October 30, 2006

"Go ahead, put marks on me. That's what I want. Go ahead."

More news in the Duke lacrosse team rape case.

7 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

Nifong's behavior in this case sickens me and is scary. From your article a quote from a Discovery session last week:

Nifong, who is seeking re-election next month, stunned defense attorneys in court last week when he said that he had yet to interview the accuser "about the facts of that night."

"I've had conversations with [the accuser] about how she's doing," Nifong said. "I've had conversations with her about seeing her kids. I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. … We're not at that stage yet."


7 months later. amazing....

Beyond his behavior, the NYT and most of the MSM have been very unprofessional in their reporting as well.

Susan said...

When I read the part that said Nifong was up for re-election, I wondered how he was doing. It appears he is leading
in the polls
. Truly depressing.

David said...

A stripper who likes 'rough sex' and a politician up for reelection. No contradiction in terms there! What is strange is the silence from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Sounds like Tawanna Brawley, Part II, Case of the scheming Prosecutor.

TWM said...

Someone at The Corner - my apologies to him or her for not remembering - said we should stop referring to this case as the Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case and instead call it the Nifong Prosecutorial Misconduct Case.

Then again the former title sill makes sense, only it is the Lacrosse Team that is the victim.

JohnF said...

I think it is actually not that common for the lawyer who will be prosecuting a rape case to interview the victim, especially when there are conflicts in her testimony. The risk is that he can be called as a witness to what the victim said, which could require his withdrawal as counsel. Rather, investigators, e.g., cops, do the interviewing.

NSC said...

By they time you start indicting people the prosecuting attorney usually talks to the victim - rarely do they trust the investigators so much that they don't want to hear it themselves at that stage.

At least that has been my experience.

tjl said...

In a high-profile case like this, it's unusual for the DA or his assistants not to have interviewed the complainant this late in the game. If you haven't personally spoken with your witnesses, you have no idea how they'll respond to questioning at trial, and you can't plan your trial strategy.

The obvious explanation is that Nifong knows only too well that the complainant has huge credibility problems. He's afraid that if he interviews her, he'll learn something he'll have to disclose to the defense pursuant to Brady v. Maryland. (Brady requires the prosecution to reveal any material which may exculpate the defendant.)