Duke lacrosse thugs?

[JW]

If true, pretty sad.

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observe...l/14189543.htm

Dancer reports rape by Duke lacrosse players
46 submit DNA to police; team members had off-campus party

Associated PressDURHAM - A dancer who reported that she was raped by members of the Duke University lacrosse team said she thought she would be dancing for five men at a bachelor party, but she and another woman were surrounded by dozens.

Men shouted racial slurs at the women, both black, she said in an interview with The News & Observer of Raleigh.

"We started to cry," she said. "We were so scared."

No arrests had been made by late Saturday after 46 members of the men's team submitted DNA samples to police.

"We're asking someone from the lacrosse team to step forward," Durham police Cpl. David Addison said. "We will be relentless in finding out who committed this crime."

Duke's athletics director said Saturday that the team will forfeit its next two games -- a match Saturday against Georgetown and one Tuesday against Mount St. Mary's.

"I am dismayed by the party on March 13 held by members of the men's lacrosse team at an off-campus residence," Joe Alleva said in a statement.
He said the players deny the criminal allegations.

"Several players who were present acknowledge, however, that they did hire private party dancers and that underage drinking occurred," Alleva said.

The woman said the reported assault took place in the early hours of March 14 near Duke's East Campus. She said she worked for an escort service to help support her two children and pay for classes at N.C. Central University.
Police records show officers have been called to the house where the reported rape occurred four times since September.

A neighbor, Jason Bissey, said he should have called police when he noticed something was wrong. He said he saw at least 30 men enter the home, which Duke officials said is rented by three lacrosse team captains.

Bissey said he heard one of the men yell racial comments at the victim.

[ScottVib]

If this turns out to be true forfeiting 2 games may not be enough, IMO.

Edit - Note, obviously I'm only talking about a team-wide punishment... obviously anyone guilty deserves whatever the law would do to them and then some.

[terpkristin]

Originally Posted by JW

...Duke's athletics director said Saturday that the team will forfeit its next two games -- a match Saturday against Georgetown and one Tuesday against Mount St. Mary's...

If the story is true, they should have to forfeit two games that matter. Georgetown isn't exactly a pushover, but MSM is.

/tk

[ScottVib]

Personally to me if its' true they should forfeit the season.

The players hosting the party are the squads three captains, 46 members of the team had to submit DNA. The captains are supposed to represent the squad, and for 46 players to be reasonably compelled to provide DNA it would seem to indicate some sort of teamwide incident (beyond the admitted underage drinking).

[Klinglerware]

Latest article states that 15 members of the team had priors on their records. That's almost 1/3 of the team, which just seems amazing to me. Granted, most of the charges are alcohol-related, but it sure doesn't look good from an institutional-control/team-culture aspect.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/422787.html

15 players had prior charges
Lacrosse team at Duke under fire

In the past three years, about a third of the members of the Duke lacrosse team, under investigation in a reported gang rape, have been charged with misdemeanors stemming from drunken and disruptive behavior, court records show.

Of the team's 47 members, 15 faced charges including underage alcohol possession, having open containers of alcohol, loud noise and public urination.

Most of those charges were resolved in deals with prosecutors that allowed the players to escape criminal convictions.

On Monday, details continued to emerge in the March 13 incident in which a woman who was hired as an exotic dancer for a lacrosse team party said she was held down, beaten, strangled, raped and sodomized. When the woman and another dancer began their routines, the woman said, one of the men watching held up a broomstick and threatened to sexually assault the women, according to court documents released Monday.

The women were told that the men at the party were members of the baseball or track teams, apparently to hide their identities, according to a document that was used to obtain a judge's order requiring each member of the team to submit to a DNA test. After the broomstick threat, the women left but were followed out by a man who persuaded them to return, the document says. That's when, the woman said, three men pushed her into a bathroom and began the assault, which she said lasted for 30 minutes. She lost four fingernails as she scratched at one of the men who was strangling her, according to the document.

[Philliesfan980]

Absolutely disgusting. Wow, imagine going to Duke and then getting a rape added to your record. Bye bye life. Nobody's going to hire them for a professional job. Imagine sitting in jail thinking "I went to duke, now I'm here because I raped someone".

Wow.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Latest article states that 15 members of the team had priors on their records. That's almost 1/3 of the team, which just seems amazing to me. Granted, most of the charges are alcohol-related, but it sure doesn't look good from an institutional-control/team-culture aspect.

Imagine if 1/3 of the Miami Hurricanes football team had criminal charges?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Imagine if 1/3 of the Miami Hurricanes football team had criminal charges?

They've really been cleaning up their act!

[ScottVib]

The team has now been suspended indefinitely pending the outcome of the investigation

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2387151

[Chubby]

Interesting. A kid my mom taught in HS is on Duke and his parents are friends with my mom. I'll have to see if she's heard more.

[cuervo72]

Off topic, but holy cow, Duke costs $43k a year now? My kids better be real smart (and motivated to get scholarships), or like state school...

Back when I was at Hopkins, there was a lax player who was absolutely scary...reminded me of Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds (and seemed about as destructive). It was pretty apparent he was there just for lax...I'd imagine some of these guys were there just for that too.

[Chubby]

Hopkins is evil, that's why

Eerily, the player my mom knows... his older brother plays lacrosse at hopkins as well...

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Off topic, but holy cow, Duke costs $43k a year now? My kids better be real smart (and motivated to get scholarships), or like state school...

If it makes you feel any better, if you make a middle-class income, you are unlikely to pay full sticker price at a place like Duke. In fact, depending on your income, some of these schools may end up being very comparable cost-wise to state school (after financial aid is factored in).

On topic, some of these players with prior charges had them for relatively minor crimes. Getting a second chance seems reasonable to me in these cases. However, it just seems plain reckless for these guys with records to expose themselves a second time like this, especialy in-season. I'd be a bit more careful if I were on strike 2, with a clean criminal record, Duke scholarship, and degree on the line...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I'd be a bit more careful if I were on strike 2, with a clean criminal record, Duke scholarship, and degree on the line...

A *bit* more careful? Jeez, it's not like they stole a loaf of bread or anything. Beating and gang raping a woman is much more than mere carelessness - it's a horrible crime and all players involved should get their asses thrown in jail.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Hopkins is evil

Well sure, that's a given (and I think they have long been planning the eventual takeover of Maryland, but that's just me).

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

If it makes you feel any better, if you make a middle-class income, you are unlikely to pay full sticker price at a place like Duke. In fact, depending on your income, some of these schools may end up being very comparable cost-wise to state school (after financial aid is factored in)

Could well be - I came from a decidedly middle-class family, and I managed Hopkins; might have been around $20k a year then, and half of that was probably taken care of with grants, and for the last two years there was a good chunk in college loans as well (w00t, finally paid those off in Jan).

now, back to your regularly scheduled thug athlete thread

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

A *bit* more careful? Jeez, it's not like they stole a loaf of bread or anything. Beating and gang raping a woman is much more than mere carelessness - it's a horrible crime and all players involved should get their asses thrown in jail.

Of course. I should have been more specific--the players with priors for something alcohol-related should been careful about being at an alcohol event, especially at a house that was a known commodity to the local police.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

(w00t, finally paid those off in Jan).

Congrats. I think I have about 25 years to go on my student loans...

[CraigSca]

Reading more, there have been protests inside and outside the campus because of the racial ramifications. Apparently Durham is a racially-mixed, middle and lower-middle class town, so there's backlash against what is believed to be the "typical" Duke student (that can afford $43k a year).

[Klinglerware]

Search warrant on the Smoking Gun site:

hxxp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke1.html

Looks like the first names of the alleged assailants are mentioned in the document. Which is probably why the roster page on the Duke athletics web-site has been taken down...

[BuffaloHuskey]

Not defending what they did, but I do not think it is fair to necessary categorize the Duke players as thugs just because 1/3 of the team has been CHARGED, not CONVICTED of a misedeamenor. I have several friends who were arrested for various drinking/fake id/misc stupid college kid crimes who were charged with misdemeanors but only were convicted of violations.

