Here is a comment I left at David Feige's blog, Indefensible. He was the best instructor I had at NCDC and he has a great piece up at Slate on the Mike Nifong disbarment that came out of the Duke Lacrosse fiasco. My comment tells the story of a complaint I read yesterday, which I don't think the prosecutor has even a good faith belief in. I'll talk to her soon, but unless her mind has changed lately, I believe she's alleging things that even she doesn't believe in.
Should prosecutors be able to do that? (If you hesitated, you better ask yourself why our founders created that pesky Bill of Rights)
Just yesterday I read a motion to terminate parental rights which alleged that my client "inflicted upon the juvenile... serious bodily injury." Yet the pros has told me many times that she doesn't believe my client caused these injuries. In fact, her boyfriend is in prison for causing them.
But the prosecutor here does believe my 22-year old client (whose tubes were tied last year) deserves to lose her parental rights for not getting the baby to the hospital quickly enough. So, believing that she's wearing a "white hat", the pros sees no problem alleging something she knows isn't true to be able go after someone she believes wears a "black hat."
The prosecutor (1) thinks my client deserves to lose her kids and (2) knows she has to prove "serious bodily injury" to get there. So what's the problem?
Like many in the Bush administration, some prosecutors tend to equate adherence to the rule of law with support for child abusers (or terrorists) when a person is changed with child abuse. The law is for people like you and me, not for people like Scooter and them.
I'll keep you posted on how it works out, but it's not looking so good. Yesterday I was told, by the child's guardian ad litem, to "do the right thing" by withdrawing my speedy trial motion, even though the right was clearly violated and that they are not offering me anything other than termination of parental rights.
So, they truly believe I should "do the right thing" and withdraw an obviously meritorious motion to dismiss, even when doing so would be per se ineffective assistance.
Don't mean to vent on your blog, but I'm glad someone pointed out that Nifong is the scapegoat and that the practices will continue unabated. Some pigs are, after all, more equal than others."
What do you think?
3 comments:
So why don't you think the prosecutor has a GF belief?
She told me she doesn't believe my client caused the injuries, but the petition says otherwise. I applaud her for being so upfront with me and just don't think she's carefully read her petition yet. I look for her to dismiss it as since I posted this she's been very upfront about her beliefs.
If you put too much faith in anything you hear from David Feige, you may be in a heap of trouble. He may have been a good speaker at the seminar, but the reason he's teaching law in NJ instead of practicing law anywhere is that his true passion is promoting David Feige. Anyone can win a criminal case in the Bronx. Omaha isn't the Bronx.
Post a Comment