Man Bites Dog: Victim Seeks Dismissal of Statutory Rape Charges Against Director Roman Polanski. Should It Matter?

The alleged victim in the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape case, joins with Polanski in seeking dismissal of the charges against him. Filing a separate affidavit, the victim accuses the former Judge and Prosecutor in her case of failures and misdeeds. She also claims that the prosecutors in the case now are seeking to cover up those misdeeds and that their failures are causing her unnecessary grief and embarrassment.

Ms. Geimer now 45 years old and a mother herself wants the case dismissed. Though not denying the facts behind the allegations, she feels that too much time has passed and that she has moved on in her life. She asserts that Prosecutors, who earlier this month used Grand Jury excerpts that gave vivid detail to the media about the accusations leveled at the Oscar winning director, are trudging the whole thing up to protect their office's good name at her expense.

Polanski was allegedly at the home of actor Jack Nicholson when he attacked the girl who was there alone to meet the famed director. Polanski lost his wife Sharon Tate a young actress and their yet to be born child in the Manson Murder spree.

Geimer's petition is an interesting one. Under her theory, as a victim she should have a say as to how the prosecution is handled and what should happen to the outcome of the case. This is essentially giving her veto power over the prosecutors office.

Nonetheless, Prosecutors and victim's rights advocates have been leading the charge to give victims more say in sentencing and other matters that, in the not so distant past have been the sole discretion of judges and lawyers. This would be fair turnaround. Often victims of crimes want to drop charges but are told that since they are not the prosecutor they have no say in what or how a case is handled. In cases where there are mandatory minimums, such as in many statutory rape situations, the victim's will is defeated.

If that were to happen in cases where a judge refused to go along with the victim, prosecutors rally to the victim's side and decry the jurist and often blame defense counsel as well. It feels like fair game to burn the prosecution at its own game. In fact, in Polanski's case it is even more than fair as the prosecutor went so far as to have ex-parte conversations with the court and it seems made a fair sentence for Polansky impossible. Griemer has a case it seems where the malfeasense of Prosecutors and the court now causes her more pain and suffering after the fact.

I suppose that I should look at this as a positive effect of Victim's rights. I don't. I see it as a furthering weakening of the criminal justice system and a further step away from what we should be properly doing, that is, establishing guilt and if there is guilt finding an appropriate sentence that will deter further misbehavior by the accused and return that person to society as soon as correction and rehabilitation has been established. It has nothing to do with victims. It isn't about their feelings or lack thereof. It isn't about vengence or hearing the victim's voice.
I am not against those things in the proper forum (ie a parole hearing or civil proceeding) I am against it when it comes to the job or the elected official and when it gets in the way of the goals of the system.

Whether Polansky should be allowed to attack his conviction while remaining in France is not my issue. Whether his conviction or plea should be allowed to be withdrawn is not my care now. Whether that decision should be left up to his victim, anymore than his sentence should be is the issue. I do not feel that it she has any say in this matter. It is for the District Attorney to decide how to enforce the laws of his state. I just think that it also has to be a two way street. If a victim cannot help an accused by being heard on her decision to prosecute, neither should she be able to assert her will on other issues in the criminal prosecurtion of the case in which she is not a party, but is a witness.

What are your thoughts on the role of victims in the Criminal Justice System? Let me know in the comments or by send them to me via Twitter

Stupid Cops Are As Big a Threat To Kids as Stranger Pedophiles: Two Cases of Keystone Kops Actions That Will Scar Innocent Children For Life

My first civil rights case, was on behalf of a Haitian kid who had the temerity to cut his grandfather's lawn while being black and wearing dreads... no joke.

Three dolt cops were looking for a car with the license plate WTZ 469 my client had a plate, WZT 469. The car they were looking for, a stolen vehicle, was a white SUV. My client's car was a green coupe.

They watched him as he took a lawn mower out of the back of his car, and started to mow the grass at his Grandfather's house. Then these dyslexic cops jumped out of their car, without identifying themsleves, jumped him onto the cement sidewalk causing contusions to his face, and set off a mini-riot as people were yelling at them for arresting an innocent kid. His mom (the rightful owner of the kid's car) pulled up and tried to tell these idiots that the car belonged to her. No matter. They slammed the kid into the vehicle so hard that his face broke the window!!

Backups had to be called in to quell the disturbance, and while that was going on one of the jerks calls into the precinct only to learn they had the wrong car. Now one would figure that such a finding would result in releasing the kid, apologizing and of course telling the kid to contact the department to pay for the damages to his face...Right.

No the cop on the radio informs the patrolman to switch to another "unmonitored" channel and then they have a conversation about how they better arrest the kid and the mother and charge something or they are going to pay a lot of money out to some "%^&ing Lawyer and the kid". So they arrested the kid and the next day his mom.

Case got dismissed and then I sued. Why? Turns out an amateur radio operator was "monitoring" the band the cops used to come up with the story that they were going to tell. There was an internal investigation... No charges brought. My case settled for just under $25k + free medical and attorney's fees. Kid was happy, and at the time, I was happy. Looking back, I wish we had gone whole hog on it, you know trial and all. On the other hand, it was the early 90's and pre-Louima so who knows maybe it would have gone no where and $25K was all we would have gotten. Maybe the press could have cared less. One thing I know, though is that this wasn't isolated in Nassau County NY and it sure as hell isn't isolated in America.


So you can imagine my frustration and anger at reading these 3 posts by Tony(c) award Winner in News blogging The Agitator's Radley Balko

The Dymond Milburn case (posts one and two) especially has my attention. Here is a 12 year old girl, black doing a chore on her own property in Texas. 4 plainclothes cops who are supposed to be looking for 3 white sex workers attack a little girl thinking she is one of the white sex workers??? I am sorry but WTF!!!!.

They are trying to take her away and she is holding onto a try screaming for help. They are beating her up with flashlights and she is afraid she is about to be abducted! Her father comes out and he is tries to explain to these "officers of the law" that the child is 12, a middle school honor student and not a prostitute.

His protests are met with: "I don't care if she is twenty-two, thirty-two or forty-six, tell her to calm down."

Ok, tell me why that asshole shouldn't be shot on the spot by the father? Maybe he had identified himself to the family at that point. Ok don't shoot, but still "I don't care if she is twenty two thirty two or forty six..."??? Screw him, all he wanted was to be in control of a situation that he caused to be out of control in the first place. Oh and did I mention they told her they were gonna shoot her puppy which had come to her aid with barking and biting.

Now for those of you who say that this is only one side, I agree and I still do not care...SHE IS 12. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if one of these Keystone Cops had a taser??

Finally it comes to an end, the kid goes to the hospital for her physical injuries which are fairly serious (two black eyes and wounds to the head consistant with being struck with a flashlight), and the Chief of Galveston Police sends her a dozen roses and an apology right? WRONG!!! No, they go to her SCHOOL three weeks later and arrest her in front of everyone else for resisting arrest and injuring AN OFFICER!! Geeez can they be more arrogant?

If you have the stomach for it, take a look at the complaint. Trust me, if you care an iota about what is left of Civil Rights in this country you better have a barf bag available.

Now even if the first part were entirely made up ala Tawanna Brawley, why did they have to arrest her at school??? SHE IS 12. What part of "12" do these dumb bastards not understand. Call her in, go politely to her home. Why embarass the child? Why is the Governor or Texas not sending his best Assistant Deputy Attorney General and his top State investigator down to Galveston with an order to bring him back some badges?? Maybe it is because Dymond is black, and her parents are poor, and so, well, maybe they think it will go away.

Has anybody seen this on the MSM??? Is Katie Couric focusing on this mess? No, but trust me, I have seen the power of Radley Balko's blog following, and there is about to be some hell to pay. I don't have his readership, but I too am pissed and I want some answers. I will be forwarding this post and a letter to my Congressman and asking that we fix 42 USC 1983 to give it the teeth it had before the SCOTUS and friends dismantled it.

As for the child, Dymond Milburn, she has nightmares about being carried off in the night and being raped by cops. Surprise!


BTW Balko got his story from the Houston Press

Then there is the attack on three kids when SWAT came into their bedroom... well maybe I will have more time for that one later. Oh yeah, the police are still shooting innocent animals too.

Round the Blogosphere Nov 11, 2008... Part two of four." Lawyers in Trouble the Good The Bad and The Stupid.

Part II of this little job around the Blogoshere is about Lawyers in trouble.

Here they are:

A.The Good:

From what people are telling me, this poor guy is getting screwed because the US Attorney in Southern Florida is still pissed off at Roy Black for winning a drug case where DEA Agents died. I may blog more about this as time goes on. At the recent NACDL meeting, this was all anyone could talk about. Maybe there should be a rule that prosecutions of Criminal Defense Lawyers can only be handled outside of the US Attorney's office which is handling the initial investigation.

Hat tip: MIAMICRIMLAW

B: The Bad:

This post is about a lawyer who had a gambling addiction and stole her clients money to fund her gaming...Then she sued the casinos for doing what casinos do, letting her bet. She lost her suit, and now she is indicted for stealing the money. If you are a lawyer and you have an addiction or a problem that is causing you to do things that will hurt your family, practice or yourself, then help is available to you. Just click this link and you will find people who care about your family and practice, clients and you. Please before it is too late.

C. The Stupid

This lawyer thinks he is a controversial freedom fighter. I think he is a scar and embarrassment to the practice of law on Long Island. He is a self aggrandizing publicity seeking buffoon.

He clearly overstepped his bounds in this case it seems, and is punished for it. In representing a client, and trying to get a quote in the newspaper, he over did it and may have slandered the victim suggesting that the client who embezzled money from his brother's law firm was only doing what the bosses there did. They sued the lawyer, he then improperly impleaded the plaintiff. The judge hit him with legal fees for having brought a frivolous action. The amount? FOURTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS!!! STUPID.

Judges Have to Give Brady Teeth: Sen. Stevens Judge Emmet Sullivan Blows the Chance to Fix Brady Violations Forever.

The Brady Doctrine (for those of you unfamiliar it is a doctrine that holds that the Prosecution must turn over to the Defense, all material that could probably have an effect on the verdict in a case)is a very strong rule that gutless courts have watered down to the point that it has almost no meaning. We have another opportunity to see the doctrine rendered meaningless in the case of US. v. Ted Stevens.

The allegations are that Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, let a contractor do free work on his home, without declaring the "gift" as a contribution. He also lobbied for the contractor who was a friend of the Senator.

On Monday, the government allowed a witness that was helpful to the defense to return to Alaska without testifying (allegedly because of his health...I guess Washington DC doesn't have any decent medical care...) and that testimony would have been helpful to the defense. Then on Tuesday, it was learned that the government also suppressed evidence that the Senator had paid every bill he was rendered but that he wasn't rendered a bill and the Contractor (who is of course now the star witness against Sen. Stevens) TOLD THE FBI that he thought had he rendered a bill, Stevens would have paid it.

That is important information. It is a bit speculative, but it goes to a number of issues such as: did Stevens, who paid over 150K for improvements, know that the Contractor should didn't render a bill.

Now, during cross-examination the prosecutor informs the defense attorney about the statement. This wasn't a case of losing and finding an item. This was a case where the prosecution redacted an item. The actually took it out of the paperwork so that the defense would not know about it. Someone on the prosecution side took a pen and blacked out the statement.

The Court should have declared a Prosecution caused Mistrial and dismissed the case. No instead the Court offered to allow the defense some time and then also allow them to give a new opening statement. Now that is truly a toothless opportunity. The Original opening statement is a time when counsel lays out its case, It is the time to make hay of the good things your side will produce or stop the other side from producing. To open later is a possible offer for an item that inadvertently was lost and not turned over. This however was an intentional act.

The Court strongly scolded the prosecution, but then refused to do anything real about their breech of duty. I mean look at the actual words the Court used:

"The court has no confidence in the government's ability" to meet its obligations to ensure a fair trial..."

NO CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT"S ABILITY TO MEET IT'S OBLIGATION TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL????

Coming from a federal judge that is a very strong indictment of the public integrity Section of the Justice department. The Justice Dept. gets a lot of perks from the court. The have an obligation to ensure a fair trial. Now the court should have said, if you can't figure out what might be expected to have an effect on the outcome of a trial, and you affirmatively take something out, then there needs to be a serious penalty. The only penalty I can think of is a dismissal with prejudice. Stevens is 82 years old. Are we really going to put a geriatric US Senator in jail?? This would have been the perfect time to show the government they cannot fool with the rules.

Maybe the court was afraid the appeals court would cut the legs out from under him. Who cares?? Let them overrule the decision, It will take the government years to appeal and then they would give the courts another chance to tell the prosecutors that playing fast and loose with the Brady Doctrine will not be tolerated.

Hattip ABA Journal Law News Now.

From the Headlines on Long Island

Busy day in the courts on Long Island.

Newsday reports that former NY Giant receiver and Superbowl hero Mark Ingram was sentenced to 7 years 8 months for trying to launder money for people he thought were drug dealers. They were in fact FBI undercover agents. The crimes took place in Florida and New York. EDNY Judge Hurley was not moved by Ingram's off or on field heroics (Ingram played a big part in the Giants Superbowl win in 1991 over the Buffalo Bills.

Ingram's life since retirement has been bizarre. He has been jailed for a number of crimes including breaking into a car to steal a pocketbook. I understand he went through three assigned attorneys and wrote a very bizarre motion. I wonder if he is not somehow mentally ill. Finally, he went through an awful lot of money. He has to be indigent to get a free lawyer. This is a sad and bizarre story.

Speaking of bizarre cases, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice continues to misuse the law to forward her crazy views of DWI cases. Getting a conviction for Murder in the Second Degree, the court (Peck J.) sentenced the defendant Franklin McPherson, to Twenty Five years to life. Interesting given the fact that while the behavior was considered very reckless by the jury (a decision that will be over turned in my humble opinion because it was given an incorrect jury charge and a charge that was changed after summations were completed a No NO) that is the maximum. If we sentence to the maximum for reckless conduct, what does that leave us for intentional conduct??
Anyway, you can catch more on this story here

By the way Judge, I think 25 years is too long for a 20 year old kid who did not act intentionally. We are giving up on a 20 year old is really not a conservative concept. Do we really think this person has no value to us as a community?? Hopefully this case gets overturned soon.

Finally a case that does make some sense. Suffolk County Court Judge James Hudson, properly sentenced a man to probation in a devastating accident caused by his intoxication. His wife who was severely injured begged Judge Hudson and the Suffolk county District Attorney Thomas Spota for leniency for her husband and father of her two children. She told them she needs him home to care for her. The court and District Attorney agreed.

What I find interesting here is that DA Spota only charged the appropriate charge of vehicular assault and not the higher but legally unwarranted and vindictive Assault 2d degree. I am in a case right now with DA Kathleen Rice and just as she did in the McPearson case above, she has illegally over-charged the case. I am hoping the court agrees that we should have a vehicular assault charge only for accidents that happen while one is intoxicated. If Assault 2d degree were the appropriate charge why would we have a second separate charge? Well I guess while we pay more in taxes, Ms. Rice will continue to waste our taxpayers money to fight her insane,politically motivated and legally irrational march against the citizenry.
TLD.

Edited to make a few sentences make more sense.

Wow What a Summer, (And It Is Not Even Half Over)

When I last left you, I was sad that Debra Jean Paltrow decided to end her life. I think it was a permanent solution to what was a temporary problem. I also thought her prosecution (not to mention her conviction) was a monumental waste of taxpayers time and money not to mention personnel resources.

So then what happened?? All hell broke loose That is what happened.

In chronological order:
1. I became involved to represent the driver in this very sad case. (The Griffin Case)
2. I was a judge at the National Catholic Forensic League Grand Championships in The Fox Cities area of Wisconsin.
3. The Nassau County DWI Wall of Shame went up.
4. I started representing Rabbi Morris Talansky, who is a really nice guy getting slammed unfairly in the foreign press (and by the NY Tabloids too but what else is new.)
5. I started the Murder Trial of Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez.
6. The District Attorney of Nassau decided that I might beat her in the aforementioned Griffin case so she began "Poisoning the Jury Pool" with outrageous remarks that show her lack of maturity and her lack of fitness for the office she holds.
7. A nut job in the gallery of the courtroom during the Rodriguez trial, jumped up and attacked Shorty and me (he was aiming for Shorty, I was just collateral damage) which caused a 2.5 day break in the trial, and pointed out to all of us in Nassau County that we need to take more precautions to safeguard our trial courts (Hint Hint, it is time to build a new and safer annex to the county court.)
8. After one of the toughest trials I have ever been involved with, Ronald "Shorts" Rodriguez was ACQUITTED of Murder in the second degree (Intentional Murder) Manslaughter in the 1st degree (Intentionally causing injury that results in death through the use of Deadly Physical Force) and was convicted of the non-violent crime of Manslaughter in the 2d degree (recklessly causing the death of another) and possession of a weapon 3rd degree. (Sentencing is scheduled for September.)

9. In addition, the economy tanked, you can no longer afford to fill a gas tank without a loan, and it is Obama v. McCain but look out for BARR to play a spoiler unless McCain starts to comeback to his roots.

AND

10. I was cited as a blogging lawyer in an article at Get LEGAL.COM

11. I am building a new website (the old one is down and I have a static place holder there right now but wait until) NEXT month.



I will be posting on these topics and a few other things too over the next few weeks. Sorry for being away too long, but I just can't seem to write when I am in trial.

Corrections: Spell checked and links added.

A Sunday Jog Around the Blogosphere

Wow what a busy week. 8 posts in one week!! Pretty good especially for me. I doubt I will be quite so prolific this week as I am going to be back on a suppression hearing on Tuesday and maybe Wednesday in People v. Ronald "Shorty" Rodriguez, before the Hon. Meryl Berkowitz in Nassau County Court. Later in the week I will be in NYC for the 50th Anniversary of the NACDL. I may do a few blogs from there. I am excited because I am serving on the Nomination committee. Fellow Law Blogger and President-elect John Wesley Hall asked me to serve and I am very honored.

So as it is Sunday, I am going to again jog around the blogoshere with you. Here are a few things that caught my eye this week that I didn't get to write more about but you may want to look into yourself:

1. That Exotic Darlin' of the Neo-Con set Michelle Malkin asks the blog question, are US banks Knowingly Laundering Drug Money for Mexican Drug Cartels?? Michelle's take is that illegals, are here, sending money there (Mexico) through non-banks called "casas di cambio." American banks wanting some of the action offer these CdiC's a place to put large amounts of money and will look the other way if some of the money comes from the drug trade.

Michelle's neo-con answer is of course to prosecute the banks the illegals and the democrats. MY answer is better. Legalize the Drugs and tax same, put the money to use to help people beat their addictions, and open the borders correctly with a sane immigration policy that will not cripple US businesses.

Hmmm... Deport workers, cripple our economy, jail Americans for trying to make a living, jail more people for feeding their addictions, ruin foreign governments by making Criminal's rich and cost the American Taxpayer gazillion dollars for a drug war we could end with the stroke of a pen versus A sane immigration policy and drug policy... Ok she is sexy (especially compared to that shrieking idiot of the rightamortis, Ann Coulter ) but her views are silly.