The rape thing is obviously taking it to another level and is totally dispicable, but I would not make anything out of 1/3 of the team having been charged with a misdemeanor at one time. If they were charged with Felony's maybe that is one thing but it is not very hard to get charged with a misdemeanor when you live in a college town and party for four years straight. If you end up with a conviction of a misdemeanor, you must really have screwed up becuase normally they will let college kids plead down to a violation and pay a fine.

[Chubby]

Are you sure it's the assailants and not the team members who were living in the house?

[astrosfan64]

If the rape is true, that is really bad.

But at this point, you are taking the word of a stripper? What if she made things up because, she wouldn't get any more money? Remember that happened with a basketball team before.

We have no clue if this is true. Untill the court case, we shouldn't assume everything the stripper says is true.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

If the rape is true, that is really bad.

But at this point, you are taking the word of a stripper? What if she made things up because, she wouldn't get any more money? Remember that happened with a basketball team before.

We have no clue if this is true. Untill the court case, we shouldn't assume everything the stripper says is true.

The fact there is DNA suggests she may be telling the truth. Then of course there is the physical damage from the beating that would be apparent.

[astrosfan64]

I don't see any mention of physical damage done to the stripper in the article. In fact, if she scratched one who was strangling her, there should be a scratch mark on one of them. She accused them of all of these things, but I haven't noticed comments from law enforcement saying she was severly beaten or had strangle marks on her neck etc...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I don't see any mention of physical damage done to the stripper in the article. In fact, if she scratched one who was strangling her, there should be a scratch mark on one of them. She accused them of all of these things, but I haven't noticed comments from law enforcement saying she was severly beaten or had strangle marks on her neck etc...

It is in the article that she says these things happened. So, you're saying she made the claims these happened, the police looked at her and didn't find any physical indication that it did happen, but they still got a search warrant and DNA samples. Why? All of the police are North Carolina fans?

[Greyroofoo]

The 3 athletes who committed the rape should be on the receiving end of a prison in-mate named Marcy.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is in the article that she says these things happened. So, your saying she made the claims these happened, the police looked at her and didn't find any physical indication that it did happen, but they still got a search warrant and DNA samples. Why? All of the police are North Carolina fans?

I wish I could find that article related to one of the div 1 college basketball teams. I think it was St. Joes, but it was the same story and she turned out to be lying.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

It is in the article that she says these things happened. So, you're saying she made the claims these happened, the police looked at her and didn't find any physical indication that it did happen, but they still got a search warrant and DNA samples. Why? All of the police are North Carolina fans?

I'm not saying the lax players are innocent but if the cops are "townies" (for lack of a better term) then it's certainly possible they are going to go full bore on this even if there's little evidence (and i don't know how much there is)

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I wish I could find that article related to one of the div 1 college basketball teams. I think it was St. Joes, but it was the same story and she turned out to be lying.

I'm sure, but that case is not this case. To quote the DA:

"I needed to have the information about who will be charged," said District Attorney Mike Nifong said. "I feel pretty confident that a rape occurred."

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

I wish I could find that article related to one of the div 1 college basketball teams. I think it was St. Joes, but it was the same story and she turned out to be lying.

Are you thinking of St. John's? The way I remember the story, they hired a girl to have sex with all of them, then refused to pay her. Somebody had recorded the event on their cell phone camera.

[astrosfan64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Are you thinking of St. John's? The way I remember the story, they hired a girl to have sex with all of them, then refused to pay her. Somebody had recorded the event on their cell phone camera.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

Yeah St. Johns....

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I'm not saying the lax players are innocent but if the cops are "townies" (for lack of a better term) then it's certainly possible they are going to go full bore on this even if there's little evidence (and i don't know how much there is)

But a DA is a political creature, and Duke owns Durham. I doubt very seriously that he would purposely sabotage a National Championship of the university without good reason.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by astrosfan64

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9629C8B63

Yeah St. Johns....

In that case, she was quickly proven a liar and charges were brought against her. Not happening here where the DA believes that the rape did occur.

