<p>Well said, berurah!!</p>
<p>I would add that the Duke system hasn’t regained its balance either, but we’re trying and, I think, getting closer…</p>
<p>epistrophy, keep in mind that if the system is “regaining balance” it is only because Nifong made the mistake of going after a set of defendants with the money to defend themselves properly. The hubris displayed by Nifong all along probably is a reflection of his habits as a prosecutor – he probably learned long ago that he could get away with these ethical shortcuts in prosecutions of those who did not have the ability to retain top flight defense lawyers. In other words, he simply didn’t expect to get caught – and I don’t think he would have been so bold if this level of misconduct had been an aberration on his part.</p>
<p>calmom:</p>
<p>You raise a really interesting question: whether (1) Nifong habitually behaved like this as a prosecutor, or (2) his behavior here represented some sort of aberration. I suspect that we’ll learn more about this, one way or the other, as the ethics proceeding goes along. As this case unfolded, though, it seemed - didn’t it (?) - that prior to this case (and, perhaps coincidentally, running for this office), Nifong had a generally good reputation as an ethical prosecutor. Certainly all (or at least most) of the early reports, including the comments from defense lawyers, seemed to go that way. If one habitually behaved in this fashion, unless the defense lawyers were absolutely catatonic, I would think that it would have come to light in some fashion before now, though perhaps not.</p>
<p>Wouldn’t the defense and the prosecution all be part of the same “club” in Durham? A different club from the defendants.</p>
<p>Getting kicked out of the club due to accusing the DA’s office of unethical behavior might end your career - what if they decide to prosecute all of your clients, no more plea bargains?</p>
<p>Better to live to fight another day.</p>
<p>beprepn:</p>
<p>You raise a good point - that there are reasons why a defense lawyer might be hesitant to take on a prosecutor’s office.</p>
<p>That said, while I haven’t been there, it seems to me that it likely would not be accurate to portray Durham as (and I’m embellishing a bit here) some sort of sleepy southern town in which unethical behavior is a routine thing but everyone simply pretends it doesn’t exist. Plus, by and large, criminal defense lawyers don’t tend to be particularly “clubby”; they’re more likely to be (and I say this as one myself) loners and misfits and rebels - not the sort of folks who would be likely to respond to repeated instances of prosecutorial misconduct with a “wall of silence.”</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t the defense and the prosecution all be part of the same “club” in Durham?”</p>
<p>Eh…it’s not that unusual for lawyers to switch sides over the course of their careers. There are a number of former prosecutors doing white collar criminal defense at my firm, and their proteges often leave to go to the US Attorney’s office. At least in my city, there seems to be an atmosphere of professional respect across the aisle, not the kind of loyalty that would cause prosecutors to band together to punish the defense attorney who brought down one of their own. On the contrary, I think prosecutors more than anyone are upset and embarrassed by this kind of overreaching, because it makes them all look bad. I wouldn’t be surprised if the prosecutors in the NC bar are heavily represented among the lawyers pressing for sanctions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that it’s often the case - and this sometimes seems to surprise people - that prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers tend to operate in more of “an atmosphere of professional respect” than opposing lawyers in civil cases. But as Hanna points out, this wouldn’t entail turning a blind eye to misconduct. If anything, “respect” includes an assumption that the other side will continue to act in a fashion that deserves it - and a willingness to call them out if they don’t.</p>
<p>With Nifong’s handling of this case, it seemed as though the defense lawyers, at least early on, were perplexed as much as anything else. There wasn’t the sense, at least in their quoted comments, of “oh, it’s Nifong - here we go again.” Instead, there seemed to be a lot of bewilderment and frustration with what he was - and wasn’t - doing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me, too. My wife and I, both Duke grads, received a three page letter from President Brodhead last week addressed to all alumni. I can’t recall ever receiving a letter from the President, any of them. It began with a paragraph or two about the lacrosse case focusing on the re-enrollment of the two players in light of recent events. There was no mention of how the administration had hung the students out to dry, how the vocal minority of the faculty had villified the players, how the silent majority of the faculty had given tacit support to that postion by remaining silent or that the administration is yet to censure the 88 for their behavior. The students had been offered their positions back so that was all that was necessary to make things status quo ante. The letter then went on with paragraph after paragraph about awards, recognition and accomplishments of other students and faculty.</p>
<p>I got the impression reading the letter that it was a heavy handed effort to distract alumni from the horrible handling of this event by the administration and faculty.</p>
<p>epistrophy, in the typical case – no money, public defenders or court-appointed lawyers getting paid next to nothing… the lawyers don’t ask the questions that gets the misconduct revealed. They accept the prosecutor’s represention that they have been given full discovery; they don’t catalog & compare every document and go over it with a fine tooth comb. So if Nifong is habitually working with his lab people to have them omit anything that is inconvenient from their reports… how does that come to light? It’s pretty easy to slip stuff by an attorney in the typical case — especially if important documents are buried in a stack of repetitive and trivial documents, which also seems to be Nifong’s m.o. in this case – and of course Nifong was in court early on swearing up and down (falsely) that he had given everything he had to the defense.</p>
<p>2dsdad:
LOOK AT THE CUTE PUPPIES! with SPARKLY COLLARS!
