Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nifong has no recall of session (He, officers differ on meeting at lab)
The News & Observer ^ | 3/2/07 | Anne Blythe

Posted on 03/02/2007 3:19:00 AM PST by ricks_place

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the lead investigators in the Duke lacrosse case have different recollections of the first time they huddled at the Burlington laboratory that provided DNA testing for the prosecution.

Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and Investigator Benjamin Himan each listed in their case notes that they were at DNA Security on April 10, a week before any indictments in the case.

And Himan noted that Nifong was present at the meeting with Brian Meehan, head of the private lab.

But in a letter to the N.C. State Bar released this week, Nifong said he could not recall the event, although he acknowledged that a meeting occurred.

"I can only report that I have no recollection of that meeting and that I have no documentation or other evidence that I ever attended such a meeting," Nifong said in the Jan. 16 letter.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: duke; dukelax; dukelaxduke; idontrecall; nifong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last
To: ricks_place
The lacrosse case arose "during the last few weeks of a hotly-contested Democratic Party primary in which I was seeking to retain my office," he said. "I was not always able to give the case my full attention."

Yes, we know. He was more concerned about his reelection than getting to the bottom of the case.

41 posted on 03/02/2007 1:37:46 PM PST by Texas Mom (Two places you're always welcome - church and Grandma's house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abb
Perhaps Nifong needs to be hyptonized and guided to recollection of the session.
42 posted on 03/02/2007 2:16:56 PM PST by F.J. Mitchell (Dems and RINOs: Too stupid 2 lead, too vain 2 follow, too egotistical 2 get the hell out of the way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican; freespirited
But Nifong said he did not see the test results as necessarily favorable to the defense. "They neither suggested that no assault took place nor that the assault was committed by someone else," Nifong said.

Uh, its not up to you Mr. Nifong to suggest what, if any, is the significance of the evidence.

That is absolutely correct, as Nifong should (but evidently does not) know. In United States v. Smith, 77 F.3d 511, 514 (D.C. Cir. 1996), the D.C. Circuit noted that in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court "stress[ed] that a reviewing court must focus on the fairness of the trial the defendant actually received rather than on whether a different result would have occurred had the undisclosed evidence been revealed." As explained by the Court in Kyles, 514 U.S. at 439-40:

"This means, naturally, that a prosecutor anxious about tacking too close to the wind will disclose a favorable piece of evidence. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976) ('The prudent prosecutor will resolve doubtful questions in favor of disclosure.') This is as it should be. Such disclosure will serve to justify trust in the prosecutor as 'the representative . . . of a sovereignty . . . whose interest . . . in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.' Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). And it will tend to preserve the criminal trial, as distinct from the prosecutor's private deliberations, as the chosen forum for ascertaining the truth about criminal accusations."

In other words, it is for the jury, not the prosecutor, to decide whether favorable Brady information is credible; otherwise "prosecutors might, on a claim that they thought it unreliable, refuse to produce any matter whatever helpful to the defense, thus setting Brady at nought." Lindsey v. King, 769 F.2d 1034, 1040 (5th Cir. 1985).

43 posted on 03/02/2007 2:48:17 PM PST by Bitter Bierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dante3

His first wife supported him while he went through school. Once he was finished he didn't need her any more. He took off with someone else and left his wife and little daughter. He is *not* a nice guy.


44 posted on 03/02/2007 3:01:47 PM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
"For me, this case was an eyewitness identification case, one in which I was looking for DNA evidence that either corroborated that identification or refuted it," Nifong said.

OK, so what DNA evidence would have refuted it? Perhaps finding DNA of multiple different men in each of her orifices, none of which matched any of the men that she identified?

I'm having a hard time thinking of any way that DNA evidence could have refuted the identification any more definitively than that.

45 posted on 03/02/2007 5:17:45 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy (What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place
On the advice of counsel, I cannot recall!

You.. can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You can be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes! You say.. "Steve.. how can I be a millionaire.. and never pay taxes?" First.. get a million dollars.

Now.. you say, "Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, 'You.. have never paid taxes'?" Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language: "I forgot!"

How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say "I forgot"? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, "I forgot armed robbery was illegal."

Let's suppose he says back to you, "You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, 'I forgot'?" Two simple words: Excuuuuuse me!!"

Steve Martin, Saturday Night Live (1977)

46 posted on 03/02/2007 5:29:47 PM PST by Bubba_Leroy (What did Rather know and when did he know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

I think Nifong goes down before the bar. He can't make these
bizzare denials make up for the fact he did not give the defense exculpatory evidence. This is the fatal shoe to drop.


47 posted on 03/02/2007 6:34:32 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

Didn't Reagan used it in Iran-Contra.


48 posted on 03/02/2007 6:38:19 PM PST by Pan_Yans Wife (Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.--William Goldman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Point 5 should be expanned as Nifong also claims he knew the defendants would get the underlying data, although Nifong argued against them getting it in court accusing the defense attorneys of a witch hunt, and thus he did not need to disclose those results to the defense in a report. Basically Nifong is saying that you get discloture only if you are rich enough to pay for your own expert to examine the data.


49 posted on 03/02/2007 6:43:43 PM PST by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ricks_place

Disbarment is too lenient a punishment for this scumbag. He deserves hard time. You can bet that his behavior in the Lax case is not isolated. There could be dozens more people railroaded by Nifong.


50 posted on 03/02/2007 8:03:22 PM PST by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Mom

The DA's race wasn't hotly contested when the case began. Nifong was at least twenty points behind Freda Black at that point. It only became hotly contested when black racists got behind Nifong because they wanted the white boys' heads delivered to them on Nifong's tin platter of justice.


51 posted on 03/03/2007 1:15:36 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Bitter Bierce

This really should never have been a question. The jury is the trier of facts in the case given to them by the court. But for DAs playing fast and loose, this would never have come up. They forget who they work for, and that the public trust demands they seek justice, not just notches on their headboards.


52 posted on 03/03/2007 1:22:36 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tarheel

Can you believe he actually put these words in print on paper and gave it to the N.C. Bar?

He is proving over and over how stupid he is.


53 posted on 03/03/2007 1:23:06 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy

Nifong knew he had no DNA before he had swampwoman's identifications, so that excuse doesn't cut it, either.


54 posted on 03/03/2007 1:25:02 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: abb
There’s a totally different standard you set for somebody who is going to be the elected district attorney and get into politics, and then there’s somebody who you want just to run the office. Because when you get out there and start making political comments, it requires a whole lot of different talent, a whole lot of different skills that obviously he didn’t have. And he would not have been appointed had we known he was going to run.

BS.

55 posted on 03/03/2007 1:26:16 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

http://www.gdd.net/bkholiday/index.php


56 posted on 03/03/2007 1:26:48 AM PST by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Fatal, probably, but I hope not the last shoe to drop. I want the identification shenanigans looked into by the bar.


57 posted on 03/03/2007 1:27:08 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

CHARLIE ROSE: He handed over the prosecution to someone else. And the rape charges have been ...

MICHAEL EASLEY: They’re under investigation.





Clueless to the end, Mikey boy.


58 posted on 03/03/2007 1:27:17 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Is Easley always so stupid?


59 posted on 03/03/2007 1:29:58 AM PST by Jezebelle (Our tax dollars are paying the ACLU to sue the Christ out of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Jezebelle

He is a complete simpleton; I'm amazed he's elected over and over.

He apparently is as dimwitted as Nifong.


60 posted on 03/03/2007 1:32:52 AM PST by Howlin (Honk if you like Fred Thompson!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-78 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson