Prosecutor Yet to Interview Rape Accuser
Seems odd. Is it standard operating procedure for Prosecutors to leave something like this (purported) victim’s interview to the last moment?
Here’s what going to happen:
Right before the trial, Crystal is gonna say that the pressure from the media/Duke/whites/Bush* is too much and drop the charges. She’ll continue to blame the establishment without having to step into a courtroom or admit she lied.
Because if it does go to court, it will only take a few minutes to reveal it’s another Tawana Brawley.
*eh, why not?
In the jurisdiction I practice in it would be unheard of (assuming that he is the one who would be trying the case – but even if he isn’t, it still seems rather odd in the circumstances of this case)
Does he perhaps mean that he personally hasn’t interviewed her about her accusations? Maybe other lawyers in his office are doing the groundwork and he’s concentrating on the important jobs like media appearances.
Little Nemo, the article says that none of his assistants interviewed her either, he’s leaving the investigation up to the police.
I find this disturbing as well (though not the slightest bit surprising), and was just about to ask this very same question.
This will all go away in less than two weeks. It’s politics in it’s lowest form.
On cable news, (CNN or MSNBC, I can’t keep track all the time) today, a legal expert said that it is common practice for a DA not to interview a plaintiff. Otherwise, he might be obliged to call himself as a witness, she said.
I don’t understand this, but that’s why I’m merely a Rocket Scientist-Brain Surgeon.
Yeah, no. Common sense tells you this is silly.
But she said it with absolute certitude. Maybe a legal eagle will offer an opinion.
I am not a legal eagle, but was involved in a rape criminal proceedings as a victim. This was in 1980, so I may not be entirely clear on all the facts, but…
I was the victim of a “criminal attempt to rape” - i.e. the guy busted into my dorm room, choked me from behind (forearm over my windpipe) until I passed out, and was in the process of trying to remove my clothing when I came to. He had pulled a pillowcase over my head, and I guess he was afraid I would see him 'cause he ran as I got the pillowcase off - with the obligitory “I’ll kill you if you say anything” threat.
Unfortunately he got better as he practiced - there were a total of 7 victims at the grand jury hearing. 5 rapes and 2 attempts. I do not remember ever talking to anyone from the DA’s office until the day of the grand jury hearing. Prior to that, all of the interviews were with the police department.
I did not have to testify at the trial - after the jury brought back “guilty” on the first two charges filed (the DA elected to try them in order of physical damage to the victim instead of the order in which they occured) the slimeball plead out to the rest of the charges.
I should have added that this gal on cable news added that the DA’s assistants could interview the plaintiff, but the DA himself has to take careful precautions.
I am very, very sorry for you. I hope you have fully recovered from your terrible ordeal. I’ll say some prayers for you in church today.
For all of you who were ravaged, I hope your attacker is behind bars for the rest of his life.
I’m unhappy with any universe where a DA remains willfully ignorant of ANYTHING. Seriously. Makes my head want to explode.
Legal reasons behind this? Anyone?
No lawyer here, but I do know that the DA does not try every case. Why would he be in danger of being called as a witness, when an asistant DA trying a similar case would not be?
This is also a DA who has said publically on numerous occasions that he believes her story. He has described how the events took place. He has speculated as to the presence of date rape drugs. He has changed the amount of time for the alleged assault to have taken place from thirty minutes to “five to ten minutes” All without asking her once about the events of the evening? Incredible.
While cruising the various legal blogs discussing this subject, I found one explanation that makes sense.
If the D.A. interviews a witness or victim, there’s a chance that, in the retelling, the story will change. It could be minor changes, saying the attack took place at 9 instead of at 10. Saying there were three attackers when you said four in the first story. A red car instead of a purple car.
Witness testimony can be very fluid. While studies seem to show that, during intense situations, our memories can be very accurate, there are times when it is not.
Since notes from interviews have to be turned over to the defense, the D.A. interviewing a witness gives the defense the chance to compare stories and exploit inconsistencies. You could hear the defense attorney now: “You told the police this, but you told the D.A. that. Which time were you lying?”
Yeah, that’s what threw me.
Are you suggesting that prosecuters **never **interview complainants for fear of being called to the stands themselves? I sure hope an attorney pops in here, because that seems wrong to me. Even Nifong, in the cited article, says “we are not at that stage yet.” Key word is “yet.” Apparently he intends to interview her.
Anyway, another bombshell was dropped when the second dancer stated, in an interview on Good Morning America, that the alleged victim asked her to “put marks on me.” Wanna guess why no one in the prosecuter’s office knew about it? They never asked. No one in the prosecuter’s office has talked to her, either. In fact, she was interviewed by the police just once, on March 20th, one week after the attack.
Come on people, this guys just doing what it takes to get re-elected, then he’s either going to offer these guys a plea to some lesser charge, or drop the case and blame it on the woman. That perfectly explains his behavior. Sure, a few will cry foul, but he’ll be in office for another term and it’ll probably die down after a few weeks.
What’s his alternative? If he does anything now he stands to alienate a big chunk of the local voters and maybe lose the election, dragging it out is the only thing that makes sense for him. He may not have figured on the national coverage lasting this long, but he’ll probably weather that too.
Frankly, this sounds like the most sensible explanation. The prosecutor must know that this case has become a massive trainwreck. The only thing he can do now is wait until after the election, drop the charges, and hope that everyone has forgotten about this case by the time the next election rolls around.
Without hijacking the thread, can I quickly ask if there would be any recourse for the accused whose families have no doubt forked out beaucoup dollars to defend their offspring?
A civil tort action for wrongful prosecution:
Also, there is no per se reason (legally) why a prosecutor can’t (wouldn’t, shouldn’t) interview a complaining witness (CW). My friend the assistant DA routinely (i.e., always) does this – in her case the CWs are mostly undercover cops (narcotics cases), but she also interviews third-party eyewitnesses and even (sometimes, with consent of counsel) defendants.
She would never put a cop on the stand without hearing his story, assessing his credibility, seeing if he is going to fall apart under cross exam or be unable to keep his story straight. In fact (I’ll have to ask her) I think she talks to the CWs not only before trial, but before even taking a case to the Grand Jury.
Dumbfuck Nifong is essentially saying that the fact of an arrest/allegation is his basis for probably cause, in which case he’s essentially nullified or punted on the point of requiring a determination of probable cause before indicting.
BTW, we need to cut the stupid fucker a break as far as not talking to the CW, the second stripper, or the cab driver – to be fair, while he didn’t bother taking their evidence, he did arrange for a cushy plea for Kim, and he did manage to have the cab driver hauled in on a bogus old warrant after he spoke up to provide an alibi. So while he’s not so good at witness interviewing, he’s great at witness manipulation and intimidation.
Seriously, somebody, anybody in N.C. – file an ethics complaint with the N.C. State Bar.