# Lying whore. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 10, 2006, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153 "2006-04-10T22:26:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 76
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1501 "2006-12-26T01:15:01Z")
[QUOTE=wring] MI jursidiction. The defense attorney was allowed to show the complainant the statement(s) made to the police and allowed to ask questions like “is that what happened” and the complainant would say “no, it happened this way”, defense attorney was not allowed to quote/cite/present the original statement to the cop, the second statement to the cop, the third etc etc etc where there were huge discrepencies (much like what is happening in the Duke case). [/QUOTE] No offense, but I can neither make head nor tail of this. Are you saying that the defense could point to the statement and question the witness as to its accuracy without reading the statement into the record? If he could not quote/cite/present the statement, how in he world did the jury know what he was talking about? Or anyone else, for that matter? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1502 "2006-12-26T03:34:29Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] No offense, but I can neither make head nor tail of this. Are you saying that the defense could point to the statement and question the witness as to its accuracy without reading the statement into the record? [/quote] yes. that’s how it was > [@](#): > > If he could not quote/cite/present the statement, how in he world did the jury know what he was talking about? Or anyone else, for that matter? they didn’t. which is why they didn’t know that she was changing her story. which is what I was concerned about for the Duke case. I’ve explained this before. and frankly, I don’t feel like dealing w/it again. If you don’t understand what I witnessed, so be it. I don’t recall the specific law cited (and it may not have been cited in open court), but it was along the lines as was explained about the federal law about witness statements and so on that was quoted before. The Duke case will probably go to court (I don’t see Nifong dropping it, and certainly the players are not liable to take any kind of plea). With all the publicity, I doubt there will be potential jurors who **won’t** know that she changed her story substantially (Unlike the case I witnessed where there was no pre trial publicity at all). But it will be interesting what portions of prior statements will be allowed, if any. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2006, 9:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1503 "2006-12-26T09:16:05Z")
[QUOTE=wring] yes. that’s how it was they didn’t. [/QUOTE] This is just bizarre. The defense and the witness have what amounts to a private conversation? He points to a line of text and she either confirms, denies, or alters it? All without the judge or jury having any idea what they are talking about? It’s Kafkaesque. > [@](#): > > I’ve explained this before. and frankly, I don’t feel like dealing w/it again. If you don’t understand what I witnessed, so be it. I do not doubt that you believe what you say is true. It just beggars the imagination, is all I am saying. > [@](#): > > I don’t recall the specific law cited (and it may not have been cited in open court), Why would it be? Why bother with any rulings at all? Nobody knew what anyone else was talking about anyway. > [@](#): > > The Duke case will probably go to court (I don’t see Nifong dropping it, and certainly the players are not liable to take any kind of plea). He will have to drop it if she refuses to testify. Let’s see what happens February fifth, when she is scheduled to take the stand. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1504 "2006-12-27T18:39:01Z")
May have posted this long ago, but it seems timely again: [http://www.ncbar.gov/PDFs/22.pdf](http://www.ncbar.gov/PDFs/22.pdf) [http://www.ncbar.gov/public/filing.asp](http://www.ncbar.gov/public/filing.asp) Any member of the public may file a grievance based on a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct. I’ve done so and would encourage anyone else disgusted by Nifong’s conduct to consider it as well. [http://www.ncbar.gov/rules/rpcsearch.asp](http://www.ncbar.gov/rules/rpcsearch.asp) For starters: > [@](#): > > **Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel** > > A lawyer shall not: > > (a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act; > > (b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, counsel or assist a witness to hide or leave the jurisdiction for the purpose of being unavailable as a witness, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law; > > (c) knowingly disobey or advise a client or any other person to disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except a lawyer acting in good faith may take appropriate steps to test the validity of such an obligation; > > (d) in pretrial procedure, > > (1) make a frivolous discovery request, > > (2) fail to make a reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper discovery request by an opposing party, or > > (3) fail to disclose evidence or information that the lawyer knew, or reasonably have known, was subject to disclosure under applicable law, rules of procedure or evidence, or court opinions; > > (e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence, assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a witness, ask an irrelevant question that is intended to degrade a witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant, or the guilt or innocence of an accused; or > > (f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless: > > (1) the person is a relative or a managerial employee or other agent of a client; and > > (2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person’s interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information. > [@](#): > > **Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor** > > The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: > > (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause; > > (b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel; > > (c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing; > > (d) after reasonably diligent inquiry, make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information required to be disclosed by applicable law, rules of procedure, or court opinions including all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; > > (e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client, or participate in the application for the issuance of a search warrant to a lawyer for the seizure of information of a past or present client in connection with an investigation of someone other than the lawyer, unless: > > (1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege; > > (2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and > > (3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information; > > (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1505 "2006-12-28T05:15:01Z")
> **[Opinion & Reviews - Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/news/opinion)** > > Get The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion columnists, editorials, op-eds, letters to the editor, and book and arts reviews. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1506 "2006-12-28T14:31:01Z")
[QUOTE=wring] The Duke case will probably go to court (I don’t see Nifong dropping it, and certainly the players are not liable to take any kind of plea). With all the publicity, I doubt there will be potential jurors who **won’t** know that she changed her story substantially (Unlike the case I witnessed where there was no pre trial publicity at all). But it will be interesting what portions of prior statements will be allowed, if any. [/QUOTE] I don’t know - if they could come up with twelve people who would let OJ off in LA, I doubt NC is going to be any better. And in a county where Nifong’s kind of shenanigans tend to help him win elections, I can’t believe he could be convicted of anything there either. What a clusterfuck. Is there any chance at all of some reasonable judge dismissing all charges against the players with prejudice, so they can’t be refiled? Nifong isn’t going to act honorably - isn’t the mechanism of the court sufficient so they will? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1507 "2006-12-28T16:05:50Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I don’t know - if they could come up with twelve people who would let OJ off in LA, I doubt NC is going to be any better. And in a county where Nifong’s kind of shenanigans tend to help him win elections, I can’t believe he could be convicted of anything there either. What a clusterfuck. Is there any chance at all of some reasonable judge dismissing all charges against the players with prejudice, so they can’t be refiled? Nifong isn’t going to act honorably - isn’t the mechanism of the court sufficient so they will? Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] **shodan** : In most jurisdictions, it is within the inherent (or rule-granted) power of a court to dismiss a bogus (not the technical legal term) case of its own volition. Potential problem: district judges in N.C. are elected officials, just as are the prosecutors. It isn’t immediately clear that a Durham judge, elected by the same mob that rewarded Nifong for his dirty tricks, would have any more integrity or courage in sticking his neck out on this one. From what I’ve read of the motion practice, etc., there’s been no mention of the judge scolding Nifong when opportunity richly afforded for such a dressing-down. And yes, such commentary from a judge would be neither at all uncommon nor necessarily improper – the requirement of judicial impartiality does not require judges to refrain from tipping their hand when a party’s position appears untenable from the outset, a la “Mr. Jones, I’ll let you bring your motion, but I have to tell you I am not likely to be persuaded by your position.” And from talking to my friend the assistant DA, most judges are customarily significantly tougher in such commentary on the prosecution than on the defense (whether out of liberalism or an abundance of concern for due process). So – if the judge here has **not** made such comments, in the face of egregious prosecutorial misconduct, that’s already suggestive that defendants might not look for too much early help from that quarter . . . . ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1508 "2006-12-28T16:41:21Z")