[GrantDawg]

This is the fourth page of the search warrant that describes what the accuser said happened. Notice she says she was hit, kicked, and strangled, as well as anally raped. There is no way the police go forward on this case if there were no physical evidence of this, and the evidence would have been very easily seen.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0329061duke4.html

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Reading more, there have been protests inside and outside the campus because of the racial ramifications. Apparently Durham is a racially-mixed, middle and lower-middle class town, so there's backlash against what is believed to be the "typical" Duke student (that can afford $43k a year).

Okay, I saw this comment earlier & now I've seen the wire service article talking about the same aspect ... but now I'm confused by something in that story, so I'll throw it in here.

Here's a link to the full story
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/spor...30sptduke.html

Now here's the quote that I don't exactly get
The words could be much worse among North Carolina Central students right now. Alexcia Harris, a junior at Central who was asked about that Wednesday afternoon, wasn't particularly harsh, but couldn't help but believe there was a double standard at work.

"If it happened on our campus, she wouldn't get justice," said Harris, a criminal justice major. "If it happens at an ACC [Atlantic Coast Conference] school, she'll get justice. There have been a number of things that happened here. A girl got robbed around here the other day at gunpoint. They want to make excuses. They want to know why she was out late."

Okay, the article talked about how historically black NC-Central, just several miles from the Duke campus was reacting. I get that part.
And the article talked about how this was a working class black victim claiming she was attacked by rich white guys. I get that part.

But, for the life of me, it sounds like Alexcia Harris is saying that the alleged victim will get treated better because the attackers are "from an ACC school" (presumably she means a rich white school).

If the racial element is a big part of the story, doesn't it stand more to reason that she would get treated worse by authorities if the attackers were white instead of getting a more thorough investigation because the alleged attackers are white? Basically, I read her as trying to claim that, if the crime were black-on-black it would be ignored but since it's allegedly white-on-black then it's going to be investigated ... which might make sense right up until you realize that the people going to jail are going to be white & that ain't exactly the model of racism I usually see being decried.

I can't tell if the quote is out of context & that's what's making it sound kinda screwy or if the interviewee just got tongue-tied or if she's just talked herself into a circle and really didn't know what the hell she was trying to say.

Anybody want to take a crack at making sense of it?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"If it happened on our campus, she wouldn't get justice," said Harris, a criminal justice major. "If it happens at an ACC [Atlantic Coast Conference] school, she'll get justice. There have been a number of things that happened here. A girl got robbed around here the other day at gunpoint. They want to make excuses. They want to know why she was out late."

I can't tell if the quote is out of context & that's what's making it sound kinda screwy or if the interviewee just got tongue-tied or if she's just talked herself into a circle and really didn't know what the hell she was trying to say.

Anybody want to take a crack at making sense of it?

I'd guess either interviewee/interview getting confused, combined with most people suffering from a persecution complex.


Overall, this is a horrible story all around. I don't want to speculate too much without knowing all the facts, but A) based off what I've heard they completely deserve to have their season cancelled and B) absent the rape aspect, this really isn't that different than what most athletic teams do. See also the 15 out of 46 being charged with a misdemeanor. I'd wager that 1 out of 3 would hold true for most college males, especially those athletically inclined.

Chubby - the way I read the smoking gun report, it indicated they were the assailants, but from what I heard secondhand it was the kids who owned the house that were listed.

[spcd]

Can anyone explain how DNA tests, blood tests, or blowing into a breathalizer for that matter, get around Constitutional protection against self-incrimination?

Nothing really to do with what happened in this particular case, but I would have thought being forced to submit to a medical procedure to be an obvious example of being compelled to give evidence against yourself.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

See also the 15 out of 46 being charged with a misdemeanor. I'd wager that 1 out of 3 would hold true for most college males, especially those athletically inclined.

Yeah, I think they are way playing up that angle is out of control. The reporting of 1/3 having been charged with offenses like underage possession, loud noise and public urination such in an attempt to make them look like thugs or persistent scofflaws is a joke. I am disgusted by the thought that 3 men did this and that a large number of others allowed it to take place and are protecting them now. But, if the worst you have on them is that they were loud, drank underage and went on the lawn in college, lets not work too hard at painting the lacrosse team like they have been running rampant terrorizing the campus for years.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by spcd

Can anyone explain how DNA tests, blood tests, or blowing into a breathalizer for that matter, get around Constitutional protection against self-incrimination?

