Two Lacrosse players have been arrested and charged with rape, assault and kidnapping. They were arrested based on a grand jury indictment. This may seem significant, but it isn't. As one of the lawyers stated: "you can indict a ham sandwich." Quoting from one of LaShawn Barber's commenters:
"The DA had no obligation to present any exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. He could have presented only the following: (1) the alleged victim's testimony that she was raped and her identification of her attackers and (2) the hospital nurse's testimony that the alleged victim's injuries were consistent with rape. These facts would be sufficient for an indictment, which is all the Nifong needs for his re-election campaign.
"At trial, however, the jury will have the following exculpatory and impeachment evidence to consider: (1) the absence of any DNA match, (2) photographs of the alleged victim showing bruises before the alleged attack, (3) various inconsistencies in her story, and (4) evidence of the alleged victim's bad character for honesty and truthfulness (i.e., her prior criminal record). It is highly unlikely in my opinion as a lawyer for the past 25 years that based on this evidence a jury would find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is true: anyone willing to perjure themselves can get someone arrested. But PROVING the case is a completely different matter. Now that the case has two defendants, rather than the "Duke Lacrosse team", we will see more and more focus on the what, where and whos of the case.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment