# 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:** 83
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1641 "2007-01-25T05:43:41Z")
[link](http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/534740.html) ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1642 "2007-01-25T05:54:03Z")
Well, to amend my post, Coman didn’t withhold the evidence in Gell’s first trial, since he didn’t try it, but he damn sure knew about the practice, as some googling will tell you. Sorry about that. The North Carolina AG office is fucked up! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1643 "2007-01-25T06:25:21Z")
[QUOTE=Klaatu] Apparently, the new prosecutor, Jim Coman, basically did the same damn thing as Nifong when he retried former death row inmate Alan Gell in 2004. Easy enough to look up. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Klaatu] [link](http://www.newsobserver.com/141/story/534740.html) [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Klaatu] Well, to amend my post, Coman didn’t withhold the evidence in Gell’s first trial, since he didn’t try it, but he damn sure knew about the practice, as some googling will tell you. Sorry about that. The North Carolina AG office is fucked up! [/QUOTE] I’m not sure what point you are making regarding Coman or how you draw your conclusion regarding the state AG office. According to your link, despite the exculpatory evidence that his predecessor had suppressed, there was still evidence (in the form of eyewitnesses) that made Gell a valid suspect. In addition, the defense attorneys (several of whom are now defending the students in the current trial), have praised Coman. From your link: > [@](#): > > Coman chose to go forward, but the opposing lawyers still speak highly of him. > > The Gell case differs from the Duke case in several key respects, Cooney said. A crime had definitely occurred: The murder victim was found in his bedroom riddled with shotgun pellets. > > "You had two girls who testified that they were eyewitnesses to a murder, and a jury believed them,‘’ Cooney said. "And the victim’s family was pushing for a retrial.’ > [@](#): > > “It was a difficult case for him to retry,” Cooney said. “He and [assistant prosecutor] Pat Murphy tried as ethical and honorable a case as I’ve ever seen.” ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1644 "2007-01-25T06:45:09Z")
I would like to apologize to the rest of my gender, to jocks in particular, and the world at large I suppose, for being so willing to believe what was alleged just because the alleged perpetrators were male jocks. I am a bigot. I will try to remedy that. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1645 "2007-01-25T07:27:10Z")
Tom, I made a weak assertion, deserved to be called on it, will reply more when I am awake tomorrow, but here is another link showing Coman is not lily-white as may seem. [http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/533943.html](http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/533943.html) Coman gave Hoke and Reeves a pass. Read the last para. I will respond tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1646 "2007-01-25T07:30:06Z")
Oh, and tom, you certainly are astute enough to research this yourself, and I am not just relying on the NewsObserver. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1647 "2007-01-25T07:33:36Z")
And that would be Graves, not Reeves, and I Will stand by my assertion that the NC AG’s office is corrupt as they come. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1648 "2007-01-25T07:47:08Z")
Coman backpedaling: [http://www.newsobserver.com/208/story/249929-p2.html](http://www.newsobserver.com/208/story/249929-p2.html) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1649 "2007-01-25T14:53:09Z")
[QUOTE=wring] unethical, not necessarily criminal. [/QUOTE] The charges I have in mind are for lying to the Court (not exactly perjury per se, as he was not under oath, but lawyers as officers of the Court are implicitly always under an obligation to tell the truth) and criminal civil rights violations (for depriving these kids of their liberty under color of law). I’m far from persuaded that both would not fly here. I think his actions were, necessarily, criminal in the legal sense. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1650 "2007-01-25T19:45:19Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] The charges I have in mind are for lying to the Court (not exactly perjury per se, as he was not under oath, but lawyers as officers of the Court are implicitly always under an obligation to tell the truth) and criminal civil rights violations (for depriving these kids of their liberty under color of law). I’m far from persuaded that both would not fly here. I think his actions were, necessarily, criminal in the legal sense. [/QUOTE] the lying to the court - grounds for dismissal from job? sure grounds for disbarment? absolutely. grounds for contempt of court charge? you betcha. grounds for criminal action? if he’d been under oath, yes, if not, I’d like to see some citation of the statute that would permit that. criminal charges for Civil rights deprivation? I think you’re on even shakier ground there. can you explain what your line of reasoning is? ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1651 "2007-01-25T20:06:17Z")