2. I will never figure out the Federal Prosecutor's fascination with rebuttal witnesses. I guess they feel that it gives them a chance at primacy and finality two forensic speaking techniques. On the other hand, watching a case go in over seven (7) weeks and then blowing up on rebuttal just makes me question two things: to they think the defense isn't aware of their games and can not counter them? and Why do they think the jury needs to hear the same stuff over and over again? Anyway, the Pellicano case in L.A. Federal court is about to go to a mistrial... seems that the rebuttal witness they called to contradict the defendant's testimony on a minor issue, committed perjury and will have to take the 5th amendment on Monday. She was to be the final witness. Shame on the US Attorney's office in L.A. for doing a shabby job of investigating their own witness. Talkleft has some coverage here.

3. Pittsburgh Pa. has become an adoptive second home for us. We go there for some of my wife's medical treatments. The City is made up of many really nice people. Then of course there is their US Attorney, but she is a story for another post.

For now, here is a story about a guy who was arrested for complaining too much in a bad tone... A little subjective no?? Anyway he was convicted by a jury and it is on appeal... I can understand how one might want to be respected for working in public service. On the other hand I can also see how one might get fed up with the failure of certain public servants to do their jobs. What I cannot see is someone being convicted for complaining to a public servant about the job they do. Taking complaints is in the job description. As long as it is not abusive language tone shouldn't matter. (I am not sure abusive language should matter either but that too is another post.)

Hattip: to Radley Balko at The Agitator

In a related post over at the CrimProf Blog there is a story about a guy who got 15 years for sending governmental officials threatening letters.
4. "Romeo, Romeo, Where fore art thou Romeo..." Well both Romeo and Juliet are over at the Volokh Conspiracy this week where Professor Eugene Volokh, the head conspirator looks at the reason's behind Romeo and Juliet sex laws (laws that outlaw sex between adults and minors of a certain age but allows the sex if the lovers are born within a certain amount of time of each other. On first blush, it seems that Prof. Volokh is in favor of pedophiles, however when you look at his questions he does seem to put those laws under a light of logic and they do not come out all that well.

5. Some Good and Bad News about the Fourth Amendment in the news this week.
The blogosphere is abuzz with news out of California about the Ninth Circuit agreeing that laptops can be searched at screening at airport screening stations.

Meanwhile in NJ. the Supreme Court stunned prosecutors in ruling that people do have a fourth amendment protection in their ISP carriers information.

6. New and scary uses for DNA. Now it will be guilt by blood association. See this post for more information. Coming 0n the heels of Judge Weinstein's decision in , there may be a trend toward bringing Fourth Amendment law into the open and up to date with this century.

And that's our jog round the blogosphere. See you around. It should be an exciting week.
TLD.

Number 201: A Jog Around The Blogosphere

I am starting an exercise program. (Yes smart guy another one.) So I figured I would start exercising here too. Hence we will jog around the Internet. Let's see how we do.


I. Volokh Conspiracy is talking about a lot of things (hell 5685 law profs blog there... ok less but it feels like that many) I like this one. It is about legislators with too much time on their hands. They are arguing about whether it should be illegal to hang fake bull testicles off of your back bumper.
Really, lets limit their salaries and time in legislature. Pay them about 25% of what they now make. Have them serve Monday to Wednesday from January till June, and make them GO HOME!! Anything they didn't reach we don't need.

II. A blog near and dear to my heart blogs about an issue near and close to my heart. Prof. Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy blog posts about lawsuits against "civil" penalties that plague sex offenders after they have served their time in jail. I am looking for a plaintiff to attack some of these stupid residency laws and other penalties.

III. As the Law Offices of Anthony J. Colleluori & Associates PLLC changes so do my duties as Principal counsel. I spend a lot of time working on systems and ideas. Allison Shields is a management expert who gives me a lot to think about. Her blog Legal Ease is a great place to figure out how to run a law firm, a skill not taught in law school. This post is about the need for and the building of a follow up system. Work work work...

IV. My Friend Ernie Svenson is blogging about a new book he has read. The book, The Nine by Jeffrey Tobin, is about the changes in the court since 1980 and the Reagan revolution. Ernie's blog is aptly named Ernie the Attorney.


