His agent, Tim McGee, need not have commented on the matter.
He did.
McGee said, "I've never in my life seen such a small issue turn into such a big story."
Apparently, McGee does not realize how seriously some people take sex offenses. He should.
I was a criminal defense attorney for two years.
And I was proud of it.
The Duke University lacrosse case explains why.
Anybody can be accused of anything by anybody at any time. Accusation is not proof.
Innocent people get accused. They deserve a defense.
Guilty people get accused too. They deserve a defense. Why? Because they might not be guilty, after all. People get released from jail all the time after their innocence comes to light.
Even people guiltier than sin get accused. They deserve a defense. Why? Because the cops are human. The prosecuting attorneys are human. Witnesses are human. And, yes, the accused is human, too.
Sometimes one of the humans involved in the process makes a mistake. Sometimes they lie. Sometimes they commit fraud. Sometimes they plant evidence. Even if the accused is guilty, he should be protected from lies, fraud, fake evidence and the plain old mistake.
If we do not do our best to protect those that are guilty as sin, we can not protect those that are innocent as lambs. If the humans involved in the process can get away with lies, fraud and mistakes against the truly guilty, they can get away with it against the innocent.
Criminal defense attorneys sometimes represent the scum of the earth. Everyday, they represent you.
I hate that cliché.
First, it is not true. Once a fire is extinguished, the wood still smolders. Paper can get hot enough to smoke, yet not flame.
Second, the implication is outrageous. The user of the phrase is saying that only bad people are accused of bad things.
“If someone has been accused (the smoke), they must have done it (the fire).”
Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team.
The only truth about smoke is that it makes it harder to see.
Lawyers currently arguing before the United States Supreme Court said, in a written brief, that “low value speech is not worthy of First Amendment protection.”
The lawyers that signed that brief are complete and absolute idiots. The lawyers that make that argument are buffoons. The lawyers that believe that are dangerous.
Of course, such a rule would have its benefits. If we could ban “low value speech,” the ghoulish 24 hour coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s death would be off the television, "The View" would be banished, and Howard Stern would have to get a job. Best of all, I would never have to see Flava Flav again.
Carol Chambers, District Attorney for the 18th Judicial District in Colorado, refuses to use the testimony of two law enforcement officials she believes lie on the stand. Good for her.
P.S. She's not really my favorite. This is the same D.A. that was found guilty of abusing the power of her office by a state disciplinary board. Nevertheless, I give her credit for refusing to rely on corrupt cops to obtain convictions.
A New York state legislator wants to ban walking while listening to headphones.
Unfortunately, there is no punch line.
This time, United States District Judge Graham Mullen was reviewing the case against a man on North Carolina death row.
Mullen wrote "In suppressing (witness statements) ... and lying about it to the court, the prosecution lost sight of what the American judicial system strives to guarantee.
. . .
"When prosecutors believe they need to hide evidence in order to obtain a desired verdict or a desired sentence, it raises questions about whether justice is, in fact, being done," Mullen wrote.
No crap.
The lying, corrupt District Attorney, Scott Brewer, is now a state court judge.
Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong faces new charges today.
The North Carolina State Bar filed a complaint alleging that Nifong "withheld DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case and then lied about it to judges and the North Carolina State Bar."
According to the Raleigh News and Observer:
The test results from DNA Security of Burlington found DNA from at least four unidentified men in and on the accuser and excluded the entire lacrosse team as the source. The bar's complaint said Nifong hid these results from defense lawyers, who repeatedly asked for all DNA test results. Nifong then lied to the court, either on paper or in direct comments to a judge, on five occasions, the complaint said.
. . .
Nifong is scheduled to make his first appearance this morning at the bar. Depending on the outcome, he could lose his license to practice law.
Nifong should not only lose his license to practice law, he should lose his freedom. He needs to spend time behind bars for corruption.
Who should be leading the public condemnation of this low-life lying lawyer? Not the criminal defense attorneys. The honest and hardworking district attorneys throughout the country should be condemning their colleague.
