How to lose a court case 101... (1 Viewer)

[crosswatt]

Prosecutor Yet to Interview Rape Accuser
Oct 27 2:56 PM US/Eastern

By AARON BEARD
Associated Press Writer

DURHAM, N.C.






The district attorney prosecuting three Duke lacrosse players accused of raping a woman at a team party said during a court hearing Friday that he still hasn't interviewed the accuser about the facts of the case.
"I've had conversations with (the accuser) about how she's doing. I've had conversations with (the accuser) about her seeing her kids," Mike Nifong said. "I haven't talked with her about the facts of that night. ... We're not at that stage yet."

Nifong made the statement in response to a defense request for any statements the woman has made about the case.

"I understand the answer may not be the answer they want but it's the true answer. That's all I can give them," the prosecutor said after the hourlong hearing.

Defense lawyers said outside court that they found Nifong's statement surprising.

"One of the most interesting things to me of course is Mr. Nifong did admit that he in fact has basically never talked to this woman and has absolutely no idea what her story is, and yet he has chosen to continue to go forward with this case," defense lawyer Joseph Cheshire said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/27/D8L15CTO0.html

You would think the subject would have come up at some point by now.

 

[threexcharm]

There never was a case.

This guy reminds me of Foti. He ran a prison for decades, never practiced law, but the voters of Louisiana thought he would make a good Attorney General for the state. Wonder what the rest of the county thinks?

Political opportunists. Nothing more.

Joe

 

[railyard]

Don't know anything about this case other than what's been in the media. There usually is a lot more going on than meets the eye.

I'm guessing that the accuser gave a pretty detailed statement / interview to the police or possibly the investigators from the DA's office. The prosecutor probably does not want to interview her because a) she could say something different than her original story (happens alot in these types of cases) which would b) potentially create exculpatory information for the defense, which in turn would c) make the DA a witness in his own case, creating a conflict for the entire DA's office and therefore necessitating a special prosecutor from another district come in and have to try the case. Another explanation is that you generally want the accuser to have some "emotional" gas left in the tank when she eventually tells her story at trial. Each time she has to relay the events again and again, she may become numb to it and just sound like an unfeeling robot on the stand (not to mention the fact that certain details of her story could change with each time she tells it).

This story, which gives the defense yet another shot at trying their case in the media, is about something that does happen in some prosecutions and is not enitrely unheard of. Smart move? Probably not - I'd want to do the interview.

Again I don't know much about the merits of the case, not taking one side or the other. Just a guess.