V. Jerri Merritt over at Talkleft has this story about another bad conviction, where the prosecution completely distorted the scientific evidence to get a conviction. The widow enjoyed the death and the money too much. Hence the jury convicted not on the evidence but on the publicity.

Another reason there should be a gag on prosecutors and police. Announce you have a suspect under arrest for the crime, then shut up until the trial and stop trying to sway the jury. I swear if I were a judge and a prosecutor pulled the crap they did here I would disqualify the bastard and move the trial. I would be tempted to let the defendant out on bail while she awaited trial to boot. This argument that they have a duty to keep the public informed is hogwash. All they want to do it kill off any chance a defendant can get a fair trial. Wake Up Judges, WAKE UP!!

Finally,

LII Announce , Cornell Law's blog that accompanies its wonderful website has the following important quote from the late Robert F. Kennedy. I will reprint it here:

"It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."
Robert F. Kennedy, Speech, South Africa, 1966.

Well, that was a refreshing jog.

And While We're On The Topic Of Porn & Computers... Check Out This Prosecution Boondoggle

In a couple of our last posts (here and here) I have been talking about prosecutors and government wasting taxpayers money, their time and our precious resources on sex crime issues. Just as I thought I was finished with the topic, I saw this article. Is this Prosecutor Thomas kidding??? Sadly no. The voters of Maricopa County AZ need to start a recall. In fact they should be outside of his office everyday until he resigns for being an idiot. I am sorry but putting a 16 year old through hell for possession of 9 pictures that he may or may not have downloaded and making a crime of one 16 year old showing another 16 year old a Playboy magazine is a crime in itself. Forcing the plea was at best a face-saving effort for a jerk DA. Maybe a Congressman should ask the Bar to investigate this guy. What ever happened to the saying "De minimis non curat lex?”

Hattip to : Classically Liberal.

Goodbye Mike It's Been Good To Know You...NOT!!: DA Nifong Asks Off The Duke Rape Case

You guys may know this by know but Durham (NC) District Attorney Mike Nifong has asked the State's attorney to assign another prosecutor to the Duke Lacrosse Rape case. It has been a disaster from the beginging. I still cannot figure out what Nifong was thinking about when he brought the charges. There was a rush to judgment and condemnation of the boys involved, who forever will have their reputations sullied by a District Attorney who seemed more interested in the publicity he could get from the case than doing justice.

A prosecutor has a different set of Rules than most lawyers. He doesn't represent a client unlike defense attorney's or even civil lawyers. He represents the power of the state. He doesn't have a right to put his interest before those of the state. He has an obligation to bring to justice people who it seems committed a crime by at least a preponderance of the evidence...that's the credible evidence.

The word credible was what Nifong missed throughout the case. Sadly he never took the time to speak to the alleged victim. In the fear I guess that he might further the harm to her, he decided not to speak to her. WRONG! He had an obligation to investigate and in this racially charged case he had an obligation to move ponderously so as to not rush to judgment.

In NY right now I have been listening to complaints about the Queens District Attorney's office handling of the Club Kahlua/Sean Bell police shooting. I have refrained commenting on the case because I have been involved with both Kahlua club and another area club in the past.

Despite my distaste for the vice squad and their tactics, I nevertheless, commended the District Attorney's office for taking time to investigate the case and not be pressured by community activists and outside pundit's comments. I do not know what happened the night of the shooting, but I do know that on its face, it would be easy to condemn the police officers who shot Shaun Bell. Condemnation however is different from using the criminal justice system to destroy and potentially jail an otherwise "innocent" person.

If criminal charges are brought against one or more of the police officers whose bullets killed Mr. Bell, well at least we know that the decision to prosecute them was made diliberately and with thought.

The kids from Duke cannot say that. In fact they probably can say that with Nifong facing a tough re-election and needing the minority vote to win, their case was political and he used it for his own political gain. Win lose or draw, the damage to the Duke 3 is done, and there is nothing anyone can do to give them back their youth.