Why? Because liars like Nifong make it harder for all legitimate prosecuting attorneys to win a case. Liars like Nifong cast doubt on every legitimate prosecution in this country. If the honest DA's do not take a stand against corruption, they are complicit in that corruption.
The North Carolina Bar has filed ethics charges against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong for his handling of the faux rape charges brought against three Duke University lacrosse players.
As Duke law professor James Coleman said before the ethics charges were filed, "It's either total incompetence or it's misconduct on a scale that is extraordinary."
I disagree. I believe there is plenty of both to go around.
The Duke lacrosse faux-rape case is a high-profile example of the government abusing its power. Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong is an unusual combination of incompetent, ambitious and corrupt.
I take that back. The government is full of people with those characteristics. Some have even made it to the Office of the President. (See Nixon, Richard M.)
Araphoe County, Colorado, District Attorney Carol Chambers can join the list. She has been publicly censured by a three judge panel for misusing the
power of her office to intimidate a lawyer trying to collect a debt from an Englewood councilwoman Chambers knew,
according to the Rocky Mountain News.
Government officials like Chambers and Nifong represent bad people doing an important job. All DA's do not abuse their discretion for their own purposes. Chambers and Nifong do.
The only practical check on these people is the ballot box. Vote 'em, and all like 'em, out of office.
***
The only thing worse than an incompetent, ambitious and corrupt public official is a competent, ambitious and corrupt official. The competent ones do not get caught. They amass power. They amass money. They abuse their power and get away it.
How do we deal with these government officials? Do not trust the government. Do not trust it to decide who to execute in a criminal case, do not trust it to plow the snow off your streets. The more trust you give it, the more the trust will be abused.
The more discretion you give any government official, the more that discretion will be abused. Not by everybody, but by some. Those some ruin it for everybody.
Bob Beauprez, Republican candidate for Colorado governor, is being investigated by the FBI. Beauprez has been accused of illegally using information in a national database for political means. The database is only supposed to be used for law enforcement.
Specifically, Beauprez ran a commercial accusing his Democratic rival, Bill Ritter, former Denver District Attorney, of letting an illegal immigrant plea bargain to a reduced offense that did not require deportation. This immigrant apparently was then involved in another, more serious crime in another state.
It is alleged that the only way Beauprez could have found out about this second crime was by access to the federal database.
Beauprez has now said that the leaker of the information “did the right thing.”
Beauprez has not received a tremendous amount of sympathy for his position.
Contrast that with the two San Francisco reporters that have admitted to obtaining secret Grand Jury testimony that implicates Barry Bonds as a steroid user. It is illegal to release Grand Jury testimony. The reporters used that testimony in a published work.
A federal judge has sentenced them to jail for their refusal to name their source. They have received considerable sympathy.
What’s the difference?
There is none.
Both Beauprez and the reporters obtained information that was illegally released to them. They both used that information to inform the public of something they thought the public needed to know.
Why should the two incidents be treated differently?
They should not be.
A federal Drug Enforcement Agency investigation, in conjunction with local authorities, has resulted in an indictment of 38 individuals involved in a marijuana and ecstasy distribution in Colorado.
According to the report in the Rocky Mountain News, over $4 million in assets, cash and drugs have been seized.
You tax that at 50%, the government gets $2 million.
At least some of the people involved are looking at life imprisonment.
Do you know what it costs to keep someone in prison for a lifetime?
Do you know what it costs to pay DEA agents, local authorities, court appointed lawyers, and judges?
Imagine that number, and erase it from the government budget.
Now put it back. That money could be used to pay for drug treatment programs. It could be used for schools to teach poor kids skills that would enable them to make a productive living. It could be used for parks.
It could even, heaven forbid, be allowed to stay in the taxpayers’ collective pocket.
