THERE were two quite distinct reactions to the dismissal of sexual assault charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, a racially charged case that roiled America.
The players wondered what would have happened to them if they had not come from well-off families who could afford the best legal advice. They said they never realised that such an injustice could happen in America.
The second reaction, from one of the player's lawyers, was to name and shame the woman who made the accusations.
The allegations against the lacrosse players stemmed from a party at some of the team's share house in Durham, North Carolina — a town divided between the elite university and mostly black locals. The lacrosse team hired two black strippers for entertainment. They stopped their performance after one player made a threatening remark.
The woman later told police she was forcibly separated from her companion, taken to a bathroom and raped by three of the men. The players, from prosperous interstate families, employed top-notch local attorneys. According to CBS News, their families spent between $3 million and $5 million defending them.
One of the players, Reade Seligmann, said his experience had opened his eyes to a "tragic world of injustice" that he never knew existed.
"If police officers and a district attorney can systematically railroad us with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I can't imagine what they would do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves." Another of the players, Collin Finnerty, said he would use this experience to stop "this ever happening again".
North Carolina's Attorney-General, Roy Cooper, said investigators had come to the conclusion that the woman believed what she was saying at the time to be true, and would not face charges.
Mr Cooper reserved his most scathing criticism for Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, who he called a "rogue prosecutor". Mr Nifong, who eventually withdrew from the case and now faces ethics charges, declared the white lacrosse players guilty during his re-election campaign, in an apparent attempt to pander to the black community.
He also failed to use proper identification procedures, failed to tell the court or defence lawyers about DNA tests that failed to support his case, failed to listen to the players' defence, including, in one case, photographs and ATM records that provided a strong alibi, and failed to interview the accuser for nine months.
Mr Cooper said: "There were many points in this case where caution would have served justice better than bravado. This case shows the enormous consequences of over-reaching by a prosecutor."
Link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment