Duke Lacrosse Case [Continued]

[Pure]

i'm glad you all have held the trial

and found the accused to be innocent.

that, to me, is on a par with the previous media circus who seemed to assume guilt.

the state has appointed two new prosecutors of impeccable credentials and integrity.

we will see which, if any, charges they proceed with.

it's entirely possible that whatever happened by way of assault will not be established in these criminal proceedings. we have mostly conflicting stories, and no doubt the lacrosse boys and their lawyers have come up with a common, innocuous narrative and rehearsed it to death.

so proving something beyond reasonable doubt may be impossible in this situation, as with OJ (for slightly different reasons).

 

[cloudy]

and found the accused to be innocent.

that, to me, is on a par with the previous media circus who seemed to assume guilt.

the state has appointed two new prosecutors of impeccable credentials and integrity.

we will see which, if any, charges they proceed with.

it's entirely possible that whatever happened by way of assault will not be established in these criminal proceedings. we have mostly conflicting stories, and no doubt the lacrosse boys and their lawyers have come up with a common, innocuous narrative and rehearsed it to death.

so proving something beyond reasonable doubt may be impossible in this situation, as with OJ (for slightly different reasons).

I, personally, haven't decided one way or another. To be brutally honest, I don't really care, even though that sounds very cold.

I do, however, have a question for you....if there was some real substance behind the accusations, why did Nifong find it necessary to cover up evidence?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i'm glad you all have held the trial and found the accused to be innocent.

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - the presumption is that they are innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

 

[lipsofanangel]

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - are are presumed to be innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

Thank you! I couldn't have said it better myself.



I honestly hadn't paid a great deal of attention to the case until the "victim" started to sound less and less credible. I can't believe this has gone on this long and that, for all the story changing and the fact that her "witness" has recanted, people still believe that she's the perfect little innocent victim and that these poor kids should have to go through more hell because of it.

 

[Pure]

picky picky

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - the presumption is that they are innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

The point, differently worded is that several posters here, if not you, have declared the young men to be innocent based on reading some newspapers' discussion of certain items of evidence. And several seem to believe a trial is unnecessary, on the same basis; that all charges should be dropped.

All of those people are little better than those who initially jumped to a conclusion as to guilt. (The men, in the eyes of the legal system, are presently presumed innocent.)

A couple new prosecutors will shortly give their opinions about proceding; though I'm sure you legal eagles, based on the articles, are far better grounded than a couple pros looking at boxes of evidence. (This is not to deny that sometimes a 'new' prosecutor tries to cover up the mistakes of the old. But there is no reason to expect that here.)

 

[lipsofanangel]

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - the presumption is that they are innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

The point, differently worded is that several posters here, if not you, have declared the young men to be innocent based on reading some newspapers' discussion of certain items of evidence. And several seem to believe a trial is unnecessary, on the same basis; that all charges should be dropped.

All of those people are little better than those who initially jumped to a conclusion as to guilt. (The men, in the eyes of the legal system, are presently presumed innocent.)

A couple new prosecutors will shortly give their opinions about proceding; though I'm sure you legal eagles, based on the articles, are far better grounded than a couple pros looking at boxes of evidence. (This is not to deny that sometimes a 'new' prosecutor tries to cover up the mistakes of the old. But there is no reason to expect that here.)

My question is...what evidence?

She has no idea what time this alleged event happened, how many people were there, or really, what even happened from the sounds of it.

Her one ally has since retracted everything and said it was all a fabrication.

The students have maintained their innocence through the whole thing and at this point? There are few that don't believe them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - the presumption is that they are innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

The point, differently worded is that several posters here, if not you, have declared the young men to be innocent based on reading some newspapers' discussion of certain items of evidence. And several seem to believe a trial is unnecessary, on the same basis; that all charges should be dropped.

All of those people are little better than those who initially jumped to a conclusion as to guilt. (The men, in the eyes of the legal system, are presently presumed innocent.)

A couple new prosecutors will shortly give their opinions about proceding; though I'm sure you legal eagles, based on the articles, are far better grounded than a couple pros looking at boxes of evidence. (This is not to deny that sometimes a 'new' prosecutor tries to cover up the mistakes of the old. But there is no reason to expect that here.)

It's a curious front on which you choose to fight here, Pure. The only real "evidence" in this case is all about a corrupt prosecutor shoring up his faltering reelection bid by exploiting a poisonous mix of identity politics and class hatred of the three main victims - well-off white men.

If the roles were reversed in the underlying case - a wealthy (but mentally disturbed) white woman with equivalent lack of evidence and credibility accusing three poor black men - can anyone doubt that you would be on the rhetorical barricades on their behalf, using your considerable polemical skills to make a case that "the bourgeois establishment is organizing a lynch mob!" Someone might suspect that your own animus againt the hated class - wealthy white men - must run very deep to select this as a hill worth dying on. (An animus revealed by previous posts in this thread.)

 

[R. Richard]

The point, differently worded is that several posters here, if not you, have declared the young men to be innocent based on reading some newspapers' discussion of certain items of evidence. And several seem to believe a trial is unnecessary, on the same basis; that all charges should be dropped.

Mr. Nifong, the original prosecutor, has decided that the rape charges should be dropped, due to changes in the story of the accuser. Now, the accuser has again changed her story to the effect that one of the men she originally charged with rape did not rape or assault her, but was merely there and did nothing to harm her. In the meantime, three Duke students have been arrested and charged with very substantial crimes, based upon the unsupported word of a woman who has been in and out of mental hospitals in the recent past. I declare the Duke students to be innocent on the simple basis that nothing has been proved against them in a court of law and they are innocent until proven guilty.

All of those people are little better than those who initially jumped to a conclusion as to guilt. (The men, in the eyes of the legal system, are presently presumed innocent.)

As you point out, the people who assumed that the Duke students were innocent were correct. The people who assumed that the Duke students were gulity were weong, based upon the principles of US law.

A couple new prosecutors will shortly give their opinions about proceding; though I'm sure you legal eagles, based on the articles, are far better grounded than a couple pros looking at boxes of evidence. (This is not to deny that sometimes a 'new' prosecutor tries to cover up the mistakes of the old. But there is no reason to expect that here.)

There are not, per the newspapers, "boxes of evidence." There have been some DNA tests and some cell phone and ATN records entered into evidence [per the newspapers.] Then there are numerous versions of the accuser's rapidly changing charges. Said numerous versions of the accuser's rapidly changing charges are not prosecution evidence, but defense evidence. In a court of law, a witness who constantly chages testimony is generally considered to be an unreliable witness.

I have, in the not too distant past, been charged with a serious crime. I was not arrested, but I lost my job and had to go to FBI conducted hearings. As it became clearer and clearer that the crimes were committed by the witnesses against me, the FBI scumbags never lifted a finger. Once one of the witnesses against me turned state's evidence, no one apologized or tried to correct the problem [with the exception of the corporate attorney who was suddenly faced with the prospect of paying me large amounts of money for damages.] I fear my outlook in the Duke lacrosse case is somewhat colored by my being in much the same situation as the Duke students.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Interesting formulation, there.

Accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We don't "find" people to be innocent - the presumption is that they are innocent, unless proven otherwise.



But perhaps the opposite applies to wealthy white men.

The point, differently worded is that several posters here, if not you, have declared the young men to be innocent based on reading some newspapers' discussion of certain items of evidence. And several seem to believe a trial is unnecessary, on the same basis; that all charges should be dropped.

All of those people are little better than those who initially jumped to a conclusion as to guilt. (The men, in the eyes of the legal system, are presently presumed innocent.)

A couple new prosecutors will shortly give their opinions about proceding; though I'm sure you legal eagles, based on the articles, are far better grounded than a couple pros looking at boxes of evidence. (This is not to deny that sometimes a 'new' prosecutor tries to cover up the mistakes of the old. But there is no reason to expect that here.)

I am one of those posters you cite, and I have been following this case for over ten months. I did not form an opinion until I had heard and read about the evidence or guilt or innocence. The only evidence of their guilt are the many wildly different stories the accuser has told. I don't know how it stands now, and I wouldn't bother to find our, because it might change again tomorrow. Against this very feeble case is arrayed the testimony or everybody else at the party, including the other stripper, the documentary evidence showing one of the accused was away from the party at the time of the supposed rape, the accuser's cell phone records that show she was talking to her mother at the time she claimed she was being raped, the accuser's own personal history, the lack of any trace of the accused, such as pubic hair or skin cells, on the body of the accuser, the testimony of the neighbors, the police officers who took the accuser to the ER, the nurses and others in the ER, and everybody else who is even peripherally involved.

Yes, I believe the innocence of the accused has been established, and it would be totally pointless to bring them to trial, and to do so would be strictly vindictive. I would presume the new prosecutor will see what everybody but you can plainly see, and will drop the charges.

Like Roxanne, I am puzzled by the virulent hatred you are displaying on this thread and the related one against "wealthy white men", although I don't know how wealthy these three men are. The fact that they are attending an expensive university means nothing, because they might well be there on athletic scholarships. Personally, I am not wealthy, although I am a white man, which fact is no secret.

Do you also hate Nifong? He is a white man, and probably quite well-to-do.

 

[S-Des]

It's a curious front on which you choose to fight here, Pure. The only real "evidence" in this case is all about a corrupt prosecutor shoring up his faltering reelection bid by exploiting a poisonous mix of identity politics and class hatred of the three main victims - well-off white men.

This is so well said (and the articles you presented are perfectly chosen). I scratch my head at people who constantly complain about racism, sexism, and other discriminatory tactics (no, I'm not only referring to people around here), then turn around and applaud it when it feeds into their personal biases. Right is right...wrong is wrong. I am past being outraged at the sleazy behavior of prosecutors, judges, and police in many cases. It doesn't matter what color you are, just how much they can advance their careers on your back.

In Southern Illinois, a man was convicted of murdering his wife on no evidence (he couldn't provide an alibi and benefitted from her life insurance). It didn't matter to the prosecutor that he was white or middle class, only that the conviction of the man would benefit his career. Several years after the man had been sitting on death row, the FBI stumbled across a member of a biker gang who confessed to the crime on tape and could be placed at the scene. The prosecuting atorney was unimpressed by the evidence and fought tooth & nail to keep the man behind bars. Finally, a judge released him with apologies and the man returned to whatever was left of his life. The prosecuting attorney made a statement to the press that he "knew" the man was the killer and had "gotten away with it".

I couldn't care less what color you are (or how much you make)...until something like this is punished severly (I'm talking jail time for the lawyers or police involved), none of us are safe. If it's not you, it could be your kids, or someone else in your family. I don't understand how defending someone doing it makes anyone feel better (or safer).

 

[Pure]

good points, s des,

there are certainly wrongfully convicted persons of all backgrounds, though they tend to be poor and/or black. they were wrongfully convicted because of being railroaded by police or DAs; or the incompetence of defense attorneys.

there are DAs who impede efforts to clear such people, when there is obvious exculpatory evidence.

it seems a travesty to compare a few months bad publicity out of jail on the part of the Duke accused with the sufferings of thoses who've spent years in prison after conviction.

the well-to-do are rarely convicted wrongfully; care to cite any cases Roxanne? (no doubt they'd get lots of space in WSJ.) indeed the well to do are less often charged than ordinary mortals. sexual assaults and abuse by college jocks and sportsstars in general are rarely punished, and it's a safe inference that because they're not often convicted, they are quite rarely, wrongfully convicted

it's interesting that Roxanne's source, Ms. Rabinowitz was so desperate in her flights of rhetoric that she compared young men not even brought to trial (and who may never be), who've probably spent little or no time in jail, with a wrongfully convicted man, mr. amirault, who did 18 years before being exculpated.

Box, Zack, RA, and others are doing a fine job on this bizarre and rare case, and the Wall Street Journal has weighed in, which will help balance the scales of justice. (i hope that, if innocent, the Duke students are cleared.) perhaps it's impertinent to wonder if any of these folks fret at all about the 'rule', rather than the exception, i.e., poor or black people wrongly convicted, and well to do people slipping through the justice system virtualy unscathed when the evidence of their guilt is very strong.

 

[S-Des]

the well-to-do are rarely convicted wrongfully

To me, this has more to do with the ability of people with means to hire quality lawyers and experts than any bias in the system. It's not that DA's don't go after everyone, but they definitely don't like to be embarrassed (and the more money you have, the easier it is to cause trouble for a prosecutor...ask Mr. Nifong). Jocks and entertainers get away with far more than the average person, but at the moment, color has nothing to do with someone's chances for a scholarship.

it seems a travesty to compare a few months bad publicity out of jail on the part of the Duke accused with the sufferings of thoses who've spent years in prison after conviction.

This is a very puzzling statement. A year of having your face splashed across the news media, having your life threatened numerous times, losing your eligibliity for the sport you have loved and trained for most of your life, living every day knowing you're facing up to 30 years in jail, and you call it "a few months of bad publicity". It's intentionally misleading and betrays a bias in your argument. These boys had know way of knowing (nor can they be sure at this point) that they will get out of this with their freedom.

Ray Buckey spent over 2 years in jail without ever being convicted (and the charges were even less believable in his case than this one). If you could look past your predjudice for a moment and imagine what it would be like to be a 20 year-old kid (jock or not) and honestly be afraid you will lose most of your life for something you didn't do, I can't believe you'd be so glib. It doesn't matter that they're white. It doesn't matter how much their parents make. It doesn't matter that people have had similar situations that were brought about because of racism or other predjudices. All of these cases are dispicable and tolerating them just perpetuates the problem (which as you pointed out, happens disproportionately to minorities and the poor).


BTW, my vigorous defense of this case shouldn't be misconstrued. I have always maintained an equal stance in these cases. To me, the government being able to destroy your life and deprive you of freedom (and even your life) for something you didn't do is the most vile thing I can imagine. It destroys the individual from the outside in (friends and relatives doubting your innocence, your family being stressed to the edge of collapse, losing everything you've worked for, then losing your freedom on top of it). I am an ardent opponent of the death penalty in all cases and if you knew me, you'd know that I have argued on the behalf of people of all colors who were wrongly convicted. Unfotunately, this medium doesn't afford any of us the ability to know the truth about each other...only what we put forward.

 

[R. Richard]

there are certainly wrongfully convicted persons of all backgrounds, though they tend to be poor and/or black. they were wrongfully convicted because of being railroaded by police or DAs; or the incompetence of defense attorneys.

there are DAs who impede efforts to clear such people, when there is obvious exculpatory evidence.

it seems a travesty to compare a few months bad publicity out of jail on the part of the Duke accused with the sufferings of thoses who've spent years in prison after conviction.

Pure, a DA [usually an Assistant DA] is rated on one thing and one thing alone, percentage of convictions in cases that come to trail. The higher the percentage, the better the chances for a political career or a cushy job with a major law firm. The typical DA/Assistant DA will do almost anything, short of murder, to gain a conviction. If a defendant is dumb and/or has low paid counsel, the chances of conviction go WAY up.

the well-to-do are rarely convicted wrongfully; care to cite any cases Roxanne? (no doubt they'd get lots of space in WSJ.) indeed the well to do are less often charged than ordinary mortals. sexual assaults and abuse by college jocks and sportsstars in general are rarely punished, and it's a safe inference that because they're not often convicted, they are quite rarely, wrongfully convicted.

Pure, the wealthy hire $400/hour attorneys. The reason the high paid attorneys get the money is connections. They go and talk to a prosecutor and tell the prosecutor that they are willing to put in whatever hours are necessary to get their client off. The prosecutor looks at his conviction percentage and cuts some slack. If the prosecutor is too rough with a high paid defense attorney, there will be no cushy fast track to partnership job with a major law firm after the prosecutor gives up the low paid public work for the dollars.

The poor don't hire $400/hour attorneys.
[/QUOTE]

 

[mjl2010]

In Southern Illinois, a man was convicted of murdering his wife on no evidence (he couldn't provide an alibi and benefitted from her life insurance). It didn't matter to the prosecutor that he was white or middle class, only that the conviction of the man would benefit his career. Several years after the man had been sitting on death row, the FBI stumbled across a member of a biker gang who confessed to the crime on tape and could be placed at the scene. The prosecuting atorney was unimpressed by the evidence and fought tooth & nail to keep the man behind bars. Finally, a judge released him with apologies and the man returned to whatever was left of his life. The prosecuting attorney made a statement to the press that he "knew" the man was the killer and had "gotten away with it".

Des, the case of Gary Gauger that you refer to happened in Northern Illinois, not southern. He sat on death row like what, 12 years. He now speaks out against the death penalty across the country I think.

Yes the DA that prosecuted the case is gone now. The voters of that county soundly ejected him after the election. The evidence in the case was evidence that would have been there either way. Gauger was accused of killing the parents he lived with.

The bikers belonged to the Outlaws and it was in a federal investigation that they told about the Gauger case. What is really outrageous in this case is that the Feds told the DA during the case to drop it, that Gauger was the wrong guy and they knew who it was.

I think that was what killed the DA's chances at re-election.

