Ex-Lacrosse Players File Sweeping Federal Lawsuit

[laureloak]

Source: WRAL TV

Greensboro — Three former Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape have filed a federal civil lawsuit against several defendants, including former District Attorney Mike Nifong and the city of Durham.

The 155-page complaint filed Friday morning does not mention a specific amount for damages, but does ask for numerous reforms to the way the Durham Police Department handles criminal investigations, inluding the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee the department for 10 years. (Read a summary of the lawsuit.)

A city spokewoman said the city's attorneys will conduct a "full and thorough review" and fight the complaint.

"We understand the complaint assesses claims against the city and its employees that appear to be based on untested and unproven legal theories," Durham spokeswoman Beverly Thompson said in a prepared statement. "In light of that, the City Council has directed legal counsel to vigorously defend the city and city employees in court against this lawsuit."

Among the reforms are changes to the photo identification lineups that helped secure indictments against David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann and giving the monitor oversight that would include the power to hire, fire and promote police department personnel, including the chief of police.

Other reforms include:

Establishing a three-member independent citizens review panel that would review and publicly hear complaints of misconduct by the police department.

Requiring all eyewitness lineups and identifications be videotaped.

Requiring results of DNA and other scientific tests to include all raw data.

Training current and new police personnel on the chain of command in criminal investigations, issuing public stations, conducting identification procedures, serving warrants, prohibiting threats against witnesses, standardizing notes and other documents, supervising private contractors and standardizing probable cause.

Requiring the police department monitor to have prior approval to press releases, fliers, posters or other written or spoken material in an ongoing investigation.

Requiring the police department monitor to approve all warrants and the way they are handed over to the district attorney.
-snip


Read more: http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1896692/

[Enrique]

1. maybe some good will come of this

they seem to be trying to be constructive.

[Mike Daniels]

15. Yep, looks like they want protect everyone from what they went through.

[Hepburn]

2. I wish them the VERY best!

:applause:

[robcon]

3. I don't think they have a leg to stand on

There are a lot of reasons why public officials should have immunity from these lawsuits - primarily that a lawsuit would be started every time a defendant is found not guilty.

Nifong is a lying piece of shit, and I'm glad he spent a short time in jail, but his actions as DA should be shielded from this lawsuit.

[Lance_Boyle]

5. Nifong may well be shielded

but the City of Durham *is* his shield, and will suffer for his crimes.

I think pretty much all of the reforms mentioned in the OP's blurb would be good things. I don't think you'd find much of the Durham citizenry (who have no overabundance of trust for "their" police department) opposed to the mentioned reforms, either.

[Sadie4629]

8. Including the *crime* of

hiding exculpatory evidence??

[melm00se]

10. if this were a case

of "the case went to court and a jury of 12 and true found the defendants 'not guilty'", I'd agree with you.

But in this case, Nifong acted recklessly and negligently in a politically motivated pursuit of this case. He withheld/supressed exculpatory DNA evidence for 6 months.

His conduct was so egregious that the bar took his license.

Perhaps, just perhaps, if this type punishment was a very real threat, you might see a lot less prosecutorial conduct in cases.

[Blue_Tires]

4. if what they want is reform

why SUE to try to get it (and this is a thin suit, imo)? are there not normal ways to petition a government for change (i think i recall reading that somewhere)

[Solon]

14. Lawsuits are just one of the ways to get redresses for grievances...

In fact, it is one of the more normal ways to petition the government, and has been used successfully in the past. Segregation(Brown v. Board of Education), anti-miscegenation laws(Loving v. Virginia), the notorious "Grandfather Clause" (Guinn v. United States), racially-based restrictive covenants(Shelley v. Kraemer) which were restrictions on ownership and occupying property based on race were all overturned due to lawsuits. There have also been numerous lawsuits that restricted the powers of the Police, local governments, etc. over the years, all leading to current jurisprudence, I'm not saying that these guys are the equivalent of people in the past who struggled for equal rights, however, you cannot rightly say that lawsuits aren't a way to confront governments over perceived or real violations of your rights as citizens.

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Yes, they could write to their congressperson!

:sarcasm:!!!

[JVS]

66. It's done a smashing job of ending the war! Oh wait, no it hasn't

[bluestateguy]

31. Governments and corporations don't just do things for you when you ask nicely

Standing outside in the town square singing "Kum-By-Yah" rarely brings about real policy changes.

That's why you need to sue people sometimes.

[pokercat999]

58. Armed insurrection for one, that may be a little over the

top in this case. Seems like a lawsuit is the best way to reign in the police/city hall/over zealous prosecutor etc.

[T Wolf]

6. Make no mistake - the rich boys ARE after the money. As pointed out

above, there are other ways to seek redress of grievances.

For instance, they could attempt to change the laws by participating in the political process. But there is no immediate payoff for that approach. And it takes more work than simply running to an ambulance chaser (to use their term).

[laureloak]

7. They were damaged for life by that attempt at railroading.

Of course they should be compensated for their expenses and then some.

They don't have to pursue legal changes to prevent this form of railroading from happening to "your poor kid" but they are. So let's hear some applause because they are doing the right thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[struggle4progress]

39. Duke kid's bonus: plum Wall St job (NY Post April 19, 2007)

By TODD VENEZIA

April 19, 2007 -- Crime may not pay, but innocence has brought one of the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players a Wall Street windfall.

Exonerated team captain David Evans has been given a plum job as an analyst at New York financial giant Morgan Stanley, the company confirmed yesterday.

The firm would not say what the salary would be, but the Wall Street Journal reported it will be "well into the six-figure range" as they called the job "one of the most prestigious on Wall Street." ...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04192007/news/regionalnews/duke_kids_bonu_regionalnews_todd_venezia.htm

[laureloak]

136. Are you serious? Did you hear Evans speaking?

He's obviously brilliant. No doubt that young man was headed for success and this case could easily have put him in prison.

Rich white boys deserve the same justice and/or compensation as everyone else, do you not agree?

[alcibiades_mystery]

117. Damaged for life?

How? Everybody here considers them heroes in the fight against injustice and "reverse racism" or whatever. Nobody believes they raped anyone. Nobody.

[knight_of_the_star]

125. Nobody?

How about you ask Jesse Jackson if he agrees with that sentiment.

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. And jesse Jackson can exert influence on their lives how?

Please. You go from "Damaged for Life" to "Jesse Jackson hasn't recanted," or some such.

These guys weren't "damaged for life." It's ridiculous hyperbole to say they were. Was an injustice done? Sure. But it was corrected. Should they sue? Maybe, I dunno.

But they're not "damaged for life." Let's take a step back from the ideology and look at what they're prospects really are. Stop being silly.

[knight_of_the_star]

138. Being silly?

Being pilloried and crucified in the media coast to coast is not being damaged for life? Or how about people who refuse to believe that they are genuinely innocent, or how that accusation will stick to them for the rest of their lives?

[alcibiades_mystery]

139. They were exonerated and applauded at twice the volume they were pilloried

And you damn well know it.

As for people who "refuse to believe" that they're innocent, those people have so little effect on the actual daily practices and life prospects of these young men that the refusal is marginal, if not outright irrelevant. You know and I know that they are widely considered victims in this whole affair, and certainly considered victims among those people who - ahem - "matter."

You just still wanna be mad, so you've invented this ruined lives business, etc. Now, why you still wanna be mad is the suspect thing.

[knight_of_the_star]

148. How about miscarriage of justice and abuse of the system?

If that doesn't make you mad I don't know what does. That I think is the worst thing that could happen to this country, throughout our history the power of the courts and courts themselves have always been above and beyond politics. That any attempt is made to corrupt the process for political gain like what happened there should be combated with zeal and without mercy.

[alcibiades_mystery]

149. Agreed on every point, but that's a different point

Yes, miscarriage of justice should be combated. But their lives aren't damaged forever. Yes, any attempt to subvert justice for political gain should be fought with zeal. But their lives aren't permanently damaged. i know it's tempting to change the subject to some claptrap everyone can support when you have no argument left, but it's also a bit dishonest, it seems to me. Nothing in any of my posts suggests that miscarriages of justice are good, or should be ignored. nothing. Zero. Nada. So your post is literally a non sequitor.

[knight_of_the_star]

150. No it isn't a non sequitor

For one it addresses your question about why I'm ticked about the whole affair.

For two there are and will always people who will say behind their backs and to their faces that they bought their way out of a trial. Just look around a bit on here if you don't believe me, not to mention the damage it did to them while it was all going on. That trial effectively turned their lives upside down while they were in the middle of going to college, that by itself has tremendous impact speaking from the experience of having had my job go on strike and that doesn't even touch a nationally televised rape accusation.

[alcibiades_mystery]

153. There was no trial

Your position is preposterous. These guys will lead extremely productive and fruitful lives. Their lives were affected, sure, but permanently damaged? Please. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[Mad_Dem_X]

131. Agreed

They are not "damaged for life." They are rich white boys, so they will get more chances than, say, if they were of a different race or financial background.

[Renew Deal]

134. That's the most racist thing I've heard all day.

Congratulations! :eyes:

[Renew Deal]

13. They don't live in that state

So they can't really participate in the legal process. Besides that, they deserve "the money." They have been damaged for life.

And since when was it wrong to be "rich?" You could be "rich" too.

[dogfacedboy]

79. "Damaged for life"???

While Nifong may have fucked up, these guys have not been "damaged for life".
The case got tossed, and it's over. I'll agree that a suit asking for compensation for their legal expenses is legit.

One thing everyone seems to forget: This case involved drunken frat boys and a stripper/hooker.
None of the characters in this circus are exactly pillars of society.

[Renew Deal]

84. Do a google search on these guys

At any time over the next 50 years and there will be a result saying they raped a girl. That
s how they were damaged for life.

[dogfacedboy]

106. All they have to do is have

their lawyers move to seal the records of this case.

I understand your point, but all that's happened is they were accused--not convicted.
They're frat boys looking for a payday.

[JeanGrey]

107. It included "drunken frat boys and a stripper" SO WHAT?

I am always amazed at the people that defended Crystal Magnum and her stripper status that it made no difference, and yet, try to tear down the boys that hired her because they did, as if it makes the crimes of Nifong understandable. Unbelievable.

[puffymuffins]

108. Agreed

I've seen many threads that discuss sex workers and how that is a legitimate trade, etc., but when sex workers are hired, all of a sudden the hirees are amoral? Sex workers good, hirees of sex workers bad. Doesn't compute for me.

[JeanGrey]

109. Yes. The point I was making exactly. I think the lawsuit is a good

thing - if it puts in controls to stop this from ever happening again - because the next person railroaded will probably be poor and if they had been and unable to hire what these kids did they'd go to prison for 20 years. And maybe, it might spread out across the U.S.

[knight_of_the_star]

126. Actually they can

It just gets taken to federal court. In fact the only thing they couldn't sue in that state is the State of North Carolina care of the 11th Amendment.

[CreekDog]

37. What is your evidence that all of them are rich?

What is their income and their wealth?

If you don't provide that info, then we will understand that you are wrong.

on edit: well, I guess the are rich *now*, but the idea that they were all rich is bogus.

[Triana]

70. I agree. They just want the bucks...if not, they'd use other means to seek

redress.

[Sadie4629]

9. I'm just sorry their suit doesn't include

the 88 professors who proclaimed them guilty without benefit of trial.

[LisaL]

26. They have settled with Duke, and that settlement presumably

prevents any possible lawsuits against any Duke employee.