Nothing really to do with what happened in this particular case, but I would have thought being forced to submit to a medical procedure to be an obvious example of being compelled to give evidence against yourself.

With the ubiquitous caveat that the issue can get more complicated than this, the short answer is that the 5th Amendment prevents the government from compelling you to present "testimonial" evidence against yourself. And, whatever testimonial evidence is, it is not a blood/breathalizer test.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/348/

[spcd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

With the ubiquitous caveat that the issue can get more complicated than this, the short answer is that the 5th Amendment prevents the government from compelling you to present "testimonial" evidence against yourself. And, whatever testimonial evidence is, it is not a blood/breathalizer test.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/348/

Thanks for the link and explanation. I found a fuller version here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=384&invol=757

Looking through, IMHO they jumped through a hoop to find it constitutional, and I suppose preventing drunk driving was a compelling reason to do so. But, they couldn't have forseen that eventually so much evidence could be gathered from compelled physical evidence. I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't tried to challenge it, as the "spirit" of the 5th appears to me at least, to be drafted to protect against this type of evidence, as there's no way they could have forseen future evidence gathering technique.

One more question, are fingerprints compellable too? Were they before this ruling or after?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by spcd

Thanks for the link and explanation. I found a fuller version here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=384&invol=757

Looking through, IMHO they jumped through a hoop to find it constitutional, and I suppose preventing drunk driving was a compelling reason to do so. But, they couldn't have forseen that eventually so much evidence could be gathered from compelled physical evidence. I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't tried to challenge it, as the "spirit" of the 5th appears to me at least, to be drafted to protect against this type of evidence, as there's no way they could have forseen future evidence gathering technique.

One more question, are fingerprints compellable too? Were they before this ruling or after?

I don't see where your getting "jumped through hoops." It was a unanimous decision that "testimonial" means communicative, and that blood is physical evidence. Pretty straight-forward to me.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by spcd

Thanks for the link and explanation. I found a fuller version here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=384&invol=757

Looking through, IMHO they jumped through a hoop to find it constitutional, and I suppose preventing drunk driving was a compelling reason to do so. But, they couldn't have forseen that eventually so much evidence could be gathered from compelled physical evidence. I'm surprised the ACLU hasn't tried to challenge it, as the "spirit" of the 5th appears to me at least, to be drafted to protect against this type of evidence, as there's no way they could have forseen future evidence gathering technique.

One more question, are fingerprints compellable too? Were they before this ruling or after?

I'm not sure about fingerprints, but I don't see why they wouldn't fall into the blood/breath category.

While I understand your concerns about the limits of the 5th Amendment, I think that you would have a lot of other problems if that decision had come out the other way. Almost every type of evidence--short of a confession--is physical evidence in some way. What if eyewitnesses saw a guy rob a bank who was wearing a blue shirt and a red ski mask. And then the cops found you a block away taking off a red ski mask and a blue shirt. Should the fact that you were taking those items off be used against you at trial? What about the fact that you "looked like" the perpetrator according to the eyewitness? Or the fact that drug residue was found in your clothes? There is a lot of physical evidence that would have to be supressed if we did not limit the 5th Amendment to testimonial evidence.

Where I (and others) think that some of your concerns may be valid is in the arena of the 4th amendment--which protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has indicated that a search is unreasonable if it violates a "reasonable expectation of privacy." So if you are smoking a joint on a public street--the cops can bust you because you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are doing it in your bedroom, they need a reason to go in because you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your bedroom.

Seems simple enough, but there was a case where the court held that it was unreasonable for the cops to search for grow lights inside of a house by scanning the house with an infrared thermal imager. The court noted at the end however what it's holding was--namely that "Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a "search" and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."(emphasis added)

You can see where I am going with this. Technology evolves and gets cheaper and more available over time. What is your reasonable expectation of privacy 20 years from now when cell phones come with thermal imagers standard? The problem with the "reasonable person" standard is that, every day, we grow more and more accustomed to technology invading our privacy. Eventually, some argue, it will be hard to see any limits on the government's power to search--as long as there is an evolving market for better and better snooping-type technology.

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1304/

[spcd]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I'm not sure about fingerprints, but I don't see why they wouldn't fall into the blood/breath category.

I would imagine so, just wondering if they could be compelled before this case, or after. It would surprise me if they were compellable, but weren't mentioned in the case as they would have been an existing parallel for the breath test.

While I understand your concerns about the limits of the 5th Amendment, I think that you would have a lot of other problems if that decision had come out the other way. Almost every type of evidence--short of a confession--is physical evidence in some way.

True, but the difference is that blood/breath/dna is part of a person, not their belongings or possessions. Essentially, a person's body is being treated in a similar fashion to his posessions, despite the Constitution explicitly requiring due process for the latter to be used, unless "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" was remarkable medical foresight, and not meaning property

I think I can also distinguish between a person, and objects stored within the person. For example, swallowed drug packages, or objects inserted into cavaties. But I do have a hard time reconciling the 5th with medical procedures taking fluid.

What if eyewitnesses saw a guy rob a bank who was wearing a blue shirt and a red ski mask. And then the cops found you a block away taking off a red ski mask and a blue shirt. Should the fact that you were taking those items off be used against you at trial?

I don't think that's a valid comparison, what you describe could be introduced by the testimony those watching the suspect, similarly, discarded clothing is evidence found, not taken medically.

Interesting, from the Schrember case, they mention Holt, where you can be compelled to wear something. I would have thought that this too violated the spirit of the 5th, if not the wording.

What about the fact that you "looked like" the perpetrator according to the eyewitness? Or the fact that drug residue was found in your clothes? There is a lot of physical evidence that would have to be supressed if we did not limit the 5th Amendment to testimonial evidence.

Again, an eyewitness is not self incrimination, it's from a witness. For the clothes see above. I can see a more pertinent comparison to a medical procedure: being compelled to take part in a lineup.

Where I (and others) think that some of your concerns may be valid is in the arena of the 4th amendment--which protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has indicated that a search is unreasonable if it violates a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

The problem IMHO, is that privacy has been a fluctuating expectation. As the grow lights example illustrates. There's also the problem that a significant number of justices take the position that privacy was never a constitutional protection, and would go as far as possible to limit privacy, especially as technology sparks new issues before the courts. Essentially, if I was on trial, I'd rather be appealing a violation against the 5th than the 4th, particularly in today's SC.

I understand that there are concerns and valid reasoning behind it, but suppose technology eventually leads to the downloading of a person's memory. As it's not speech, then a person could be compelled to submit to the procedure. At this point, the 5th would be rendered completely worthless, and I can't imagine that was ever the intention of the ammendment.

[kcchief19]

Am I the only one highly disturbed by this quote from the Durham County DA?

Originally Posted by http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2390981

"If it's not the way it's been reported, then why are they so unwilling to tell us what, in their words, did take place that night?" Nifong told Smith on Thursday. "And one would wonder why one needs an attorney if one was not charged and had not doing anything wrong."

Wow. He would appear to be suggesting that having getting representation from an attorney and having an attorney present during questioning by the police is some type of admission of guilt.

This to me seems to be a horrible breach of legal ethics. I can certainly understand a prosecutor having a red flag go up in his or her mind when a suspect stonewalls them, but to publicly state this players must have done something wrong because they contacted an attorney before questioning by the police just seems horribly wrong. Is his message to the publicly that if you're not guilty you don't need an attorney during questioning? Supreme Court rulings and common sense would seem to suggest otherwise.

What do the FOFC attorneys make of that comment? Am I blowing this out of proportion, or does this seem like a horribly unethical comment for a prosecutor to make publicly?

[Mustang]

Glad you posted that kc. That comment struck me as unusually odd to make. If I was accussed of anything at all where the potential for jail time existed, you can be damn sure that I would be getting a lawyer.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, I saw this comment earlier & now I've seen the wire service article talking about the same aspect ... but now I'm confused by something in that story, so I'll throw it in here.