My extensive legal training (consisting of watching old _Law and Order_ reruns on cable) tells me of a motion from the defense for a directed verdict of Not Guilty that is automatic or nearly so. Is this the case in NC? And how can the defense be sure that Nifong isn’t withholding other evidence, as he did the DNA results? Can’t he be recused for malpractice? The complaining witness hasn’t a scrap of credibility, and there doesn’t seem to be **any** other evidence. I mean, WTF? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1509 "2006-12-28T17:16:39Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] My extensive legal training (consisting of watching old _Law and Order_ reruns on cable) tells me of a motion from the defense for a directed verdict of Not Guilty that is automatic or nearly so. Is this the case in NC? And how can the defense be sure that Nifong isn’t withholding other evidence, as he did the DNA results? Can’t he be recused for malpractice? The complaining witness hasn’t a scrap of credibility, and there doesn’t seem to be **any** other evidence. I mean, WTF? Regards, Shodan [/QUOTE] Sure, the defense (in either a criminal or civil case) can and almost always does move for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s/prosecution’s case in chief. The notion is: “Is that all you’ve got? You didn’t even carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case, so I don’t even need to rebut it.” I doubt N.C. is any different, and it probably permits this. However, it’s comparatively rare for these motions to be granted. So again, it’s a wild card, in the hands of the judge. And, this is dependent on going all the way to trial, by which time the “victim” may conceivably have cleaned up her story, and a politically-cowardly judge might say, “well, it’s a credibility issue, I’d better let that go to the jury.” Earlier on in this case, several hopeful posters suggested that we hadn’t seen the whole picture because the prosecution presumably had some killer evidence up its sleeve. I explained that in real life criminal prosecutions, this really isn’t feasible, because the rules of evidence and ethics require the prosecution to turn over **all** evidence to the defense at an early stage. Thus, I explained, there really isn’t such a thing as a dramatic bombshell piece of evidence (at least for the prosecution) emerging at trial. Well, I may have been overly naive, because I didn’t imagine Nifong would have the audacity, for many more months, to withhold clearly-exculpatory information (regarding the non-matching DNA having been suppressed). Most certainly, anything he has left (I now put nothing past him, and would not bet five cents that he has emptied the bag even now) is exculpatory – their cannot be any inculpatory evidence (and if there were, it would be excluded at trial if produced only now). Kool-Aid drinkers (like [this](http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/06/12/my-current-thoughts-on-the-duke-rape-case) deluded blogger) take the DA’s and Grand Jury’s lack of any evidence as a perverse dog-that-did-not-bark-in-the-night proof that there **must** be something **really good for the prosecution out there** – because otherwise " If the case was as groundless as they claim, then the grand jury and/or the judge would have intervened." Wrong. Judge Sol Wachler famously remarked that (even in liberal New York) a Grand Jury “would indict a ham sandwich.” Your WTF succinctly sums up the problem here: this shouldn’t happen, but it can, when prosecutors abuse their discretion, as Nifong grossly has. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1510 "2006-12-28T21:20:59Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] However, it’s comparatively rare for these motions to be granted. So again, it’s a wild card, in the hands of the judge. And, this is dependent on going all the way to trial, by which time the “victim” may conceivably have cleaned up her story, and a politically-cowardly judge might say, “well, it’s a credibility issue, I’d better let that go to the jury.” [/quote] ISTM that even letting this case anywhere near a jury is a miscarriage of justice. Not that it hasn’t been already. But this has been dragging on for weeks and months, and it is almost too late for justice. Best-case-scenario at this point is a trial, immediate acquital, and then a resounding civil verdict and heavy damages against Nifong for his conduct. > [@](#): > > Earlier on in this case, several hopeful posters suggested that we hadn’t seen the whole picture because the prosecution presumably had some killer evidence up its sleeve. Seems to have been the case, don’t it? Only the evidence was for the defense, which is why Nifong kept it on the QT. What an asshole. Even a “kill 'em all and let God sort it out” conservative law and order type like me wants Nifong burned in effigy and ridden out of town on a rail. Instead, he gets re-elected. Best I can do is buy the inevitable book that the lacrosse players will write after the case is over, and thus do my bit to try to restore a little justice. Is it really the case that the stripper’s inconsistencies won’t be brought out at trial? At least, if the judge won’t acquit, he will allow testimony to impeach the LW of the thread title. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1511 "2006-12-28T21:45:38Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] Is it really the case that the stripper’s inconsistencies won’t be brought out at trial? At least, if the judge won’t acquit, he will allow testimony to impeach the LW of the thread title. [/QUOTE] No, no, a thousand times no. Pay no attention to the \*\*wring \*\*behind the curtain. The next hearing is scheduled for 5 February. She is scheduled to testify. Smart money says she never takes the stand. The whole case hinges on her testimony. Nifong has admitted this. Which of her dozen or so stories are we to believe? The one consistent element in her stories has been that the accused raped her with their penises. She describes one of them as forcing her to have oral sex. And now she is not sure with what? The Duke Hoax is a travesty. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1512 "2006-12-28T22:51:59Z")