[struggle4progress]

32. Where DO people come up with fictions like yours?

[fishwax]

36. the 88 professors did no such thing n/t

[yardwork]

52. Do you have evidence for that assertion?

The communications I've read from the Duke faculty did not proclaim the lacrosse players guilty of the crimes of rape and kidnapping. Rather, the professors were supporting many others - including students - who have pointed out some serious systemic issues with the social structure at Duke. As a former student, I happen to agree with them.

Nowhere have I read any statement from these faculty that the lacrosse players were guilty. Those words have been attributed to them by people - including Bill O'Reilly - who have right-wing agendas.

I am horrified by Nifong's behavior and firmly believe that the lacrosse players were unjustly accused of crimes. However, there is no question that there is a long, long history of bad behavior on the part of privileged students - often white, nominally straight students with privileged backgrounds including private schools and recognition as athletes - mistreating other students and people in the Durham community.

Don't toss the baby out with the bathwater. The reason so many people initially believed that these allegations were true is because there is a long history of behavior bordering on this horrific on the part of some Duke students.

[Trillo]

62. Here's one ..."must come in the form of immediate dismissals"...

...
How soon will confidence be restored to our university as a place where minds, souls, and bodies can feel safe from agents, perpetrators, and abettors of white privilege, irresponsibility, debauchery and violence?

Surely the answer to the question must come in the form of immediate dismissals of those principally responsible for the horrors of this spring moment at Duke. Coaches of the lacrosse team, the team itself and its players, and any other agents who silenced or lied about the real nature of events at 610 Buchanan on the evening of March 13, 2006. A day that, not even in a clichéd sense, will, indeed, always live in infamy for this university.
...
Houston A. Baker, Jr.
George D. and Susan Fox Beischer Professor of English
Editor, American Literature

read more...

I've got to give the school credit for keeping the item on their website.

[fishwax]

69. of course, that's not from the group of 88

[yardwork]

89. That's a letter from Houston Baker only - he's no longer at Duke.

I agree that his statements were outrageous. So did the provost - that's why the entire exchange is on the Duke website.

I concede that this single Duke faculty member - who had already accepted a position at another institution and left the university a short time after this letter exchange - made unfair allegations.

However, the "group of 88" faculty members that are constantly criticized for their letter did not state any certainty that the lacrosse players were guilty. They asked for examination of the social atmosphere on campus. They are being unfairly portrayed by the right-wing media and others.

[Trillo]

98. The general public can't really verify that, can we?

If the original ad is still on the web somewhere, it is likely at a subscription only site. If it is publicly available (I have been unable to find it) then someone please link to it!

Some of the Group of 88 went even further in their ill-begotten rush to judgment. Some professors are alleged to have maligned lacrosse players in their courses; Professor Kim Curtis is alleged to have failed a student (with a 3.5 GPA) simply because he was a member of the team.
PDF source...

[yardwork]

99. If the original ad from the group of 88 faculty was so outrageous

then why wouldn't the various right-wing sources be trumpeting it? The fact is, the right-wingers don't quote it because it doesn't say what they claim it said.

Here is a link to a letter from many prominent Duke faculty and staff following up that original letter. I think you will agree that it is reasonable and carefully written to avoid rushing to judgement.

http://www.concerneddukefaculty.org/

[toopers]

133. Here is the link you are requesting

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson131.html

[struggle4progress]

141. A nasty rightwing hit piece from a rightwing site -- and without the requested ad text

Let us just look at this one claim from your link: If the left continues to gain power, and if the statements of the demonstrators in Durham are an indication of the mindset of leftists, then people charged with crimes of "political incorrectness" will not be permitted to defend themselves, publicly or in a court of law.

What serendipity! As America begins to understand the full scope, of the Bush Administration's political abuse of our justice system, the rightwing simultaneously sets out on a major propaganda campaign to convince America that leftists want a country in which "people charged with crimes ... will not be permitted to defend themselves."

[toopers]

145. I just delivered what Yardwork asked for . . .

besides, there are tons of other articles out there if you google "group of 88".

[fishwax]

147. what did yardwork ask for that your link delivers?

I know that yardwork asked for evidence to support the claim that the group of 88 proclaimed the students guilty without trial--is that the question you had in mind? If so, I don't agree that your link provides a real response to that.

[fishwax]

144. that's a right-wing rant from a right-wing site

it just repeats previous distortions about what the group of 88's ad actually said ...

[Renew Deal]

11. Each of them should get at least $10 million after taxes

That should cover future lost wages, loss of status, and the overall stress of that case.

[fortyfeetunder]

47. Really?

Or did you forget your :sarcasm: ?

[Renew Deal]

85. Really

They will never fully recover from what was done to them.

[ileus]

92. 100m after taxes should be more like.

Next time someone desires to win an election by being tough on crime, maybe, just maybe they'll get a few facts first.

[Zandor]

12. Ironic, indeed

It looks like some good may come of this.

[justjones]

16. Why are some of you saying they are damaged for life???

Huh? I don't get how they have been damaged for life when they weren't even CONVICTED of anything, just accused. They spent no time in jail. I don't even know any of their names, so it's not like they will be recognized unless they identify themselves as former Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape.

Explain to me how, exactly, they are damaged for life compared to the numerous innocent men accused and convicted of rape and who sat in jail for a number of years before being exonerated. Saying they are damaged for life for this unfortunate episode is a huge exaggeration in my humble opinion.

Or maybe I am biased because I can't help but remember a neighbor hearing one of the guys who attended the party yelling at the girls, "Thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt!" I don't know what happened at that party, no matter if they were falsely accused or not, this whole entire episode is tragic on both sides of the equation.

[slackmaster]

19. Remember what Ray Donovan said after he and his co-defendants were acquitted of all charges?

"Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?"

