"You know we're F@#ked"
Posted on 06/14/2007 11:38:15 AM PDT by Uncledave
Lawyer Testifies Against Duke Prosecutor Jun 14 11:29 AM US/Eastern By AARON BEARD Associated Press Writer
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Lawyers for three Duke lacrosse players once accused of raping a stripper repeatedly asked District Attorney Mike Nifong to turn over the full results of DNA testing, a lawyer testified Thursday during Nifong's ethics trial.
Brad Bannon, who represented former student Dave Evans, also recounted the offers he and other defense attorneys made to meet with Nifong before he sought indictments against their clients. Nifong refused, he said.
The North Carolina State Bar charged Nifong with violating rules of professional conduct in his handling of the high-profile case.
Among the charges are allegations that Nifong kept the full details of the DNA testing from the defense. If convicted by the bar's disciplinary committee, Nifong could be stripped of his license to practice law in the state.
Dr. Brian Meehan, director of DNA Security Inc., testified on Wednesday that he and Nifong did not conspire to keep the results from defense attorneys, although he said Nifong never asked for a final and complete report on his lab's findings.
"We did not withhold anything," Meehan testified.
The test results found that none of the DNA on the stripper's body matched the players she accused of raping her at a March 2006 team party.
Despite the lack of DNA evidence tying them to the case, Nifong won indictments against Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. The three were later cleared by the state attorney general, who called them "innocent" victims of a rogue prosecutor's "tragic rush to accuse."
Seligmann and Finnerty were in the courtroom Thursday.
Meehan said Wednesday that an initial DNA report he provided to Nifong was never intended to be all-inclusive.
"We don't typically force-feed reports to clients," Meehan said. "When he was ready for a final report, we thought he would let us know."
When Nifong released the initial report to defense attorneys in May they quickly trumpeted the news that Meehan's lab had been unable to find a conclusive match between the accuser and any lacrosse players.
But it wasn't until much later that the defense received the background details of the test results, which indicated there was genetic material from several other males on the accuser's underwear and body, but none from any member of the lacrosse team.
Meehan testified that he was concerned that releasing all the information would have violated the privacy of those tested.
But Meehan said he would have turned it over had Nifong asked for the information. He hinted that defense attorneys should have noticed a reference to the additional test information in the May report, though it didn't specifically state what was available.
State Bureau of Investigation agent Jennifer Leyn later testified that the agency's reports on DNA testing always contain complete information.
Joseph Cheshire, another attorney for Evans, angrily insisted after the hearing that it was Nifong's responsibility to provide all the test results.
"It's an absurdity," he said. "(Meehan) works for the prosecutor. He's the prosecutor's employee under the attorney work-product doctrine. You don't mess with another lawyer's experts. You call the lawyer."
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Nifong = democrat lawyer = corrupt loathsome grandstanding deceitful toad
Nifong should be imprisoned and his assets confiscated to pay the lacrosse player’s legal bills. Just for a start.
It shouldn’t take the Bar Association more than 5 minutes to disbar Nifong. He deliberately withheld DNA evidence that would have cleared the la cross players. Even for a lawyer Nifong is a slime.
Meehan had knowledge that the boys were innocent. They should sue him and his company for $ millions.
This attitude pisses me off. Both the prosecutor and his experts work for the government, and the government's true interest in any criminal case is obtaining the truth.
The defense attorney is obliged to seek the best possible result for his client, but the prosecutor has an obligation to drop the case if it becomes clear that his target is innocent.
The prosecutor's experts are not paid from his personal funds, but rather by the government, and they need to act accordingly.
Both the prosecutor and "expert" engaged in criminal behavior here, and need to be held accountable.
The most amazing thing I heard in all of this was Finnarty. He had videotape, eyewitness, cell phone, and documentary evidence that he wasn’t at the house at the time of the “incident.” His lawyers tried to contact Nifong. He refused to sit down and hear the evidence and then indicted anyway. How you can keep pushing charges against someone who was seen by many and caught on video at a restaurant and ATM is beyond me.
Do you mean Seligman?
One would think he wouldn't need much money or pretty things where he belongs.
Regarding assets, two words, innocent spouse.
If I’m sued for doing something really really stupid that messes up somebody’s life, I shouldn’t be financially liable because my wife had nothing to do with it?
That’s a new one.
Actually it’s a very old one and since 1998 innocent spouse laws have been expanded to tax relief laws.
You are still financially liable but any assets you co-own with your spouse are deemed to be held in undivided interest and thus are insulated from attachment.
If you are one of thse sneaky spouses that keeps a seperate bank account hidden from your other half, that would be free game as would future earnings.
Colin Finnerty also had an air-tight massively documented alibi of innocence, just like Seligman. Finnerty’s lawyers chose a different strategy: waiting patiently, not revealing the full depth of Colin’s innocence, and letting Nifong and the lying Magnum hang themselves in their own endless lies and deceit.
” ...I shouldn’t be financially liable because my wife had nothing to do with it?”
Most savvy businessmen/professionals are sure to have their valuable asets either in joint names or the wife’s name so it can’t be gotten to in a case like this. Of course in the case of a divorce ...
And ya ain’t even gonna get a kiss.
“You are still financially liable but any assets you co-own with your spouse are deemed to be held in undivided interest and thus are insulated from attachment.”
EyeGuy wants to know if this applies also to medical malpractice settlements.
Thanks.
Meehan’s days as an “expert” are over.
Judgements, yes.
Settlements can be tricky, you would have to have agreement from the spouse.
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.