MJL

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Pure
//the well-to-do are rarely convicted wrongfully; care to cite any cases Roxanne? (no doubt they'd get lots of space in WSJ.) indeed the well to do are less often charged than ordinary mortals. sexual assaults and abuse by college jocks and sportsstars in general are rarely punished, and it's a safe inference that because they're not often convicted, they are quite rarely, wrongfully convicted. //


RR Pure, the wealthy hire $400/hour attorneys. The reason the high paid attorneys get the money is connections. They go and talk to a prosecutor and tell the prosecutor that they are willing to put in whatever hours are necessary to get their client off. The prosecutor looks at his conviction percentage and cuts some slack. If the prosecutor is too rough with a high paid defense attorney, there will be no cushy fast track to partnership job with a major law firm after the prosecutor gives up the low paid public work for the dollars.

The poor don't hire $400/hour attorneys.

P: That's exactly right, RR. We do agree at times.

S-des makes a similar point

SDTo me, this has more to do with the ability of people with means to hire quality lawyers and experts than any bias in the system. It's not that DA's don't go after everyone, but they definitely don't like to be embarrassed (and the more money you have, the easier it is to cause trouble for a prosecutor...ask Mr. Nifong).

P: I disagree that the 'system's' tendency to exonerate those with $400/hr attorneys is not a bias. It's a bias, as is the system's tendency to give those with public defender defense --i.e. the poor--longer prison terms.

Finnerty and Seligman have been reinstated at Duke and may play lacrosse. Dave Evans has graduated; his father is a wealthy attorney. Ms. Rabinowitz, the 'unbiased' source for Ms Appleby, managed to liken Evans position to that of Gerald Amirault, poorly represented at the height of public hysteria who got a long sentence and did 18 years.

As Mr. Evans' mother has said, Nifong will pay for the rest of his life.

It does not pay to mess with the rich. Somehow I doubt any public officials have bit the dust over the Amirault sex molestation fuck up. I wonder if he's gotten any money?

David Evans will do just fine, and probably get a job covering sports for a major newspaper.

This is not to say it's just dandy that he was falsely accused--if he was-- just that his case is NOT one of the more compelling humanitarian suffering cases resulting from miscarriage of the justice system.

NOTE: To compare Mr. Evans with Ray Buckey, who did 5 years on a false molestation charge, lost his home in the process, etc. is quite preposterous.

Here's a free metaphor for Ms Rabinowitz, Box, and Roxanne: Seligman has had to hide from the press; this brings to mind the suffering of Anne Frank, who hid for two years from the Gestapo. Let's hope Mr. Seligman does not meet the same dire fate, after his ordeal.

--
Box, t's a nice flight of fancy, but the young men are not 'scholarship' (limited means) students.

---

I think Zack and Box should start a thread on the sufferings of the Bush twins, and how that's apparently driven one of them to drink; one is so miserable she does high fashion shoots, which really takes a toll.

 

[mjl2010]

Sorry Des

Des, the case of Gary Gauger that you refer to happened in Northern Illinois, not southern. He sat on death row like what, 12 years. He now speaks out against the death penalty across the country I think.

Yes the DA that prosecuted the case is gone now. The voters of that county soundly ejected him after the election. The evidence in the case was evidence that would have been there either way. Gauger was accused of killing the parents he lived with.

The bikers belonged to the Outlaws and it was in a federal investigation that they told about the Gauger case. What is really outrageous in this case is that the Feds told the DA during the case to drop it, that Gauger was the wrong guy and they knew who it was.

I think that was what killed the DA's chances at re-election.

MJL

I reread your post about it being the guys wife that was murdered. How I missed that the first time I don't know. Sorry. Me Bad

MJL

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Pure
//the well-to-do are rarely convicted wrongfully; care to cite any cases Roxanne? (no doubt they'd get lots of space in WSJ.) indeed the well to do are less often charged than ordinary mortals. sexual assaults and abuse by college jocks and sportsstars in general are rarely punished, and it's a safe inference that because they're not often convicted, they are quite rarely, wrongfully convicted. //


RR Pure, the wealthy hire $400/hour attorneys. The reason the high paid attorneys get the money is connections. They go and talk to a prosecutor and tell the prosecutor that they are willing to put in whatever hours are necessary to get their client off. The prosecutor looks at his conviction percentage and cuts some slack. If the prosecutor is too rough with a high paid defense attorney, there will be no cushy fast track to partnership job with a major law firm after the prosecutor gives up the low paid public work for the dollars.

The poor don't hire $400/hour attorneys.

P: That's exactly right, RR. We do agree at times.

S-des makes a similar point

SDTo me, this has more to do with the ability of people with means to hire quality lawyers and experts than any bias in the system. It's not that DA's don't go after everyone, but they definitely don't like to be embarrassed (and the more money you have, the easier it is to cause trouble for a prosecutor...ask Mr. Nifong).