(oh, um, lacrosse)
Everybody LOVES puppies! AWWWWW - PUPPIES!
Donate now! FOR THE PUPPIES!</p>
<p>At least that was my take :-D</p>
<p>2dsdad, I got that letter from Brodhead too. I have read a lot about the 88 but I haven’t read the ad in its entirety. Do you have a link that shows the original?</p>
<p>My reaction is not to send my donation until the 88 apologize or at least express some contact with reality in combination with respect for rule of law.</p>
<p>That’s interesting - as a parent (perhaps it’s different if you’re a parent vs. an alumna) in the past three years, I’ve received three or four letters from the president of daughter’s university. </p>
<p>The first one was a letter indicating an admissions decision - to accept an athlete who had been convicted of misdemeanor criminal charges, and explaining the reasoning for granting admissions, and the standard this athlete would be held to both academic and athletic, and finally inviting comment and discussion. </p>
<p>The other letters were on similar matters, and each time inviting comment. Seems like every time there is some matter on campus that is controversial or potentially incendiary, I receive a letter, and it’s always the same - description of events, explanation of the president’s actions and decisions, and an invitation to write, email or call in response. </p>
<p>I never responded to any of the letters - I pretty much felt I had nothing of value to add to a university president’s body of knowledge, and nothing intelligent to say. But I sort of assumed that perhaps it’s common to receive letters from the president…</p>
<p>From today’s Chronicle:</p>
<p>"And updated application numbers from the admissions office seem to confirm the impression that Duke’s image has not suffered with college counselors, prospective applicants or their parents, Guttentag said.</p>
<p>Since the University issued numbers Jan. 9, applications have continued to trickle in. Earlier in the month, Guttentag announced that about 18,500 students had applied for admission to the Class of 2011.</p>
<p>Since then, the number has risen to 19,009, compared to 19,387 last year. The revised number of regular decision applications-17,813-was only down less than one half of one percent from last year."</p>
<p>
Not entirely true, as many schools (especially selective ones) are reporting significant increases in application numbers (as one would expect given both increasing applicant pool and ease of on-line application).</p>
<p>^ Links with specific numbers for specific schools would probably be more convincing. I haven’t seen any of the other (regular decision) application numbers for similar schools this year yet.</p>
<p>You could be right.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=292607[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=292607</a></p>
<p>also from another thread:</p>
<p>Historically, the number of applications has been rising, mainly due to the increase in people going to college. However, with UCLA’s breaking 50,000 applications, Harvey Mudd’s going up 15%, Caltech’s needing to send an extra email notifying applicants of an increase, and many more schools seeing a notable increase in applications (CMU, allegedly up 30%), I’m going to guess that not only are more people going to college, but people are applying to more schools.</p>
<p>It looks like most schools haven’t released final numbers yet.</p>
<p>What is not mentioned is the quality of the applicants this year to Duke.</p>
<p>Are the stats of this years applicants on a par with prior year’s applicants?</p>
<p>How will the stats of the actual students enrolled in Septmeber 2007 compare
to the new students that enrolled in September 2006 and September 2005?</p>
<p>Duke does not post its Common Data Set on line, but it does post a Class Profile. Heres the Class of 2009 Profile Link: <a href=“http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2009profile.asp[/url]”>http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2009profile.asp</a></p>
<p>Heres the Class of 2010 Profile Link:
<a href=“http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2010profile.asp[/url]”>http://www.admissions.duke.edu/jump/applying/who_2010profile.asp</a></p>
<p>There does not seem to be a significant difference in the stats posted for each class.</p>
<p>There is a link at post #107. There is discussion of the open letter at #110 and #135. I am referring not only to the letter but their behavior. I understand that some of them confronted lacrosse players in class, singling them out for vituperation. </p>
<p>As someone else posted, I don’t plan to donate again until the faculty and administration take a stand against this sort of behavior, the 88 apologize (not likely, see the letter about no regrets), those that personally attacked students are brought up on chrges of harrassment and censured. I would like to see some fired, but I gather many of them have a sinecure and the actors can take cover under the Bill of Rights and Academic Freedom.</p>