Posted on 11/28/2006 6:02:52 AM PST by Ready4Freddy
Duke has so many problems right now that spending money on a performing arts center for Durham is the least of our worries. Frankly, I would rather they do that than spend it on the crackpots on their faculty or some of the so-called "departments" that the Gang of 88 populate. In either event, Duke will not see a dime out of me until this sorry no account cast of characters are gone. The real hit for Duke for their sorry decisions in this whole affair has not hit . . . yet. The hit comes next spring when we see the yield rate for applicants and whether the standards for admission erode. The next big hit is after the trial and it becomes as apparent to the public as it is to us that the case is a sick joke -- that's when the alumni contributions will whither. It is also why they desparately need a trial to substantiate the decisions they have made thus far.
You do have a good point. Brodhead has spent his presidency currying favor with Durham at the expense of his students. For example, Brodhead received a standing ovation at the Durham NAACP for his actions in the lacrosse case. He has also remained silent (maybe ewven duplicitous) in Durham;s policy of targeting Duke students for criminal prosecution on bogus charges. When he appears before alumni, his reception is muted. That tells me the jury is still out.
DA's critics ask bar, feds to intervene
Mike Nifong's detractors in the Duke lacrosse case want him punished for forcefully pursuing charges
Joseph Neff, Anne Blythe and Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writers, N&O, Dec 03, 2006
In the war that is the Duke lacrosse case, Mike Nifong's fierce fight will not end with the trial.
Durham's district attorney will face a barrage of attacks on the federal and state level from foes who are determined to have Nifong investigated, punished and disbarred for his actions in the rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players.
Dozens of people, some connected to the accused, have asked the governor and the state attorney general to intervene. Many have complained to the N.C. State Bar, the agency that licenses and disciplines lawyers. And a lawyer for one of the indicted players has urged members of Congress to have the U.S. Department of Justice open a civil rights investigation.
The request for federal intervention is aggressive and rare, said Richard Myers, a UNC-Chapel Hill law professor and former federal prosecutor.
"It's a fairly strong indication the defense has nothing to hide if they want more eyes on the ground," Myers said. "How effective it's going to be, who knows? You cast a wide net and hope someone gets interested."
The attacks are a sign of the long and vicious battle ahead in the Duke lacrosse controversy.
Three former players, Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; Collin Finnerty, 20, of Garden City, N.Y.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Fells, N.J., are charged with rape, kidnapping and sexual offense. They are accused of gang-raping a woman hired though an escort service to dance at a team party in March.
Nifong has been criticized for statements he made in the week after the investigation became public, when he called the players "hooligans" and said he was certain a racially motivated rape had occurred.
After that first week, Nifong's torrent of comments slowed to a trickle. In his silence, the players and their attorneys have attacked Nifong, using his own documents and statements to accuse the veteran prosecutor of misconduct and to highlight weaknesses in the case.
Nifong declined to comment for this report. But in court, news releases and at news conferences, the prosecutor has responded to the criticisms against him, at times using language that sounds like an opening argument he might make to the State Bar in his defense.
At a July news conference, Nifong explained his early statements to the media by saying he was trying to inform the public that an investigation was in progress and to encourage cooperation from witnesses. Bar rules specifically allow prosecutors to make public statements for those reasons.
The request for a federal investigation came from Michael Cornacchia of New York, one of Finnerty's attorneys. He wrote to the U.S. attorney general, the FBI director, the congressional delegations of North Carolina and Long Island and others, saying Nifong had violated the civil rights of the three players. The case merits an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote Cornacchia, a former prosecutor who recently served as chief investigative counsel for the probe of the United Nation's oil-for-food program.
N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper and Gov. Mike Easley received scores of letters requesting that they take over the case, something North Carolina law does not allow. These letters ranged from well-researched, artfully composed missives to profane rants from phony e-mail addresses. They came from family friends and business colleagues of the accused. Some were from outside observers. Many were sent from out of state, and a good number came from Durham.
Although State Bar complaints are confidential, at least 17 became public records when they were copied to the governor or state attorney general.
"I would think of this as misconduct by a DA and that for some reason, maybe political, he has painted a fabricated picture," wrote Edwin G. Beusse, a New York developer who works with Finnerty's father, in a letter Aug. 9. "Isn't there a check or balance for situations like this that are so far out there, that they're obviously false?"
Molly M. Maguire of Darien, Conn., wrote June 13, "It is frightening to think of any American being victimized by our own legal system and devastating to know that three promising lives are held hostage to a not-so-hidden political agenda." Maguire is a friend of the Finnerty family.