> **[2006 World Cup scandal inquiry to cost 3.5 mn euros - Breitbart](https://www.breitbart.com/news/2006-world-cup-scandal-inquiry-to-cost-3-5-mn-euros/)** > > Berlin (AFP) – The German FA’s (DFB) inquiry into the 2006 World Cup scandal is set to cost around 3.5 million euros ($3.83m), interim > [@](#): > > Bar Files Complaint Against Duke D.A. > Dec 28 5:36 PM US/Eastern > > By AARON BEARD > Associated Press Writer > > RALEIGH, N.C. > > The North Carolina bar filed an ethics complaint Thursday against the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of breaking four rules of professional conduct when speaking to the reporters about the sensational case. > The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment. > > Among the rules District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of violating was a prohibition against making comments “that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public comdemnation of the accuser.” > > In a statement, the bar said it opened a case against Nifong in March 30, a little more than two weeks after the party where a 28-year-old student at North Carolina Central University hired to perform as a stripper said she was raped. > > Nifong did not immediately return a call for comment. > > Nor did defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, who represents one of the three lacrosse players charged with sexual offense and kidnapping. > > Last week, Nifong dropped the rape charges against the three athletes after the stripper wavered in her story. However, the public statements were just the tip of the iceberg, as it turns out, and it would be a shame if that were the only thing on which they tag him. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1513 "2006-12-29T00:59:45Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] Sure, the defense (in either a criminal or civil case) can and almost always does move for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s/prosecution’s case in chief. The notion is: “Is that all you’ve got? You didn’t even carry the burden of establishing a prima facie case, so I don’t even need to rebut it.” [/quote] Failing to make this motion can waive an appeal for insufficiency of the evidence. If you do not make this motion, you can be held to be procedurally barred from claiming on appeal that you were convicted on insufficient evidence as a matter of law. Always make your record! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1514 "2006-12-29T14:10:41Z")
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal] No, no, a thousand times no. Pay no attention to the \*\*wring \*\*behind the curtain. [/quote] I don’t know enough (read, anything) about the law to form an opinion on whether or not it is possible to disallow the situation **wring** describes. And the unfortunate takeaway I got from the OJ trial and the events of the Duke case is that it doesn’t have to make sense to me in order to happen in a court of law. Because you mention - > [@](#): > > The next hearing is scheduled for 5 February. She is scheduled to testify. Smart money says she never takes the stand. If, as it seems, there is no evidence apart from the LW’s testimony, and she will not take the stand to offer it into evidence, how can we have a trial? And if they just read her statement/testimony/account of the case into the record, how can the defense be prevented from attempting to discredit that evidence by pointing out the contradictions? > [@](#): > > The one consistent element in her stories has been that the accused raped her with their penises. She describes one of them as forcing her to have oral sex. And now she is not sure with what? > > The Duke Hoax is a travesty. No argument with any of the above. But, AFAICT, the only chance the defendents have is to make that kind of statement in court. As I see it, there are three ways to play out this whole mess. Either [ul][li]The trial starts, the stripper refuses to testify, and Nifong reluctantly drops the case and pitches a lot of nasty innuendo about how the guilty go free when decent women are raped a second time in the court of public opinion, we need to take charges of rape seriously, white privilege immunizes rich frat boys from their crimes, blah blah blah. Or [_]The trial starts, the stripper testifies, she gets ripped to shreds on cross-examination, the players are acquited, and Nifong goes to prison for misconduct. Or [_]There are twelve people in NC that are as stupid and race-blinded as the jurors in the OJ case. [/ul]I’m betting on the first.[/li][quote=Huerta88] However, the public statements were just the tip of the iceberg, as it turns out, and it would be a shame if that were the only thing on which they tag him. [/quote] Hear, hear. But this also seems bizarre. Nifong is withholding evidence, and the thing that is unethical is his public statements? I reiterate, WTF? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1515 "2006-12-29T14:46:53Z")