Here's a link to the full story
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/spor...30sptduke.html

Now here's the quote that I don't exactly get
The words could be much worse among North Carolina Central students right now. Alexcia Harris, a junior at Central who was asked about that Wednesday afternoon, wasn't particularly harsh, but couldn't help but believe there was a double standard at work.

"If it happened on our campus, she wouldn't get justice," said Harris, a criminal justice major. "If it happens at an ACC [Atlantic Coast Conference] school, she'll get justice. There have been a number of things that happened here. A girl got robbed around here the other day at gunpoint. They want to make excuses. They want to know why she was out late."

Okay, the article talked about how historically black NC-Central, just several miles from the Duke campus was reacting. I get that part.
And the article talked about how this was a working class black victim claiming she was attacked by rich white guys. I get that part.

But, for the life of me, it sounds like Alexcia Harris is saying that the alleged victim will get treated better because the attackers are "from an ACC school" (presumably she means a rich white school).

If the racial element is a big part of the story, doesn't it stand more to reason that she would get treated worse by authorities if the attackers were white instead of getting a more thorough investigation because the alleged attackers are white? Basically, I read her as trying to claim that, if the crime were black-on-black it would be ignored but since it's allegedly white-on-black then it's going to be investigated ... which might make sense right up until you realize that the people going to jail are going to be white & that ain't exactly the model of racism I usually see being decried.

I can't tell if the quote is out of context & that's what's making it sound kinda screwy or if the interviewee just got tongue-tied or if she's just talked herself into a circle and really didn't know what the hell she was trying to say.

Anybody want to take a crack at making sense of it?

Okay, I'll try. I think its the typical "people get murdered in our neighborhood, and the cops take 5 hours to show up" Versus "People get their house toilet papered in that neighborhood and 6 cop cars show up." There is a pretty strong belief among people I've known that the cops only care about crime in certain areas. The victim in this case may receive more "justice" because the people that live in the affluent area will be pissed if the cops don't find the guilty parties in this act, because there shouldn't be violent crime in our affluent area. It isn't so much about the victim, its about finding the "Bad people" who did the crime.

I don't personally subscribe to the above theory, but I've heard it before, and i think that is what she is saying. Doesnt really make sense.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Am I the only one highly disturbed by this quote from the Durham County DA?


Wow. He would appear to be suggesting that having getting representation from an attorney and having an attorney present during questioning by the police is some type of admission of guilt.

This to me seems to be a horrible breach of legal ethics. I can certainly understand a prosecutor having a red flag go up in his or her mind when a suspect stonewalls them, but to publicly state this players must have done something wrong because they contacted an attorney before questioning by the police just seems horribly wrong. Is his message to the publicly that if you're not guilty you don't need an attorney during questioning? Supreme Court rulings and common sense would seem to suggest otherwise.

What do the FOFC attorneys make of that comment? Am I blowing this out of proportion, or does this seem like a horribly unethical comment for a prosecutor to make publicly?

Certainly, the government won't be able to make any sort of an argument like this to the jury--or even a hint of an argument like this.

And it is . . . bad form to announce it in public. I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it is unethical, but it is certainly unprofessional.

I think that the DA here is pissed because the kids had the sense to lawyer up before he could get a quick and cheap confession (or even a sense of what happened) from them. And they didn't just lawyer up with a public defender. I am sure that they got the best lawyer that their mommie and daddy could buy (and, seeing as they go to Duke, that would be a pretty expensive lawyer).

Duke aside, Durham is a rough town. The DA is probably spends 95% of his time dealing with drug and murder suspects. So he isn't used to suspects who have the sense to lawyer up--or who can afford a good lawyer when they do. And he isn't used to dealing with people about whom you shouldn't talk bad in the press. (No one would notice what he said about the suspects in yet another drug bust). I don't know the guy, and I may be off base with this--but I believe that the DA just isn't used to something like this--a high profile violent crime with a black victim and rich white suspects who all have a really good lawyer. It will be a challenge to prosecute this with success and to play the PR game properly. I don't envy him his task.