[justjones]

21. That still doesn't equate to being damaged for life.

Their reputations were sullied, but they ultimately were not charged with anything nor did they go to trial nor were they wrongly convicted, so no, I don't think what happened to them equates to being damaged for life.

[Trillo]

23. My personal answer to you is that any unjust accusation

carries consequences. Yes, they were not convicted, so there is no legal penalty. They may or may not be damaged for a lifetime, certainly they're less damaged than if they'd been wrongly convicted, but the entire incident is most certainly traumatic in an official and serious sense. There appears to have been abuse of power, and is that not precisely what women who've survived a rape rail against, that a more powerful person violated them in spite of their assertions of "No. no. no."?

Can you see that just needing to defend yourself against a police department, and a city staff full of of attorneys is not just 'another day at the office' for someone who has no aptitude or desire to study law?

For a number of common folks, that would be the defining moment of a lifetime. Whether it results in long term psychological damage may be a matter that varies from person to person. It's entirely possible that now when they see a cop, they'll decide to turn down a side street and go out of their way to avoid, there could be a whole host of other behaviors that result from thinking this through. They may never complete their educations, failing to trust any group of highly educated people acting more like chimps throwing feces. They were piled upon, apparently unfairly, by powerful people. Of course it carries consequences.

[struggle4progress]

40. Uh, one of them seems already to have landed a job with six-figure salary

[mainegreen]

132. Sure, after he lost another similar job he had lined up before all this.

[slackmaster]

24. Sure it does

There are still a few holdouts here on DU who think they were guilty as charged.

[LisaL]

28. Hah? What do you mean they were not charged.

All three of them were indicted and charged.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

42. "... they ultimately were not charged with anything...."

Are you sure about that?

Also, (number of lawyers, paralegals, etc.) times (what they bill per hour) times (number of hours) = a big number.

No, they do not have money like that to spare. Even if they did, they shouldn't have to spare it. Where's the money coming from to pay for their expenses?

[yardwork]

53. In this particular case I think that the lacrosse players have had their reputations burnished!

Not only does the entire world know that they were proclaimed innocent and unjustly accused, the stupid behavior that led to them being in this situation has been conveniently forgotten. Hiring a stripper under false names, underage drinking and serving alcohol to other underage students, having a raucous party when they were supposedly in training for their championship game, years of previous raucous parties in which they vomited and peed on the neighbors' houses and cars, previous assaults on other people...all forgiven.

I'm not saying that what Nifong did was right. It was horribly wrong. I'm just saying that it's sort of a stretch to say that these three individuals have "ruined lives."

[LisaL]

57. Well, you've just listed all the things you would never have heard

of, if they were not accused, indicted, and charged. Frankly public would not know or care about underage drinking and other things like that if not for those accusations. And after the accusation the faces and names of the accused were plastered all over the media as those of the accused rapists.
And then you have a gull to claim their reputation have burnished.
Right.

[yardwork]

59. Wrong. I knew all this before the accusations surfaced, because I'm a Duke alum

and I live in Durham. Believe me, the lacrosse team's reputation preceded these allegations! Ask anyone living in the neighborhoods bordering Duke's campus. They will tell you all about the peeing, vomiting, naked girls running away screaming from midnight parties, etc. etc.

[LisaL]

60. Maybe you knew, but most people didn't.

I personally didn't even have an idea there was such a sport as lacrosse.
I am pretty sure that there are other young people that maybe have done things while in college they are not particularly proud of, but it hasn't been plastered all over the media. I thus find your claims that their reputations have been burnished by this very peculiar.

[NashVegas]

61. You Seem to Be Saying

That these men have suffered because, in the course of the allegations, it became known they were assholes, and that is a wrong that was done to them.

[LisaL]

63. No, I am saying they have suffered a loss of privacy, for one thing.

And are you labeling the whole group as "assholes" by the way? Are they all one and the same?

[yardwork]

88. You're arguing with someone who had never heard of lacrosse before this case.

[LisaL]

104. Hah? Are we discussing the game itself here?

WTF does me knowing or not knowing about the game itself has to do with the discussion about the lawsuit?

[slackmaster]

86. I hope you are right - it's largely up to them, how they behave

I'll confess to having done in my youth things equally bad as they did, and worse.

[AngryAmish]

91. You still think they are scum

The proof that their reputations were harmed is evidenced by your attitude.

[yardwork]

102. You're not a very effective mind-reader.

[LisaL]

27. Richard Jewell was not convicted of anything either.

As far as I recall, he wasn't even charged with anything. Does it mean to you he did not suffer?

[bluestateguy]

30. By that logic Richard Jewell was not damaged for life

By your logic: he was never convicted of anything.

He's dead now, by the way.

[SayWhatYo]

38. Jewell was the person who popped into my mind too when I read the post above...

[AngryAmish]

90. Richard Jewell

[lancer78]

127. Because....

in today's world with the M$M only interested in big headlines, these boys' were tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty by the likes of Nancy Grace. Even though the charges were dropped, even some people on DU still think they raped the girl. THAT is why they deserve compensation. If I was them, I would be suing the M$M for slander.

[Scooter24]

17. Regardless of their background or wealth...

they deserve very generous compensation given what they had to endure for months. If I was in their shoes, I would do the same thing.

[Sukie1941]

18. Yep, get lots of money we are ultimately paying for

(trickle-down award payments...)

so these kids don't have to finish school and never work again.

I would love to have a nice settlement for several sexual discrimation occurrences I endured on the job in the 1970's.

For example:

I worked at a title insurance company. House building was down and so I was facing a layoff. The head secretary (no friend of mine) arranged for me to meet an attorney in a nearby town after work about a legal secretarial job. I had to get a babysitter for my child and then drive 25 miles on gas I couldn't afford.

When I walked into the attorney's office, he motioned for me to sit down in a chair in the room. When I walked past him he pulled me down into his lap.

I was fairly young then and quite naive, and I just got up and fled out the door. When I told our secretary the next day, she thought it was funny.

If it had happened today, my response would have been different. After dealing with the attorney I would have gone straight home and called his wife and told her.

I have no doubt his previous secretary quit for the same reason. I would rather make a complaint and lose my job than tough it out with such a bastard.

[PassingFair]

22. Will they now require....

four adult male eyewitnesses, too?

:eyes:

[cstanleytech]

25. While I can see some

monetary compensation I hope they are not greedy and instead push for more reform than anything.

[LisaL]

29. Oh give me a break. In US, people sue on a drop of dime,

but for whatever reason, lacrosse players aren't supposed to be "greedy."
I think they are entitled to compensation for their pain and suffering.

[cstanleytech]

34. I never said they did not deserve some

I just hope they dont get to greedy is all.
2 to 10 million each after taxes and attorney fees is not exactly chump change.

[LisaL]

35. They asked for a settlement of 10 millions each, and that obviously

didn't work out.

[BadgerLaw2010]

129. They're looking for punishment. Duke already gave them enough money.

The university is the only deep pocket here, and isn't going to miss whatever it paid out. You don't sue these other people for damages because you need cash; you sue them because you want to hurt them.

[defendandprotect]

33. It would be interesting if some really able lawyer were to take up this case from the other side . .

who will contest this from the other side--?
Presumably, that will happen--?

I don't think the charge that evidence was withheld will hold up --
it was all made available -- and the public well understood that there was no DNA evidence linking these students to the victim.

Nonetheless . . . . rape/assault do not require DNA evidence.
Penetration of any kind is rape.

The Rolling Stone article on Duke University . . . a lot of it from the viewpoint of females was quite something.

I'd be for this if the entire case is retried --
seemingly, there is a victim and rather questionable events.

From all we can see of our prison system --even death row -- thousands and thousands of people are mischarged every day and serve time. Nothing new in this.

Most often the mischarged are minorities, however ---

[mahatmakanejeeves]

43. "I don't think the charge ...

that evidence was withheld will hold up -- it was all made available...."

Months after Nifong knew that it did not support the charges against the players, and months after he was required to have made it available to the players' attorneys. That's withholding it any way you cut it.

[defendandprotect]

44. Then how come we all knew that there was no DNA evidence . . . ????

[struggle4progress]

45. 11 Apr 06: ".. today .. Nifong acknowledged .. DNA tests failed to link any .. lacrosse team members

to the victim .." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/duke_4-11.html

So less than a month after the original allegations, Nifong reported in public that players' DNA was not found. What "evidence" do you think Nifong withheld?

[LisaL]

46. If you haven't figured it out by now, you probably never will.

[struggle4progress]

50. An insult ... but not an answer.

[struggle4progress]

51. Lab Director: Nifong Never Said to Withhold DNA Evidence

Friday, August 31, 2007

DURHAM, N.C. — A lab director who prepared a DNA report that failed to detail all the evidence in the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case testified Friday that miscommunication with defense attorneys was to blame ...

On Thursday, Meehan said he was the one who decided how to prepare a report stating no lacrosse player had been linked to the accuser.

Nifong's attorney, Jim Glover, asked Meehan on Thursday if Nifong had asked him to leave anything out of the report. Meehan answered, "no."

"My company and the company's assessment of that document request was that clearly there was a misunderstanding, that whoever went through that document we provided, that there were some things that they didn't understand completely, that clearly they got wrong," Meehan said Friday ...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295393,00.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

93. From the Fox site you have linked to:

You referred us to:

Lab Director: Nifong Never Said to Withhold DNA Evidence

where I found this link to an earlier story:

Mike Nifong Disbarred Over Ethics Violations in Duke Lacrosse Case

Sunday, June 17, 2007
Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. — District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred Saturday (June 16) for his "selfish" rape prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players....

"This matter has been a fiasco. There's no doubt about it," said F. Lane Williamson, the chairman of the three-member disciplinary committee that stripped the veteran prosecutor of his state law license.
....

One of the most serious ethics violations Nifong was found to have committed involved his failure to turn over DNA test results that identified genetic material from several men — but no members of the lacrosse team — in the accuser's underwear and body.

In court documents and hearings in May, June and September, Nifong told two different judges that he had no more evidence that could be considered helpful to the defense. Nifong said he didn't realize the defense hadn't been given all the DNA test results until December — a suggestion Williamson found laughable.

Google for "nifong timeline"

I'll concede it doesn't happen often, but on rare occasions, even privileged, rich people get abused by the government. When it does happen, it is not the correct response to say, "oh, well, they're privileged and rich; they'll get over it." No, the correct response is that the mistakes that were made must be corrected and that steps must be taken to see to it that the errors that were made are not repeated. We call this progress, and we try to do better in the future.

If I am not mistaken, Reade Seligmann has had his eyes opened by the whole experience and has expressed interest into going into the public defense field of the law. Now wouldn't that be a case of being handed lemons and turning them into lemonade?

[struggle4progress]

103. I merely note the inconsistency: though the common description is "Nifong withheld evidence"

he in fact promptly disclosed that there was no DNA match to the suspected players, and months after Nifong was disbarred the lab director continued to say that Nifong had not instructed him to withhold evidence. And as a purely historical matter, it is reasonable to ask whether anyone can credibly dispute the remark made by Nifong's attorney at the subsequent contempt hearing: "The fact is, you've got nothing significantly exculpatory beyond what you already knew from the report itself".

As I have said (more than once) elsewhere, the story apparently involves bad faith and bad behavior, often with unattractive ulterior motives, from an astounding number of people of widely varying social status and across the political spectrum: many details, claimed to be true, seem on closer inspection to be urban legends, unsurprisingly since the infotainment industry is not a terribly reliable source, despite projecting substantial political power. The narrative, which you would overlay on the events, is well-known and widely accepted; however, it was not produced by a dispassionate inquiry in the facts, and for that reason experience suggests the narrative may ultimately prove inaccurate in certain respects.

