The Duke Case

[Woody]

Since when does a prosecuting attorney get to declare someone as innocent. I thought that was the job of a judge and jury ?

Usually I hear them saying that "charges have been dropped". But never have I heard said that someone is actually innocent.

I am not disputing that they are innocent ... I am just disputing the right of the prosecuting attorney to make such a statement. What if new evidence came and we found out that one of them WAS guilty in some form or fashion.

Am I totally off base?

[Dr. Shane]

No, judges and juries do not proclaim people innocent. They simple come to a finding of not guilty. And, in this case, it wasn't a prosecuting attorney but the Attorney General, which is an elected office in Texas, I don't know about NC. Basically he said that upon investigation, there was an abundance of evidence indicating the boys were innocent and no evidence indicating they were guilty.

What happened was that a mentally ill stipper made rape accusations against several people - not just the four indited. There was an abundance of evidence against her story and the DA decided to go after these white Duke boys because he was running for re-election and needed black votes.

BYW: I had already started another thread on this.

[Woody]

Quote:

This afternoon, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he was dropping all charges against the men, saying that there was "no credible evidence" against the "innocent" trio.

Shane ... is this what you are referring to?

He calls them "innocent". And this is what I clearly heard on the news. The "Attorney General" is placing himself pretty high up to be able to declare someone "innocent" ... rather than just saying there is no evidence or saying that all charges have been dropped.

So ... it is the job of the judge to say that they are guilty or not guilty but it is the job of the attorney to declare them innocent?

It still bothers me. But hey ... I may be the only one. I just didn't know that this was the way our legal system works. Are there any attorney out there that I can ask?

[Woody]

Quote:

BYW: I had already started another thread on this

I apologize Shane.

I think you beat me by about 3 min. I did not see it and was writing the post as you were listing it. Sorry. Is there any way I can delete mine?

[Dr. Shane]

Well, the Attorney General is someone pretty high up. So he doesn't have to place himself there. I listened to him live this afternoon and I don't remember what his exact words were but yes, I agree, they were unusual but the evidence supporting the innocence of this boys is overwhelming.

There are time-marked pictures of the boys that place them at other places during the time when the crime allegedly took place. One of the boys has a taxi driver as a witness that he took the boy someplace else during the time the attack allegedly took place. Another made a cash withdrawal from an ATM during this time. There was semen and pubic hair from 4 or 5 guys taken off the girl at her rape examination and none of the DNA matches any of the boys on the Lacrosse team although the DNA of one of them does match her boyfriend. In interviews with the police and investigating attorneys, she changed her stories seven times while the boys' stories stayed consistent.

The poor girl is mentally ill and the DA had to have realized that but went ahead with the prosecution so he could get black votes in his re-election bid.

The sad thing is that this has happened to many poor people - including and especially minorities. A crime happens and the police work with the DA to frame someone so that the public feels safe with the perpetrator behind bars. The only reason it didn't happen this time is because the parents of these boys had the money to hire the best lawyers to defend them.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I did not see it and was writing the post as you were listing it. Sorry. Is there any way I can delete mine?

Just leave them both. Mine is headed in a different direction and whichever draws the most replies is fine.

[Dr. Shane]

"We believe them to be innocent" is the quote I heard on the news tonight. So that sounds more like an opinion but coming from the state attorney general, it means a lot.

[Woody]

Regarding "innocent" .... Is the attorney general going to declare the accusor "innocent"?

Fox News has the headlines "Duke Liar".

This is at least her Third accusation to the Police that some type of illegal behavior has happened when it hasn't. Is she guilty of filing false police reports?

I predict this "Attorney General" will declare her also "innocent".

[Dr. Shane]

Our brother David Koot knows much more than me in this area but I don't think the state Attorney General has the authority to declare them innocent although I believe the governor does. That said, the only time I have ever heard of a governor declaring someone innocent is when they were wrongly convicted, not wrongly charged.

Again, the evidence for their innocence is so overwhelming, the district attorney had to have known they were not guilty and the only reason to pursuit the charges is that he was up for re-election in an area with a lot of blacks and he needed their votes. I suspect that he is going to get a severe punishment.

I am interested in what Brother Koot thinks about the legal aspect of this story.

[Woody]

Shane ... I am not sure that even the governor can declare someone innocent. I think what the governor can do is to absolve the crime or grant clemancy or maybe another word would be forgiveness. The crime is forgiven and stricken as if it did not occur. But many times when the governor or president does this ... the person is actually guilty. But it is deemed appropriate for them to be "forgiven".

