard Nixon as a staff attorney on the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee. Edmisten was an aide to the late U.S. Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., chairman of the committee.
"Others may have discussed it, but I didn't discuss it," Black said when she'd talked with others at the dinner about the DA's race.
Monks and Woods were firm, however, in saying that while they enjoyed seeing the Nixon subpoena at Edmisten's office, they had also talked about the race with Black and Clayton.
"They were engaged in a dialogue about whether or not I should withdraw," Monks said. "That was their side. My side was, 'I'm a good candidate who deserves to be supported.' "
Woods added that her invitation to the dinner came by phone from Clayton's law office, not Edmisten's.
She and Monks disagreed somewhat on the role Edmisten -- who has done commentary on the Duke lacrosse case for Court TV -- played in the discussion.
Monks said Edmisten's presence was the "drawing card" that convinced people to attend, and that he tried to facilitate the discussion without pushing an agenda of his own. The former attorney general acted as "a mediator or someone to say, 'Guys, let's just talk here, what do you want to do for the good of the community,' " Monks said.
Woods, however, said it was clear to her that while he avoided criticizing Nifong, Edmisten wanted Monks to drop out of the race. She agreed with Monks about Edmisten's role as a drawing card.
"I don't care who you are and which side of the bridge you're on, you can't go out to dinner with Rufus Edmisten and not have a good time," she said. "He's just an enjoyable, amiable type of person. However, be assured, I was on my guard because I knew I was up against somebody who certainly wasn't in my camp."
Asked for their reaction, Cheek and Nifong both commented on the mix of people present at the dinner, with Nifong terming it "unusual" and Cheek "odd."
Cheek said he can understand why some people would ask Monks to withdraw.
"People are voting on whether they want Mike Nifong to be their district attorney for the next four years or not," he said. "First thing is you've got two choices and not three, and you've got two names on the ballot. That makes it easier. And you eliminate the idea of a pure write-in situation, and that makes it easier."
Nifong said that, like Monks, he doesn't see the point of putting the decision about who serves back in Easley's lap.
"I am still puzzled about why there are so many people who want someone other than the voters to make that decision," he said. "These people who have made it clear they don't want me to be DA, as is their absolute right, have had ample opportunity to find someone to run against me. What they appear to be doing is trying to get people to vote against me by suggesting some future possibility that's out of their hands."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-773380.html
Outraged by Nifong
I was surprised by Mary Portwood Artley's letter of Sept. 21. Artley previously contacted me and in a most pleasant conversation I explained that our research had shown most citizens did not mind, and even expected flyers on their cars during an election season. I admitted we did not know District Attorney Mike Nifong attended the church in question and in return she admitted he was not in attendance. I promised to avoid her church in the future and believed the matter to be settled in a cordial way.
However, after Artley's vehement letter, I feel I must answer with the following observations.
Despite her statement that other members of that church were outraged, curiously, we received only one other complaint. Elections are a private matter and even Artley cannot gauge how much "outrage" there may be at seeing a flyer on one's car versus seeing Nifong's outrageous behavior as DA.
Recall Nifong-Vote Cheek is a grassroots campaign made up of people campaigning -- not in their own private interest, not for power, or increased pensions, or the pursuit of an unbridled ego. We are proud to be Durhamites and are dismayed at the way Nifong has disgraced our community nationally and divided this diverse community of families locally.
Sometimes, we will make mistakes. But please remember: There is nothing in this campaign for ourselves, except a better Durham for all of us.
BETH BREWER
Durham
September 27, 2006
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsletters/
Prostitution is a crime too. Nobody in Durham seems to care.
Mangum can take what money? She isn't going to any money out of this deal.
I agree that Crystal probably thought she was going to make some money off this. The fact that it would be illegal is somewhat irrelevant given the FA's "profession".
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2006/09/27/News/Research.Reveals.Impact.Of.Lax.Scandal.On.Dukes.Image-2310891.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
Research reveals impact of lax scandal on Duke's image
[ Jury duty in Durham]-- Hopefully a moot issue in the coming months.
As you can read from excerpts below, it seems nothing in Durham comes easy.
March 1, 2000 The News & Observer
Jury duty missed
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER Lead
DURHAM -- Donna Hardy didn't realize she had missed jury duty until she read the morning paper. There, in black and white, she discovered that a judge had ordered no-show jurors to come to court Friday and explain their absence. "I saw it and thought, 'Oh my God, I missed it,' and it was all over the paper," Hardy said. "I just got the call that I have to go before a judge Friday, and I'm shaking in my
[View the full-text article, 750 words]
April 15, 2004 The News & Observer
Deputies scoop 7 for jury pool
Samiha Khanna Staff Writer
DURHAM -- Sheriff's deputies on the hunt this week for 43 missing prospective jurors found seven who came to court Wednesday to tell a judge why they missed jury duty. The seven residents could have been cited for contempt of court, but Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones excused two of the no-shows and told the rest to report for duty next week. Of the other missing members of the jury pool, six were excused due to age and deputies couldn't find 30, many
[View the full-text article, 470 words]
March 4, 2000 The News & Observer
Durham jury list is suspect
John Sullivan STAFF WRITER
DURHAM -- During a week when more than 100 people apparently failed to report for jury duty, county officials said Friday that the problem might be with the county's list of potential jurors, not apathy. The discovery came on the same day that Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones slapped a dozen of the no-shows with $50 fines for shirking their obligation to serve earlier this week. Kathy Shuart, the county's trial court administrator, said a State Board of Elections
[View the full-text article, 764 words]
April 14, 2000 The News & Observer
Jury absence nets jail time
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER Lead
DURHAM -- A man who failed to show up for jury duty last month was arrested before dawn Wednesday and spent 12 hours in the Durham County jail after a Superior Court judge cited him with contempt of court. When Judge Abe Jones found out that Rodney Duane Johnson had been arrested and was being held because he couldn't raise $50 bail, Jones left a civil trial to hear the case. Jones said it was only the second time in his four years on the bench that he has ordered someone
[View the full-text article, 509 words]
March 7, 2000 The News & Observer
Weighing jury no-shows
Editorial
Well, it seems that Durham County residents called to jury duty aren't particularly uncivic-minded after all. Court officials seeking jurors couldn't obtain the latest voter registration rolls from the county elections office, so they settled for a state database containing the name of every voter who'd ever registered in the county. But the list included the deceased and some people who long ago had moved away. That snafu might be thought of as funny, as are
[View the full-text article, 309 words]
February 24, 2000 The News & Observer
The case of the missing jurors has counties scrambling
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER
It's been a tough week for some of the state's judges, who are finding that a growing number of people no longer believe that jury duty - like voting - is a civic responsibility worth fulfilling. In Johnston County, a judge, frustrated after dozens of potential jurors failed to show up for a capital murder trial, ordered them to appear before him Wednesday to explain why they were no-shows. In Durham County, where the rate of compliance is among the lowest in the
[View the full-text article, 1506 words]
March 15, 2000 The News & Observer
Judge continues his campaign to fill jury pool in Durham
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER
DURHAM -- A judge ordered sheriff's deputies to arrest four people Tuesday after they failed to show up in court to explain why they missed jury duty last week. The action is the latest in a battle Superior Court Judge Abe Jones is waging against people who don't show up for jury duty as the county struggles to fix problems with the list it uses to call potential jurors. Because the list mistakenly included the names of thousands of registered voters who no longer
[View the full-text article, 504 words]
April 14, 2004 The News & Observer
Prospective jurors get a message
Ann S. Kim
Andrea Weigl Staff Writers
DURHAM -- When close to half of the 83 prospective jurors failed to report for duty Tuesday at the Durham County courthouse, Judge Abraham Jones had a solution: Order the no-shows to come in and explain themselves. Deputies were sent around the county to serve three dozen court orders. The no-shows are to appear in court this morning. "I'm trying to send a message that jury summonses have to be responded to and respected," Jones said in an
[View the full-text article, 964 words]
February 20, 2003 The News & Observer
Potential juror jailed for use of alcohol
From Staff Reports
DURHAM -- A judge threw a man in jail Wednesday after he showed up for jury duty in Durham Superior Court with alcohol on his breath. Judge J.B. Allen received a complaint that Howard McCoy Fuller had accosted a court clerk in the hallway during a break. Fuller was a member of the jury pool and could have been selected to sit on the jury of an assault case. Allen asked Fuller to approach the judge's bench and ordered him to exhale. After getting a smell, Allen exclaimed,
[View the full-text article, 165 words]
March 7, 2000 The News & Observer
Jury pool grows deeper after fines
Civic duty found more compelling
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER
DURHAM -- Last week, the Durham courts had barely enough people to seat a jury. But Monday, just days after a judge fined eight people who failed to appear for jury duty, there weren't enough seats for potential jurors. More than 90 of the 139 people who were summoned for jury duty showed up for court, raising the temperature in the jury room so high that clerks had to open the doors. About a dozen people sat on the floor for several hours, waiting to be called. No one had
[View the full-text article, 333 words]
September 16, 1992 The News & Observer
Free jury parking in works County will lease spaces in city lot
THOMAS HEALY Staff writer
DURHAM -- Jury duty might never be fun, but at least you won't have to pay for parking. One month after the county took away the downtown jury parking lot, officials have come up with a way to provide 50 spaces a day for jurors just a stone's throw from the Durham Judicial Building. And the best part is, they're free. Under the plan, approved by the county commissioners Monday night, the county will pay $25,000 a year to lease spaces in a city-owned
[View the full-text article, 290 words]
July 1, 2000 The News & Observer
Jury penalties are dismissed
JOHN SULLIVAN STAFF WRITER
DURHAM -- A Superior Court judge has thrown out the contempt of court findings against six people who failed to appear for jury duty. In March, Superior Court Judge Abraham Jones found the six in contempt, a criminal misdemeanor, and fined them. But on Friday, Superior Court Judge Ronald Stephens dismissed the convictions, ruling that Jones had failed to follow required criminal procedure and inform the potential jurors of their rights, including their right to refuse to testify against
[View the full-text article, 462 words]
June 24, 1992 The News & Observer
Judge checks out juror's excuse Durham officer sent to man's house to verify child's chicken pox
THOMAS HEALY Staff writer
DURHAM -- Judge Anthony Brannon has heard his share of excuses from folks trying to squirm out of jury duty. So when a juror called Tuesday to say his 4-year-old daughter had a case of chicken pox, the veteran of the bench didn't bite. Instead, he sent a sheriff's deputy to the man's house to check the story out. What did the deputy find? A little girl with chicken pox. The incident unfolded after Lincoln Scott awoke Tuesday to find red dots on his
[View the full-text article, 351 words]
June 14, 2003 The News & Observer
Judge upset over potential juror's hardship
Demorris Lee Staff Writer
DURHAM -- Evangeline Lavette Doster had a persuasive reason for avoiding jury duty in the Mike Peterson murder trial: She would have to collect welfare if taken away from her job at a day-care center for six to eight weeks. "I'm the only source of income," said Doster, 34, a mother of three. "I would have to apply for aid from social services." Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson dismissed Doster from the jury but also
[View the full-text article, 640 words]
March 10, 2000 The News & Observer
Finger-pointing on faulty list for Durham jury picks
County got what it sought, state says
John Sullivan STAFF WRITER Lead
DURHAM -- The State Board of Elections says it is not to blame for a bad voter registration list that caused the courts to send thousands of summonses to people who no longer live in the county. "The guys who generated that list generate exactly what they are asked for," said Bob Rauf, who runs the state election board's information technology department. Now, the county Board of Elections, the state elections board and the county's
[View the full-text article, 660 words]
August 12, 1992 The News & Observer
Judge objects to jurors' loss of free parking
THOMAS HEALY Staff writer
DURHAM -- It's already one of the most undesirable jobs around. The hours are long and the pay's lousy. Not to mention that it's tedious work that often involves deciding the future of people you've never met. Now jury duty in Durham is about to become even more of a drag. As of Aug. 17, the parking lot for jurors will be closed so workers can begin construction of a new county office building. As a result, those called for jury duty will
[View the full-text article, 502 words]
February 29, 2000 The News & Observer
No-shows in jury pool get day in court
John Sullivan STAFF WRITER
DURHAM -- A Superior Court judge said Monday that 61 people who didn't report for jury duty as summoned will have to come to court Friday and explain why. And if their excuse isn't convincing, Judge Abraham Penn Jones said, he'll slap them with fines or one-day jail terms; the choice will be theirs. "We've got a problem here," said Jones, who is from Wake County. "I've seen 60 percent not show or
* *
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.