Nor is it a new and surprising revelation that government accusations may sometimes be untrue: it is why Americans traditionally insisted on such English goods as trial by peer and the great writ of habeas corpus.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

111. Thanks for the explanation.

I agree entirely with your last paragraph:

Nor is it a new and surprising revelation that government accusations may sometimes be untrue: it is why Americans traditionally insisted on such English goods as trial by peer and the great writ of habeas corpus.

It's a darn shame that habeas corpus fell out of favor in the US.

[onenote]

110. he withheld evidence that DNA from 4 other males was found

SInce there was evidence of penetration, the fact that there was DNA evidence from four other males, none of whom could be a Duke lacrosse player, was hugely signficant, since it provided an explanation for the other physical evidence that pointed directly away from the players.

You should read the findings of fact supporting Nifong's disbarment.
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2007/7/12/NIFONGFINDINGS.pdf

[struggle4progress]

123. Then again, there are people who argue on this site that there was

really no physical evidence. This case continues to generate a great deal of dishonest noise. I read the State Bar's report when issued, and I do not find it entirely consistent with the urban legends surrounding the events.

[onenote]

124. you still don't get it -- Nifong withheld exculpatory evidence

He did not disclose that DNA from other, unidentified males (none of whom could be any of the Duke team members) was found, which provides evidence supporting the conclusion that the physical evidence of penetration was unrelated to anything that took place at the duke party.

You've asked what exculpatory evidence was withheld. I've given you an example. Changing the subject to discuss what others might have said on this thread doesn't cut it. Its what you've said that's been rebutted.

[struggle4progress]

140. So this case has brought back the "OMG! She had sex with somebody!" rape defense?

The point of my remark was simply this: evidence the woman had sex with somebody else can't be an alternative explanation for physical evidence suggesting rape, if (as is sometimes claimed) there was absolutely no physical evidence of rape.

You say my claims are rebutted: in fact, however, I essentially raised a question, rather than stating a claim. I suspect your belief, that such a question can be "rebutted", reflects your emotional attachment to the case. And that is the most interesting thing about the story, which is otherwise rather dull: all standard accounts of this case reflect hodge-podges of inconsistencies cobbled together to reflect certain preselected views. The author of the Blog DIW, for example, had a specific axe to grind: he intended to spread the rightwing theme that American campuses are dominated by a mythical liberal PC consciousness, and he promoted certain legends in support of his agenda.

[BadgerLaw2010]

128. No physical evidence against the *suspects*.

It's safe to say that DNA from four men, none of whom were Duke lacross players, is just a liiiiiiittle bit damaging in a rape case.

Withholding evidence is a cardinal sin of the legal profession. That it just so happened to be extremely helpful of the defense just makes Nifong look that much deservedly worse.

[struggle4progress]

142. Such "evidence" is typically inadmissible

[onenote]

146. I hope you are not a criminal attorney

While rape shield laws/rules render certain types of evidence regarding prior sexual history inadmissible, you are wrong to suggest that the evidence at issue here -- dna evidence of recent intercourse with four other individuals -- would be inadmissible.

Federal Rule of Evidence 412 states the rule that is "typical" in most jurisdictions:

(a) Evidence generally inadmissible.
The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c):
(1) Evidence offered to prove that any alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior.
(2) Evidence offered to prove any alleged victim's sexual predisposition.

(b) Exceptions.
(1) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under these rules:
(A) evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;

[struggle4progress]

151. Maybe we oughta postpone the law lecture til ya know the difference between Federal and local rules

[onenote]

152. You just keep digging yourself a deeper hole.

Here's the "local" provision you seem to think I don't know anything about:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/pdf/BySection/Chapter_8C/GS_8C-412.pdf

Take a look at (b)(2): evidence of sexual behavior with another person is not relevant in a rape case unless such behavior "is evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were not committed by the defendant."

It is up to the court to decide if the evidence is relevant. And that's why it was improper for Nifong to withhold the information because by withholding it, the defense would be denied the opportunity to argue the information's should be admitted on the grounds that it is exculpatory.

You might want to freshen up those legal skills of yours. You also might work on your reading comprehension since my original post specifically noted that the federal rule was typical of the rule in most jurisdictions -- in other words, I acknowledged that there were local and federal rules, but pointed out, correctly, that on this point they tend to be similar.

[yardwork]

54. No, there is no evidence for the "other side."

The charge that evidence was withheld DID hold up. It was reviewed by the NC Bar and their conclusion was that evidence was withheld. There is no evidence that the accuser was assaulted.

See my other posts in this thread. There are problems at Duke, but that doesn't mean that this case is legally valid. You're barking up the wrong tree, as I've said before.

[struggle4progress]

41. Link to pdf file of 162 pp complaint:

http://media.mgnetwork.com/ncn/pdf/071005_duke.pdf

via

Students Sue Prosecutor and City in Duke Case
By MIKE NIZZA
Published: October 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/06duke.html?ref=us

[fortyfeetunder]

48. Sounds like another case of the privileged

seeking retaliation resulting from their lack of personal responsibility.

Gee, I wonder if we all conveniently forgot had these young frat boy/lacrosse players had not brought in a stripper to their party they wouldn't have gotten themselves in the predicament?

I am glad they got exonerated but I have no sympathy for them.

Flame away, y'all....

[mbperrin]

49. No flames, I agree 100%.

Never mind underage drinking, official university indifference to neighbor's complaints, and the like. Since one of them has already landed a job with one degree which pays twice what I make teaching the last dozen years with 2, pardon me if I don't feel he's ruined.

Asbestos drawers on.