P: I disagree that the 'system's' tendency to exonerate those with $400/hr attorneys is not a bias. It's a bias, as is the system's tendency to give those with public defender defense --i.e. the poor--longer prison terms.

Finnerty and Seligman have been reinstated at Duke and may play lacrosse. Dave Evans has graduated; his father is a wealthy attorney. Ms. Rabinowitz, the 'unbiased' source for Ms Appleby, managed to liken Evans position to that of Violet Amirault, poorly represented at the height of public hysteria who got a long sentence and did 18 years.

As Mr. Evans' mother has said, Nifong will pay for the rest of his life.

It does not pay to mess with the rich. Somehow I doubt any public officials have bit the dust over the Amirault sex molestation fuck up. I wonder if she's gotten any money?

David Evans will do just fine, and probably get a job covering sports for a major newspaper.

This is not to say it's just dandy that he was falsely accused--if he was-- just that his case is NOT one of the more compelling humanitarian suffering cases resulting from miscarriage of the justice system.

NOTE: To compare Mr. Evans with Ray Buckey, who did 5 years on a false molestation charge, lost his home in the process, etc. is quite preposterous.

Here's a free metaphor for Ms Rabinowitz, Box, and Roxanne: Seligman has had to hide from the press; this brings to mind the suffering of Ann Frank, who hid for years from the Gestapo. Let's hope Mr. Seligman does not meet the same dire fate, after his ordeal.

--
Box, t's a nice flight of fancy, but the young men are not 'scholarship' (limited means) students.

---

I referred to athletic scholarships, which usually have nothing to do with means.

 

[Pure]

Box, you said, I don't know how wealthy these three men are. The fact that they are attending an expensive university means nothing, because they might well be there on athletic scholarships.

You were discussing whether the young men have wealthy background, and brought up 'athletic scholarships.' Clearly that relates to scholarships based on limited means. The young men do not have limited means. (Yes, indeed, some scholarships are not means related; whether any of these men have them, I don't know, but it's plainly irrelevant.)

 

[S-Des]

I reread your post about it being the guys wife that was murdered. How I missed that the first time I don't know. Sorry. Me Bad

MJL

Thanks for the catch on the location. I saw a special about it and could swear it was Southern Illinois (vaguely recall the words down state being used). I get caught on that from time to time, just don't have enough time to research everything, so I post what I remember. The biker got caught bragging to an undercover agent, right?

Unfortunately, most of the cases that have been overturned are similar. It doesn't seem to matter what color the defendant is (although there have been an alarmingly high number of cases involving minorities). The most common factor seems to be prosecutors who believe the accused to be guilty, and don't care what it takes to get the conviction (and then refuse to examine the evidence objectively). We seem to have had a glut of high profile cases of police and prosecutor abuse. They are all sickening, both because of the damage done to the innocent, and because the guilty were never found. Some of these cases saw compensation for those wrongly convicted (or in the Riley Fox case, the father was awarded damages arising from the police tactics). However, I can't imagine how it could have done anything to alleviate the suffering they and their families felt.

 

[mjl2010]

On the other hand

I sat on a grand jury. Grand Jury is where the prosecuter gets the ok by the people to go forward with the case. I found our prosecuters to be steadfast in doing their homework. We asked the right questions. We handed out True or False bills.

There were about 25 of us on that Jury. Of them, perhaps sixteen of us showed up for the full stint. Some just sat in back and never opened their mouths even to vote.

Some of us took interest. When the evidence wasn't there or felt not right, we asked for more or for explanations. After we finished our stint, eight weeks (thursdays) as I recall, the DA and the Judge both came and spoke to us and told us we'd been the most challenging GJ they'd ever had, and also it was the best they'd ever seen.

So I blame it partly on the people who served on that Grand Jury. The prosecuter too, but on them as well.

MJL

 

[Pure]

nice penalty for assault, if you can get it (or your dad can)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12442765/site/newsweek/page/2/

Finnerty is said to be soft-spoken, a team player, reserved, even passive, though a bit of a wise guy. Last November, he and two high-school teammates were arrested for jumping and punching a pair of recent college grads on a street in Washington, D.C.'s preppy Georgetown, well after midnight. Finnerty and his mates had taunted their victims by calling them "gay." (Finnerty agreed to perform community service to avoid being formally charged. It is unclear if the rape arrest will affect that case.)

---
the newsweek story above is rather interesting and has lots of facts (or so it would seem).

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Pure, a DA [usually an Assistant DA] is rated on one thing and one thing alone, percentage of convictions in cases that come to trail. The higher the percentage, the better the chances for a political career or a cushy job with a major law firm. The typical DA/Assistant DA will do almost anything, short of murder, to gain a conviction. If a defendant is dumb and/or has low paid counsel, the chances of conviction go WAY up.


Pure, the wealthy hire $400/hour attorneys. The reason the high paid attorneys get the money is connections. They go and talk to a prosecutor and tell the prosecutor that they are willing to put in whatever hours are necessary to get their client off. The prosecutor looks at his conviction percentage and cuts some slack. If the prosecutor is too rough with a high paid defense attorney, there will be no cushy fast track to partnership job with a major law firm after the prosecutor gives up the low paid public work for the dollars.

The poor don't hire $400/hour attorneys.

This is a really skewed point of view. First of all the DA in the Duke case is an ELECTED OFFICIAL. He was elected based on this case. He has no other obvious ambitions. Neither is he a good enough attorney to qualify for a $400/hour law firm.

Attorneys are ruled by a strict code of Evidence and Ethics. This DA broke both codes. That's the reason he is up on charges before the SC Bar Association. Also it is the reason, the case will most likely be dropped.

Those attornys who do make $400/hour, do so because they are very good attornys. My sister is one. It is not have a quishy job. Those people work hard, long hours and are constantly buried in research. They make that kind of money because they are good, are smart and experienced enough to select the cases they can win, and have a high win percentage. They also have the respect of the other attorneys because they have high standards of ethics and ethical behavior. In addition, they have LOTS of court experience and can tear up most of the attorieys in town before a judge, if that's what is needed.

If you wander into my sister's office, have a winable case against a person or company with deep pockets, she would take the case even though you were indigent and without resouces. The loser, in a court case, pays the lawyers.

There is some truth to what you say in a criminal case. However, the indigent law firms I know of, have good attorneys. They may not be the $400/hour variety, but good, none the less. And this is a completely different kind of law. Criminal Law tends to be much more black and white. Indigent firms tend to maximize their profits by working deals rather than fighting in court. That's a problem with the system, not the lawyers.

The fact that the Duke defendants will most likely get off is not a function of the price of their attorneys, but a function of the desreputable ethics of the DA.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you said, I don't know how wealthy these three men are. The fact that they are attending an expensive university means nothing, because they might well be there on athletic scholarships.

You were discussing whether the young men have wealthy background, and brought up 'athletic scholarships.' Clearly that relates to scholarships based on limited means. The young men do not have limited means. (Yes, indeed, some scholarships are not means related; whether any of these men have them, I don't know, but it's plainly irrelevant.)

For one of the few times recently, I agree with you.

Athletic scholarships have nothing to do with family resources and have evferything to do with athletic prowess. As a lacrosse powerhouse, Duke recruits high school athletes from around the country, mostly in the East, and offers them scholarships to come to Duke. As a perennial basketball powerhouse, they do the same for that sport but their program is much more extensive. Since these men came from far away to attend Duke, rather than attend prestigious universities closer to their homes, I assume there is some added incentive, such as a scholarship.

I know nothing of the backgrounds of the three men involved. I doubt very much that they are poor, but that doesn't mean they are rich. To be honest, fmily wealth has nothing to do with their guilt or innocence, so I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

 

[Pure]

further developments re Collin Finnerty.

the Finnerty's deal for community service in exchange for not being charged with assault on Mr. Bloxsom, was voided because of Finnerty's arrest in the Duke Lacrosse affair.

so Finnerty went to trial in July of 2006.


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-usduke0711,0,4527924.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines


Duke player's D.C. trial begins

Garden City native, suspected in alleged rape of dancer in Duke lacrosse scandal, said to have led bar fight

BY GLENN THRUSH
Newsday Washington Bureau

July 11, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Duke University lacrosse player Collin Finnerty instigated an attack on two bar patrons in Georgetown last year, allegedly shouting anti-gay slurs and asking one man if he'd perform a sex act, according to trial testimony from his accuser yesterday.

The 19-year-old Garden City native and two former Chaminade High School classmates allegedly surrounded Jeffrey Bloxsom and Scott Herndon during the wee hours of Nov. 5, taunting and shoving the pair as they tried to walk home. The group then briefly brawled, leaving Bloxsom with a bloody lip and bruised cheek, prosecutors charged on the first day of Finnerty's trial in District of Columbia Superior Court.