The chances of a federal investigation are unknown; a State Bar investigation is more likely. The bar complaints accuse Nifong of violating the ethics rules governing pretrial publicity and bringing disrepute to the justice system. The complaints cite specific actions by Nifong throughout the investigation as violations of State Bar rules.
Bar officials have responded in writing to the complainants, saying they take the matter seriously. State law prohibits them from saying whether an investigation is under way.
Whatever happens at the State Bar, the organization will be under pressure. The bar has been smarting from its handling of two high-profile cases involving prosecutorial misconduct over the past two years.
In 2004, David Hoke and Debra Graves were reprimanded for withholding evidence during the trial of Alan Gell, who spent nine years behind bars, half of that on death row, for a murder he did not commit. The withheld evidence included statements showing that the murder occurred while Gell was in jail on a petty charge and a tape-recording of the star witness talking about "making up a story" for police.
Bar sharply criticized
The State Bar came under withering criticism for its prosecution of Hoke and Graves. During its investigation, the bar interviewed only Hoke and Graves and did not talk to key witnesses such as detectives or other lawyers. The uproar prompted the bar to conduct an unprecedented public self-examination, which found deficiencies and flawed practices in the case. One of the ensuing conclusions was that the bar should consider hiring outside prosecutors in high-profile cases.
In the second case, also involving a death penalty trial, the bar's prosecutor went after Kenneth Honeycutt and Scott Brewer aggressively, charging them with lying, cheating and withholding evidence. The bar alleged that the former Union County prosecutors had committed a string of felonies, including hiding evidence from the judge and jury, altering documents and lying to the trial judge.
The State Bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission, a separate entity that acts as judge and jury in such cases, twice dismissed the case on technicalities. The bar has appealed; a special prosecutor is investigating the criminal case against the two lawyers.
The State Bar's charter is not to punish lawyers but to protect the public. The bar has intervened on an emergency basis in some situations, said general counsel Katherine Jean. For example, the State Bar can freeze a lawyer's trust account if it thinks the lawyer has been stealing money. And the bar can suspend the license of a lawyer in prison.
Mary Ann Tally, a defense lawyer who has followed the State Bar's misconduct cases, said that if a complaint against Nifong is later pursued by the grievance committee, there could be questions about why there was not immediate action.
"If they are complaints that have to do with what is going on right now and will continue to go on until this case is resolved, I guess the question I have is why isn't the bar doing anything about it right now?" Tally said. "It seems to me there's a tremendous amount of pressure on the bar and a lot of public expectation on, 'Can you do the right thing, and can you do it in a timely fashion?' "
http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/517392.html
"The request for a federal investigation came from Michael Cornacchia of New York, one of Finnerty's attorneys. He wrote to the U.S. attorney general, the FBI director, the congressional delegations of North Carolina and Long Island and others, saying Nifong had violated the civil rights of the three players. The case merits an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, wrote Cornacchia, a former prosecutor who recently served as chief investigative counsel for the probe of the United Nation's oil-for-food program."
"Dozens of people, some connected to the accused, have asked the governor and the state attorney general to intervene. Many have complained to the N.C. State Bar, the agency that licenses and disciplines lawyers. And a lawyer for one of the indicted players has urged members of Congress to have the U.S. Department of Justice open a civil rights investigation."
"It's a fairly strong indication the defense has nothing
to hide if they want more eyes on the ground," Myers said.
The attacks are a sign of the long and vicious battle ahead
in the Duke lacrosse controversy.
Are they going to do that? Is that "payment in kind" for something?
There is no way for the state to take over this case, is that what I'm reading?
I can't decide which this is more embarassing to: Duke or the legal system of NC.
Link to new thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1747750/posts?page=1
Somewhere I read that, yes. The Performing Arts Center would be very large. I don't remember the exact number of seats, maybe 2400 or 2800. It would be slightly smaller than Carnegie Hall and larger than the largest Broadway theatre.
If I were a Duke alumna I would think twice before I gave a large amount to the annual fund.
Yes a hit will come next year but a hit already happened this spring. I hear from friends that Duke has already felt an initial impact. They had to dip into their waiting list almost immediately and the summer melt was significant. It will be interesting to see the numbers in January. That could be an indication of what is to come in the spring.
"They had to dip into their waiting list almost immediately and the summer melt was significant. "
Poor Robert Steel, who thought it was so important--fair or not, right or not--to get rid of those photos of lacrosse players at practice, may be about to learn that people judge his university on much tougher grounds--
like, whether it is in the kid business, or the PR business...
How do application fees compare with colleges' costs for processing applications, acceptance letters, etc.?
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.