Edit to add: Never mind the millions they already got from Duke as well in an earlier settlement. Can't you just smell the quest for justice?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

75. Underage drinking?

Gee, I hope you are as judgmental about all your fellow du'ers who like their weed.

Surely, you condemn them, as well?

I suppose if one of them were falsely accused, you'd say he deserved it?

[Bubba HoHoHo Tep]

55. No sympathy?

They were falsely accused and it will follow them until death.

I think we should feel the same sympathy for someone poor or someone priviliged who got so screwed by an obviously unhinged woman and a guy running for election.

[mbperrin]

64. So if there is no remedy, they are ruined for life, then

money cannot fix it, right? So you agree with me that the lawsuit is nonsense. If they cannot be made whole, and that is your argument, no suit is justified.

Read again, one of them has already gotten a job at age 22 for six figures! Get me some of that ruin anytime.....

[LisaL]

94. Nice argument. You could tell the same thing to someone

whose relative has been killed by a medical mistake. It's not like money can bring a dead person back, so the lawsuit is nonsense. Very convincing.

[mbperrin]

97. No, your example proves this legal point.

The dead person has no standing to sue, and the only damages the relatives can collect after they prove mis-, mal-, or nonfeasance are for loss of companionship to THEMSELVES. The dead cannot be brought back, and no civil case on behalf of the deceased or the estate could be brought, because, precisely, they cannot be made whole. But if the deceased were paying $500 per month for granny's nursing home, and granny has a life expectancy of 10 years, then certainly, $60,000 will replace that income, and she could sue and win on that basis.

This is just simple civil law. I didn't write it. You are the one claiming they can never be made whole. I simply pointed out that if that is so, their case is moot, and the judge will dismiss. Your argument MUST be that a certain dollar amount and a certain set of actions, remediations, apologies, and so forth WILL make the litigants whole. And then they certainly may sue for that. They will have to quantify those damages with evidence, however, and that is why most jury awards are reduced, sometimes to very little, on appeal. Judges know more law that jurors, who may side with or have sympathy for, the litigants. This is why lawyers avoid juries and trials like the plague. Like these guys: their tactic was to threaten to tie up the legal system with an expensive and protracted battle in hopes that their intended target would simply settle, voiding rights to appeal, and ensuring the damages would be collected. In this case, the defendants are showing some spinal rectitude and decided not to just give away taxpayer dollars. Hence, the suit.

[LisaL]

100. Although I have not argued that the defendants can not be

made whole, somehow I doubt that the plaintiff in a lawsuit has to show lawsuit will make him/her whole, or else. Ever heard of compensation for damages suffered?

[Pavulon]

56. No way, So because my buddy

had a stripper at his bachelor party I deserve to be charged with rape and then subject to willful proctorial misconduct?

Having a stripper is not illegal.

No rich or not, they got screwed. So no matter if they are hispanic and or rich and white they have a civil recourse.

Tell me why not?

[mbperrin]

65. Actually, not legal to have strippers for persons of a certain age,

nor legal to drink at an age, nor ever legal to piss on the neighbor's lawn, and so on.

Can we just agree that these poor widdle saints are really just quite typical jock jerks who feel on top of the world and immune from all normal standards of polite society, and who drank, and ogled strippers, and cursed at neighbors and pissed on their lawns.

Then they got accused of a crime, cleared, received untold millions from Duke already, looking for more millions from whomever, and one of them got a job already for six figures?

Can we agree that these are the actual events? If so, and you feel sympathy, please do. And afford me the same courtesy to feel none. Thanks.

[LisaL]

68. Well, I've heard that living well is the best revenge.

And if they win this lawsuit, they should get a whole lot more. Ain't life grand?

[ptolle]

72. living well

And what makes you think that having beau coup bucks automatically translates to "living well"? Living easier perhaps, not having to worry about minor details like rent, groceries, the doctor bill which they were probably never going to have to worry about anyway. But living well is IMO something else entirely and these children were most likely not headed in that direction in any event.I suspect that if they prevail in this suit all it will really do is reinforce their sense of entitlement probably causing them to be even more insufferable longer in their life.

[LisaL]

77. You lost me after "not having to worry about rent."

[Dr. Strange]

73. Living well is the best revenge?

Oh no, you're wrong: being bitter and jealous--that's the BEST revenge.

[JVS]

101. Living well and making the other people pay through the nose is the best revenge

accept no substitutes

[midlife_mo_Jo]

76. No, we cannot agree

Because there is no proof that the THREE men charged were the ones who hired and "ogled" the strippers, cursed at neighbors, and pissed on their lawns.

In fact, one of the three didn't even stay - evidence which Nifong never cared to hear.

[superconnected]

122. I'll second that.

[Posteritatis]

71. Only if you're rich

If you're poor or middle-class it's a horrific railroading and affront to justice. If you aren't, you clearly deserve whatever fabricated charges people want to stick to you because... because ... because ... uh ... because, dammit!

(God, I hate the classist bullshit that comes up every time this topic shows up on DU. Of course, now I'm going to be accused of being in favor of anyone who isn't rich getting this sort of treatment, because nothing discusses a topic in a useful manner like straw men and false dichotomies both at once. Ugh.)

[fortyfeetunder]

74. Privilege and resources doesn't give you the license...

to have underage guys with booze and sex workers at a party. Along with the other immature frat-boy behaviour.

As compared to a bachelor party (and I sure would not be getting married if I was too young to drink!!!) -- I assume all there would be of "legal" drinking age and hiring sex workers?????

I still stand by my position -- this whole experience was 100% preventable.

[Pavulon]

82. Well I had no privilege..

and did plenty of dumb things. Using bad judgment does not excuse the JUSTICE SYSTEM from blame. Nifong's actions were far more serious than any action taken by these kids.

A stripper is not a prostitute. Strippers are legal entertainment. Prostitutes are illegal.