However ... I would like to hear from David to clear up all this.

[Dr. Shane]

I believe President Carter absolved Dr. Samuel Mudd of all conspiracy involved with the death of President Lincoln. That is the only time I have heard of anything like declaring someone innocent.

[Gerr]

Since when does a prosecuting attorney get to declare someone as innocent. I thought that was the job of a judge and jury ?

Usually I hear them saying that "charges have been dropped". But never have I heard said that someone is actually innocent.

I am not disputing that they are innocent ... I am just disputing the right of the prosecuting attorney to make such a statement. What if new evidence came and we found out that one of them WAS guilty in some form or fashion.

Am I totally off base?

From my non-lawyer standpoint, you're not even in the ballpark. If the charges are dropped, are they guilty or innocent? In our system of law, those charged with a crime are PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty. Since there was no proof of guilt, what would you call them?

Garry

[Amelia]

The boys could very well be guilty. All prosecuting attorneys will liberally use the word "innocent" in regards to their clients. Maybe if they say it enough the people will believe it.LOL

Didn't this woman have a baby recently? I thought I heard something about a baby or pregnancy that caused the trial to head downhill.

Quote:

From my non-lawyer standpoint, you're not even in the ballpark. If the charges are dropped, are they guilty or innocent?

Gerry, I guess they would be as innocent as the day they went into the trial. Only God and themselves know their true standing on that point. I think the boys could still be charged in another level of court.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

All prosecuting attorneys will liberally use the word "innocent" in regards to their clients.

I think you mean defense attorneys. The prosecutors work for the public.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

those charged with a crime are PRESUMED INNOCENT until proven guilty. Since there was no proof of guilt, what would you call them?

Not quite that clear. They were indited so that will show up on their criminal record. Our court system does not find anyone innocent. So their innocence will always be in question. The only thing that isn't in question is that the state did not have enough evidence to prove their guilt. As a result, people in this position may have problem becoming foster parents or adopting children.

[Woody]

Just because there is not enough evidence that you are guilty ... does not mean that you are innocent.

[olger]

True Red.

They are indeed guilty of acting upon immoral lust, regardless of whether or not they followed lust that with action.

Both parties are guilty here. The lies (if indeed they are) by the woman did more public damage, much more. BUt both are guilty of breaking God's Law.

We are near the breaking point when we care only for what is legal and nothing for what is Lawful.

olger

[Woody]

Quote:

Both parties are guilty here.

I'm sorry olger ... I do not follow this. What are the guys guilty of ??

[Dr. Shane]

Lust.

If these had been honorable Christian boys they would not have attended a party with drinking and strippers. They did not break any civil or criminal law, but they were not honoring God.

[Woody]

I'm sorry .... I had not made the transition from Civil to Religious Laws. Were these boys Christians?

[David Koot]

I don't think the state Attorney General has the authority to declare them innocent

First off, they are, of course, presumed innocent unless a guilty verdict is handed down. For an AG to declare parties who have been indicted, as innocent, would seem quite puzzling. Was there an indictment? I thought the local DA simply filed charges. I wasn't aware that a grand jury was involved. At any rate, once charges are filed, then it seems like it should take a not guilty verdict to support such a declaration.

However, I understand that in this case, the AG said something more along the lines of 'we believe' them to be innocent, based on the available evidence. That certainly is different than saying, 'they are innocent.' The Department may well believe them to be innocent of such charges, in which case they very definitely should dismiss the charges!

as for whether or not any wrongful acts were in fact committed . . . I remember hearing profs in law school tell us that court proceedings do not, cannot address the ultimate question of whether or not an accused actually DID something or not. Rather, the issue is whether or not the legal system SAYS that s/he did it, based on the evidence.

Dave

[Woody]

Thank you Dave ... we have been waiting for your comments.

This is what I was feeling.

The legal system just says if they are in compliance with the law or not according to the evidence presented. They may well have done what is accused sometimes. But the evidence presented does not merit applying the penalty of the law.

Saying someone is innocent is not the duty of the DA or AG. They just bring charges or drop charges.

[olger]

God says hiring a stripper to come to your frat house is sin, Red.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.. Shane nailed it.

Rejoice always,

olger

[Woody]

I think you did Olger. I was just thick headed. But I still wonder if they are Christians?