[QUOTE=Shodan] I don’t know enough (read, anything) about the law to form an opinion on whether or not it is possible to disallow the situation **wring** describes. And the unfortunate takeaway I got from the OJ trial and the events of the Duke case is that it doesn’t have to make sense to me in order to happen in a court of law. [/QUOTE] Granted. However, upthread \*\*Bricker \*\*and \*\*Unauthorized \*\*\*\*Cinnamon \*\* both express doubts concerning the inadmissability of her statements to police. > [@](#): > > Because you mention -If, as it seems, there is no evidence apart from the LW’s testimony, and she will not take the stand to offer it into evidence, how can we have a trial? We can’t, and we won’t, if she refuses to testify. Nifong has admitted that there is no forensic evidence, and that the case depends upon her testimony. See my post #1488 above. [QUOTE] As I see it, there are three ways to play out this whole mess. Either [ul][li]The trial starts, the stripper refuses to testify, and Nifong reluctantly drops the case and pitches a lot of nasty innuendo about how the guilty go free when decent women are raped a second time in the court of public opinion, we need to take charges of rape seriously, white privilege immunizes rich frat boys from their crimes, blah blah blah. Or [_]The trial starts, the stripper testifies, she gets ripped to shreds on cross-examination, the players are acquited, and Nifong goes to prison for misconduct. Or [_]There are twelve people in NC that are as stupid and race-blinded as the jurors in the OJ case. [/ul]I’m betting on the first.Hear, hear. [/li][/QUOTE] Agreed, with one caveat. She is scheduled to testify in a hearing February fifth. If she fails to show, the case falls apart. When I read between the lines, I see Nifong throwing her to the wolves. > [@](#): > > But this also seems bizarre. Nifong is withholding evidence, and the thing that is unethical is his public statements? I reiterate, WTF? This is a result of an investigation begun March 30th, long before the other irregularities surfaced. For an excellent analysis, see [Durham-in-Wonderland.](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) Scroll down. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1516 "2006-12-29T15:53:08Z")
Can Nifong continue to act as Prosecutor now that he’s charged with ethics violations related to this case? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1517 "2006-12-29T16:06:30Z")
[QUOTE=Xema] Can Nifong continue to act as Prosecutor now that he’s charged with ethics violations related to this case? [/QUOTE] From [Durham-in-Wonderland.](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) > [@](#): > > 5.) \*By making the complaint public, the bar has presented Nifong with a conflict of interest in remaining on the case, since he is now a defendant on ethics charges growing out of his conduct in the case. > \* > The result: he likely will be recuse himself or be removed as prosecutor. Since any member of his office would face the same conflict of interest as Nifong, it’s hard to see how Judge Osmond Smith could allow a Durham assistant district attorney to prosecute the case. > > Such a development would bump up the case to the special prosecutions division of the Attorney General’s office. But why would Roy Cooper want to take over a sinking ship? And would any other DA in the state be willing to step in and prosecute the case if Cooper refuses to involve himself? In short, the bar’s actions raise the possibility that this could become the case without a prosecutor—setting the stage for a dismissal. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1518 "2006-12-29T16:27:02Z")
If the LW (I mean Crystal, not Nifong – the distinction is now necessary) does not testify, there is NO way her statements (any of the multiplicity of them) could be offered in evidence – they would clearly be hearsay (out of court statements proffered to prove the matter asserted therein). I won’t plunge too deeply into whether, if she does testify, her previous statements can be introduced for **impeachment** except to note (without studying a shred of N.C.-specific evidence law) that I suspect their use for this very different purpose would be allowed. **Contrapuntal** is right, this particular grievance has been in the pipeline for a long time. It is pretty well drafted (see the [complaint](http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2006/1228062bar1.html) by the Bar), though even as to the public statements, it leaves out a couple of egregious things (holding a hootin’ and hollerin’ rally at the “victim’s” college campus, for one), and obviously misses out on some of the awfulness that has since become apparent. I also seem to remember that he had cops go by the house and talk directly to team members to ask to examine the premises at a time when he knew most or all of the team was represented by counsel – which is improper). I expect and hope that further complaints (mine included) are in the pipeline and being considered by the Bar – I hope they are not trying to whitewash him by focusing only on “intemperate” public statements that could be explained away (and addressed by mere admonishment) as arising from the heat of the moment. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1519 "2006-12-29T16:32:42Z")
However this scenario pans out it’ll make a great story to write a big, fat book about. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2006, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1520 "2006-12-29T16:36:36Z")
[QUOTE=astro] However this scenario pans out it’ll make a great story to write a big, fat book about. [/QUOTE] Done and done: [http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009444](http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009444) > [@](#): > > Mr. Taylor, a National Journal columnist and Newsweek contributor, and Mr. Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College and CUNY Graduate Center, are writing a book about the Duke case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=75) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=77)