Preventable yes. However being young stupid should have reasonable consequences. A drinking ticket, even arrest for disorderly conduct are reasonable.

Rape charges based on political motives are not reasonable.

[bluestateguy]

78. Oh brother

Flaming...

[justjones]

121. No flames....and I will never forget....

when I read about one of the neighbors overhearing one of the boys at the party yelling at the girls: "Thank your grandpa for my cotton t-shirt!"

Yet people are trying to convince me that they've been "ruined for life.". I say give me a freakin' break already! No one will even remember their names next year, if they even learned them in the first place or haven't forgotten them already.

[laureloak]

137. They were responsible. It's the floosy that lied. n/t

[Paladin]

67. More Class-Based Sentiments. Really Unfortunate.

Those of you who evidently think these guys aren't entitled to a full redress of very real grievances, just because they're white and well-to-do, are full of crap.....

[martymar64]

80. The reforms sound nice but I think they're looking more for a payday

n/t

[John Kerry VonErich]

81. Pure and Simple

This whole thing in general has nearly destroyed credibillity for any rape victim to stand up to the rapist(s) and get justice. I can see a trial where a victim is being looked at as someone who is "DUKING" the rapist. Whether it is the strippers fault or the team's, it's a sad a terrible time in our history and for rape victims. So don't look at the class, please be concerned for the victim, any victim in any rape case.

[Pavulon]

83. The victim(s)

were the players. The person calling rape was a perpetrator who the state decided not to charge with making false statements and perjury because it was not PC.

[John Kerry VonErich]

95. I am talking in general.

That case made legit victims lose tons of credibillity.

[bluestateguy]

87. Indeed we must be concerned with the victims in this case

That's why my thoughts and prayers are with the Duke lacrosse players.

[John Kerry VonErich]

96. True

It was proven that the players didn't do it. But the case in general made a mockary of real rape victims. Thats what I was talking about.

[Tzimisce]

105. Yep,

...and those legitimate rape victims have no one to thank for their circumstances but the accuser in the Duke case, and of course Nifong. Acting like a douchebag isn't a criminal offense, and AT MOST these kids should've been charged with disorderly conduct, underage drinking, or disturbing the peace, etc., as others have said. Instead, their lives were derailed by flat out fabrications from the accuser and then malicious conduct by Nifong himself. As far as I'm concerned, the accuser should be taken to ask legally for everything they could throw at her and make stick. Some men are scumbags who do take advantage of women, it's true. But for those of us males who AREN'T like that, seeing things like this is just infuriating, because everyone seems to automatically assume the man is guilty.

And regardless of race and economic class, EVERYONE is entitled to justice. This was a calamitous miscarriage thereof, and if the city of Durham winds up paying out the nose for it, perhaps the lesson will be learned that they need to watch their legal system a bit more closely from now on. The accuser threw the match, Nifong threw the gasoline, and Sharpton/Jackson certainly didn't help matters much, either.

[Occulus]

113. Something nobody's pointed out yet that I've seen

Just the fact that there are people, here on DU, who have never ever once met these guys and never will, who are completely convinced that "something happened", is cold hard proof in and of itself that their reputations have been completely and irrevocably ruined, even among the general public.

Were I their civil attorney, I would introduce internet posts as evidence that even people who have never met them are, coast to coast, convinced of their guilt even now. Needless to say, they deserve a multi-million dollar judgment in their favor. Eight figures apiece would be appropriate.

[Occulus]

112. But I *AM* concerned about the Lacrosse players.

What more do you want in terms of having sympathy for the victims in this case?

[John Kerry VonErich]

115. Not putting blame on the players

I was talking about the case only. The players are innocent, there is no doubt in that. And their lives will rebuild in time. And when I say victims, I meant the hundreds of rape victims throughout the country who is getting curbbed on this.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

114. I'm just sorry the Duke academic lynching mob hasn't had their due

the teachers who ran the lynch mob should have lost their tenure and been fired, maybe they could have fun with some real criminals teaching GED classes in prisons, which if there was any justice in the world would be the only teaching positions they could find.

I hate frat boys - but the faculty behaving in the way they did shouldn't be tollerated anywhere and does nothing to help the credibility of academics in America since these assholes were behaving almost exactly as the right would accuse the hypothetical lib-uh-rul uh-cuh-dumic of acting.

[MarkR1717]

116. You seem a good sort......

....Did you not get it yet. The Duke lib-uh-rul uh-cuh-dumics were/are assholes.

[fishwax]

118. the academic lynch mob hasn't had their due b/c they're largely a creation of right-wing bloggers

The much-attacked ad from the "group of 88" did not, in any way, proclaim the lacrosse players guilty. Houston Baker, who wrote a much-criticized letter in which he said the entire lacrosse team should be dismissed, doesn't teach at Duke anymore.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

119. "The Group of 88" had no reason to say anything,

These individuals were not serving in any disciplinary capacity and the ficticious events did not relate to any activity in or out of the classroom but their statements and behavior were prejudicial to the students and encouraged reprisals! "To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard." In case you were not paying attention, the actions taking place were not exactly over-flowing with reason or responsibility. The Black Panthers were making death threats and wanted posters were being posted, some featuring students who were not even at the party or even active students.

Faculty using their authority to conspire against groups of students is completely inappropriate, even if the students are assholes.

[fishwax]

120. that they had no reason to say anything in an official capacity is irrelevant

since they weren't pretending to speak in any official disciplinary capacity.

I reject that the ad "encouraged reprisals," and to suggest that the group of 88 is somehow responsible or complicit with alleged death threats is patently absurd.

[laureloak]

135. Agreed.

[Catherine Vincent]

143. It would be interesting to find out how much they'd get.

This guy that spent 14 years in prison for another man's crime is due $750,000 plus.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2007075&mesg_id=2007075