"An amazing performance of journalism on the fly.” - Stuart Taylor
Mike Pressler, Don Yaeger
It's Not About the Truth: The Untold Story of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case and the Lives It Shattered
Nader Baydoun, R. Stephanie Good
Thomson Gale
60 Minutes - The Duke Rape Case (October 15, 2006)
Dennis Draughon Freelance Jun 9, 2007 |
Signe Wilkinson Philadelphia Daily News Jun 20, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Mar 24, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Jun 30, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Jun 16, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Feb 10, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Jan 6, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance May 12, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Mar 19, 2007 |
Dennis Draughon Freelance Jun 23, 2007 |
5 comments:
Summary of the Colorado case mentioned in the hearing:
The case presented an issue of first impression, namely, the parameters of a prosecutor's ethical duty to disclose exculpatory material to the defense under Colo. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(d). The complaint charged an assistant district attorney with misconduct in two separate preliminary hearings. In each case, the attorney became aware of exculpatory evidence, and, in each case, she delayed providing it to the defense until after the preliminary hearing. The hearing board found that in both cases the attorney had the time and opportunity to disclose the information prior to the preliminary hearings. The hearing board held that the rule incorporated a broader and more encompassing materiality standard than that required under a Brady constitutional standard. The court, in order not to impose inconsistent obligations upon prosecutors attempting to comply with both procedural rules and rules of professional conduct, declined to adopt the broader standard. The court held that the rule required prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense in advance of any critical stage of the proceeding, but that a prosecutor violated Rule 3.8(d) only if the prosecutor acted intentionally.
Incredible!
Nifong's attorney argued that exculpatory evidence did not have to be provided in a timely manner to the defense until and unless a trial was held (due process). So, as the State Bar's attorney summarized, If that statement were true, a DA could withhold exculpatory evidence in every case where a plea bargain was arrived at. If a defendant did not have the resources to go to trial, he was out of luck.
Brutal!
Motiion to dismiss was denied.
Nifong is in charge of the trial calendar - thats why after twelve months,there was no trial scheduled. He intended to keep this going forever and steal these boys lives - Poor Freedman does not have alot to work with.
Ms Jean took Nifong arguements apart and left them burning in the corner.
Advice to Nifong, turn in your license and resign
Post a Comment