FWIW, there was a lawyer discussing this on Fark yesterday, referring to _Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983._: > [@Incredulous](#): > > Just to clarify for everyone: prosecutors in general DO have absolute immunity from § 1983 actions, for anything they did in the conduct of prosecuting a case- for example, the DNA flim-flam, telling the judge he had turned everything over, the conversations with the “victim.” Also, most state’s laws mirror 1983 on immunity provisions. > > But actually there is NOT immunity from civil suit, including 1983 cases, for things NOT intimately connected with the actual litigation. For example, the lineup stuff he did, any involvement he had in pre-indictment investigation, his (false and defamatory) pre-indictment statements about the lacrosse players-- all of that would NOT be barred by § 1983 immunity. > > More importantly, some of you are under the mistaken impression that this immunity could somehow prevent Nifong from being disciplined by the bar, or prosecuted criminally (if there is a case to be made that he should). Let me tell you emphatically that he CAN INDEED be disciplined by the bar, and prosecuted criminally. (I mean, just read the news-- the bar is not only going after him, they are stacking on new charges.) The immunity doctrine just shields him from civil suits under s. 1983 and probably related state-court theories, for actions in connection with the litgation. But that is all. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1652 "2007-01-25T20:27:28Z")
> [@](#): > > More importantly, some of you are under the mistaken impression that this immunity could somehow prevent Nifong from being disciplined by the bar, or prosecuted criminally **(if there is a case to be made that he should)**. bolding added. Note that the Farkee poster does not seem to claim that what he was describing **could** be charged under criminal law. I agree that it sucks to be wrongfully accused. I also believe that the accusor was wrong to have done so, but remember, there’s scads of folks who actually got convicted on flimsy evidence, where testimony showed that the accused was elsewhere for example, and the prosecutors on those cases were not charged w/civil rights violations. So, I’m hard pressed to believe that even in a bizarro circumstance like this, that there would be **criminal** charges for Nifongs actions. A crappy, wrongful, not legal line up for example - the normal redress for that is that the evidence from the crappy wrongful not legal line up is “evidence thus obtained cannot be used in court”, not “criminally prosecute the prosecutor”. The bar is (rightfully) going after Nifong for his (apparent) “against lawyers code of ethics” actions wrt the DNA exculpultory evidence, his inflamatory statements etc. Hell, I remember when Nixon made a statement to the press about Charles Manson being guilty (during his trial), the headlines were shown in court, and the only thing that happened from that was the jurors were questioned about if it effected their ability to act as jurors, so unless there’s a seperate criminal law in that state wrt prosecutors and statements they can/cannot make to the press, again, I’m hard pressed to see a viable criminal case. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1653 "2007-01-25T20:39:40Z")
To close the loop: Yes, I was thinking federal criminal liability for abuse of authority under color of law. And I do think it’s potentially viable. I think one of the elements (IIRC) is force or the threat of force (this usually comes up in brutality cases), but I think being handcuffed and jailed is that or pretty close to that . . . . And I was thinking, _inter alia_, [criminal contempt](http://www.comp.state.nc.us/ncic/pages/statute/5a-11.htm) under the North Caroline Statutes: > [@](#): > > CHAPTER 5A. > Contempt. > ARTICLE 1. > Criminal Contempt. > > Section > > §5A-11. Criminal contempt. > > (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), each of the following is criminal contempt: > > (1) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings. > > (2) Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to impair the respect due its authority. > > (3) Willful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution. > > (4) Willful refusal to be sworn or affirmed as a witness, or, when so sworn or affirmed, willful refusal to answer any legal and proper question when the refusal is not legally justified. > > (5) Willful publication of a report of the proceedings in a court that is grossly inaccurate and presents a clear and present danger of imminent and serious threat to the administration of justice, made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. No person, however, may be punished for publishing a truthful report of proceedings in a court. > > (6) Willful or grossly negligent failure by an officer of the court to perform his duties in an official transaction. > > (7) Willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with schedules and practices of the court resulting in substantial