I like to keep up with the legal job market in the Denver area. Check out this actual job description:
Hard-driving litigation boutique with a great reputation and a long list of impressive clients seeks an experienced Litigation Attorney to handle cases from start to finish. Good writing skills and a willingness to work hard and independently required. Excellent salary and bonus program
I have fourteen years of legal experience. Let me break this job description down for you.
"Hard driving litigation boutique" = "a small group of assholes."
"Great reputation" = "other attorneys hate us."
"long list of impressive clients" = "corporations that pay us outrageous fees."
"seeks experienced litigation attorney" = "we want somebody we don't have to train."
"to handle cases from start to finish" = "yeah right, we'll be checking up on you daily and if you screw up it's your ass."
"Good writing skills " = "ability to use our form firms without changing them."
"willingness to work hard" = "bill many hours and become an insufferable dick."
"and independently " = "we will be watching your every move."
"Excellent salary and bonus program" = "but then again how much is your soul worth to you?"
The United States Congress has decided it knows better than you. Again.
The Congress will not allow you to spend your own money playing cards.
Freedom is fragile. The "land of the free" became a little less so this weekend.
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada are the two reporters that have done an excellent job proving Barry Bonds has used illegal steroids.
Part of their investigation, however, used sealed grand jury testimony. They have been ordered by a judge to reveal how they obtained this testimony. Whoever gave it to them has broken the law.
Williams and Fainaru-Wada promised their source confidentiality. The judge has promised to put them in jail if they do not reveal their source.
They are free for now pending an appeal.
This situation has caused much consternation among journalists. How, they ask, can they do their jobs if the can not protect their sources?
The (Portland) Oregonian, sums it up in an editorial dated September 24, 2006:
This case cuts to the very heart of what reporters do. If investigative reporters such as Williams and Fainaru-Wada can no longer keep their promises of confidentiality to their sources, then sources of information everywhere will be afraid to speak to reporters. The public will be less informed; the press will be less free.
Ah, but this argument is based on a completely false premise.
The Oregonian laments that reporters "can no longer keep their promises of confidentiality."
But they can. They may have to go to jail to do so, but they can keep their promise.
There are many arguments in favor of protecting reporters from revealing sources, even if they are protecting a law breaker. Saying that reporters will be "unable" to protect those sources, however, is wrong.
Rocky Mountain News editorial page editor Vincent Carroll says he is "wavering" on whether or not driving while on a cell phone should be illegal.
He summarily dispenses with the libertarian "don't tread on me" argument and suggests studies showing that accidents have not increased since the advent of the cell phone is the best argument against making driving and cell phone use illegal.
I will resort to neither the “don’t tread on me” argument nor accident statistics to state my case against making it illegal to use a cell phone while driving. Negligent driving, whether caused by cell phones, eating, putting on makeup, smoking, changing the radio channel, reading, smoking, sleeping or any other reason, is already illegal.
Itemizing, and making illegal, every way negligence can occur is not necessary.
I have no idea what actually happened, but you have to love it when a cop uses the excuses he has accumulated over the years.
According to Sarah Langbein's story in the Rocky Mountain News today, open beer bottles were found in the console between the driver's seat and the passenger's seat. There was no passenger in the car when Rusk was pulled over.
According to the JeffCo Sheriff's report, the Denver officer said that he was driving a friend's car and the bottles were already in it when he got in to drive it.
Sure. And Carmelo's weed belonged to a friend.
Rusk's lawyer claims that the breath tests administered to his client were corrupted by JeffCo personnel. His client "got screwed by the incompentence of the JeffCo sheriff's office."
What happened to the Code of Silence? I did not think cops were supposed to turn on other cops.
Or does that thin blue line get erased when a cop's own ass is in a sling and he thinks he can save himself by calling out his brethren?
That's a nice convenient code. Fellow cops can do no wrong as long as the public is getting screwed by the incompetence. But when a cop thinks he's getting screwed, he can start singing like it's Amateur Night at the Apollo.
Do-Re-Mi, Lt. Rusk.
And tell that friend to clean out his car.