Finnerty faces 180 days in jail, a $1,000 fine or both if convicted of misdemeanor assault. He won't testify on his own behalf today as the trial concludes, his father, Kevin, told Newsday.

The U.S. attorney's office had originally agreed to a deal that would have allowed Finnerty to plead guilty and perform community service, but the offer was rescinded after he was charged with raping a dancer near the Duke campus in Durham, N.C.

In a dramatic hour on the stand, Bloxsom told the court that a drunk Finnerty shoved him and stood close to his ear, shouting, "Say you're a fag!"

Bloxsom, 27, who isn't gay and had dinner with his fiancée hours before the attack, said he replied, "I'm a fag," hoping his pursuers would let him go.

Instead, he claimed that Finnerty taunted him further by asking if Bloxsom would perform a sex act on another man; again, Bloxsom said he would in hopes of avoiding violence.

A few minutes later, Bloxsom -- who said at one point he tried to get away by pushing one of the men -- said he was on the ground, after being punched by an unidentified member of Finnerty's group. Herndon testified Finnerty punched and kicked him, although he suffered no significant injuries.

Finnerty's attorney Steve McCool portrayed the incident as a dispute that got out of hand, suggesting that Herndon may have started the fight. He also portrayed Herndon as a hothead who liked to drink, focusing on Herndon's 2004 arrest for drunkenness outside a Virginia bar.

In an odd twist, D.C.-based blogger Wonkette.com reported yesterday that Finnerty was seen at a party in Washington's Glover Park neighborhood on Saturday, July 1. The post misspelled Finnerty's first name and incorrectly reported that he had already been "convicted."

Still, it caught the attention of Judge John H. Bayly, who said he'd investigate whether Finnerty had violated his 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. court-imposed curfew.

"Collin Finnerty was not at a party anywhere on Saturday night," McCool told reporters. "He has been abiding by his curfew conditions."

Two other former Chaminade students arrested in the assault, Daniel Dagnes and Patrick Bonanno, were allowed to submit guilty pleas in exchange for a six-month restitution program that includes community service.

===
Pure: Further developments

Finnerty was convicted.

Then…

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/01/finnertys-dc-conviction-set-aside.html

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Finnerty’s DC Conviction Set Aside

The latest indication of near universal acceptance of the actual innocence of the falsely persecuted victims of Defendant Nifong’s Hoax comes from Washington, D.C., Superior Court Judge John H. Bayly Jr. Benjamin Niolet of the News & Observer reports that Collin Finnerty’s misdemeanor simple assault conviction was set aside last month by Judge Bayly, who also ended Finnerty‘s probation early.

“A Washington, D.C., judge said last month that he would wipe the simple-assault case against Collin Finnerty off his record, six days after Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped the rape charge against the former Duke lacrosse player.

“Finnerty was convicted in July of misdemeanor simple assault stemming from a November 2005 incident outside a Georgetown bar. He was accused of threatening and taunting a Washington man after a night of drinking.

“On Dec. 28, D.C. Superior Court Judge John H. Bayly Jr. ended Finnerty's probation, said Leah Gurowitz, spokeswoman for the D.C. Courts.

“Finnerty's attorney moved to set aside and vacate the verdict under a district law that allows young offenders to have convictions erased. The judge said in court he would grant that motion, Gurowitz said.” Niolet, N&O

 

[Pure]

About the young men and $$$$

This is from the Newsweek story. The families' wealth of course is irrelevant to the question, in this particular instance, of Finnerty's or Seligmann's guilt. I simply post this, since some don't seem to know the facts. The question of family wealth IS relevant, in general [in connection with a pattern], to the workings of the criminal justice system, and its tendency to leave the wealthy alone, give minimal sentences, etc.

The two players arrested last week fit the rich-kid stereotype, though they were praised by neighbors and teachers as exemplary young men. Seligmann's father works in finance; the family lives in a stately brick Georgian in Essex Fells, N.J., assessed at $1.35 million in 2005. Seligmann, who was recruited by Harvard and Princeton as well as Duke, was described by Essex Fells Mayor Ed Abbot as "in many ways a role model to all the boys." Finnerty's father is a Wall Street financier with a $2 million Dutch colonial next to the Garden City (N.Y.) Golf Club and a $4.3 million summer home in West Hampton Beach, complete with motorboat and tennis court.