interference with the business of the court. > > (8) Willful refusal to testify or produce other information upon the order of a judge acting pursuant to Article 61 of Chapter 15A, Granting of Immunity to Witnesses. > > (9) Willful communication with a juror in an improper attempt to influence his deliberations. > > (9a) Willful refusal by a defendant to comply with a condition of probation. > > (10) Any other act or omission specified elsewhere in the General Statutes of North Carolina as grounds for criminal contempt. The grounds for criminal contempt specified here are exclusive, regardless of any other grounds for criminal contempt which existed at common law. > > (b) No person may be held in contempt under this section on the basis of the content of any broadcast, publication, or other communication unless it presents a clear and present danger of an imminent and serious threat to the administration of criminal justice. > > (c) This section is subject to the provisions of G.S. 7A-276.1, Court orders prohibiting publication or broadcast of reports of open court proceedings or reports of public records banned. (1977, c. 711, s. 3; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 19, s. 1.) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1654 "2007-01-25T21:07:29Z")
ok, # 6 seems to fit. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1655 "2007-01-25T21:29:07Z")
[QUOTE=wring] ok, # 6 seems to fit. [/QUOTE] Yes it does. As does No. 3 (after the Court ordered disclosure of all potentially exculpatory material). ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1656 "2007-01-25T22:23:58Z")
> **[The Prosecutor's Defense -- Lawyer for Ex-Duke Prosecutor Nifong Speaks Out](https://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2821711&page=1)** Nifong says he’d do it all again, but then that’s about all a lying dumbfuck redneck whore of a disgrace to the Bar could say in these circumstances, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2007, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1657 "2007-01-25T22:32:13Z")
[QUOTE=Huerta88] > **[The Prosecutor's Defense -- Lawyer for Ex-Duke Prosecutor Nifong Speaks Out](https://abcnews.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2821711&page=1)** Nifong says he’d do it all again, but then that’s about all a lying dumbfuck redneck whore of a disgrace to the Bar could say in these circumstances, I suppose. [/QUOTE] Dear Mr. Nifong, If you truly believed that a rape occurred that night, why did you not attempt to discover the identity of the four or more males whose DNA was found in the naughty bits of the accuser, instead of indicting three men who definitely did not leave any DNA there? Sincerely, Criminal Law 101 (Just guessing. IANAL.) ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2007, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1658 "2007-01-26T00:26:51Z")
Not even a criminal law issue. Just a don’t-be-a-dumbfuck-who-ignores-all-evidence-contrary-to-his-unsubstantiated-impossible-theory issue. But you’re right, if he **really** believed she was raped by someone, and given the shakiness and inconsistencies of her allegations from day one, wouldn’t he look into available evidence, which was additive to or different from the dubious eyewitness “evidence?” Like, maybe she was raped, at the party, but by a guy who wasn’t in fact a lax player? Or maybe she was drugged and the “rape” took place elsewhere and she mis-remembered it? Those are not very plausible theories, but they might be at least not-completely-implausible and illogical alternative ways of investigating the case. His choice, though, makes no sense, except if you assume he is an utter moron or a corrupt goon bent on a frame job. Whicih of course he is. If he gets slammed in the ethics proceeding, I think the three things that will be his undoing are, in rough order, (1) misrepresenting to the Court what he had turned over, in response to a direct question (courts HATE that and lawyers know it); (2) commenting “why would innocent people need lawyers?” (which is crapping on every person’s Constitutional right to have counsel); and (3) The sheer volume of his jury-pool tainting comments. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2007, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1659 "2007-01-30T18:34:12Z")
[February 5 hearing postponed.](http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1183786/) Am I reading too much into it, or does it seem that the new prosecutors might be open to, I don’t know, examining exculpatory evidence from the defense? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2007, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153/1660 "2007-02-28T23:17:11Z")
[Nifong responds to the State Bar Complaint.](http://wral.com/news/local/flash/1217989/) Lotsa goodies here, kids. [K C Johnson breaks it down.](http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/) My favorite part is “I don’t remember.” As one poster in the comments section reminds us, “It’s not a lie if I believe it.” – George Castanza [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=82) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lying-whore/352153.md?page=84)