FWIW, if I were those kids I would have lawyered up, too. Even if I was an uninvolved member of the team who just happened to be at the party and see some stuff. You really can't be too careful. Plus, I am scared of cops and jail and all that. I always get a kick out of Law & Order when the cops are interviewing potential suspects and the suspects calmly go about their business while tossing wisecracks back at the officers--generally ending the exchange with something like, "Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for a lunch appointment." If the police ever indicate to me that they suspect me of a murder, I will 1.) call a lawyer and 2.) piss myself--though not necessarily in that order.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Am I the only one highly disturbed by this quote from the Durham County DA?

Maybe there's a simple explanation:

He attended the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

(Sorry, I saw that and couldn't resist)

More likely, he's a little over his head. Turns out he's a recent (2005) appointee to the job, elevated after his former boss accepted a judgeship. Now he's in the middle of what looks like might be a tough campaign in a race that includes an ADA who is known for handling high profile cases.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

This is as good a time as any to quickly explain what "aiding and abetting" is. It is not a separate crime. If you assist someone in the commission of a crime, then you can be found guilty of the underlying crime and punished as if you were the principal. It is a yes/no analysis. Either you helped the person commit the crime, or you didn't. The degree of your involvement does not matter.

So if Joe asks me to lend him my car so he can rob the liquor store, and I do and he does--I can be found guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery. And if Joe asks me to drive him there and to act as a lookout and to drive him away--I can be found guilty of aiding and abetting the robbery. I am not "more guilty" in the second hypothetical than in the first.

Finally, your assistance must be with the intent to help the person commit the crime. If Joe asks to borrow my car to drive to the store, and--unknown to me--he robs the store, then I am not guilty of aiding and abetting. Pretty common sense stuff.

For purposes of this case, it may be relevant that, in most cases, encouragement has been found to be enough to allow aiding and abetting. So if, for example, a guy is raping a woman at a party, and all of his friends are standing around him cheering him on and encouraging him . . .that can be enough to get you to aiding and abetting.

It may not come up in this case. But it may. And I think that most people are suprised when they learn just how little you need to do to be punished the same as a principal in a crime. The lesson, as always, don't help people commit crimes.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Certainly, the government won't be able to make any sort of an argument like this to the jury--or even a hint of an argument like this.

And it is . . . bad form to announce it in public. I don't know if I would go as far as to say that it is unethical, but it is certainly unprofessional.

I think that the DA here is pissed because the kids had the sense to lawyer up before he could get a quick and cheap confession (or even a sense of what happened) from them. And they didn't just lawyer up with a public defender. I am sure that they got the best lawyer that their mommie and daddy could buy (and, seeing as they go to Duke, that would be a pretty expensive lawyer).

Duke aside, Durham is a rough town. The DA is probably spends 95% of his time dealing with drug and murder suspects. So he isn't used to suspects who have the sense to lawyer up--or who can afford a good lawyer when they do. And he isn't used to dealing with people about whom you shouldn't talk bad in the press. (No one would notice what he said about the suspects in yet another drug bust). I don't know the guy, and I may be off base with this--but I believe that the DA just isn't used to something like this--a high profile violent crime with a black victim and rich white suspects who all have a really good lawyer. It will be a challenge to prosecute this with success and to play the PR game properly. I don't envy him his task.

FWIW, if I were those kids I would have lawyered up, too. Even if I was an uninvolved member of the team who just happened to be at the party and see some stuff. You really can't be too careful. Plus, I am scared of cops and jail and all that. I always get a kick out of Law & Order when the cops are interviewing potential suspects and the suspects calmly go about their business while tossing wisecracks back at the officers--generally ending the exchange with something like, "Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm late for a lunch appointment." If the police ever indicate to me that they suspect me of a murder, I will 1.) call a lawyer and 2.) piss myself--though not necessarily in that order.

Right on with this. Of course, this isn't the first case where the police used the hiring of a lawyer as "proof of guilt" in the court of public opinion (the Ramsey case being the most famous).