Michael Gaynor
Duke case: Framing as evidence of innocence
Michael Gaynor
In People v. Cintron (October 24, 2000), New York State's highest court wrote about flight as evidence of guilt, as follows: "While we have noted that evidence of consciousness of guilt, such as flight, has limited probative value... ), we have also recognized that its probative weight is highly dependent upon the facts of each particular case ....In this case, defendant attempted to flee from the police officers' vehicle when they turned on their lights and siren, nearly knocking down pedestrians and leading the officers on a high speed chase. He continued to flee on foot after crashing the car into a guardrail. Moreover, he gave an improbable explanation for his conduct at trial. These facts are sufficient to support the reasonable inference that defendant knew that the vehicle was stolen and that he did not have the owner's consent to operate it."
Likewise, in Weeks v. Arkansas (November 4, 1998), the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled: "It was also permissible for the jury to consider Mr. Weeks' flight as evidence of guilt of DWI.
And in Curtis v. Virginia, the Virgina Court of Appeals reiterated that "evidence of flight may be considered as evidence of guilt along with other pertinent facts and circumstances."
Those who want a Duke case trial eventually will be disappointed while the ordeal drags on a bit longer to the consternation of many who abhor prosecutorial abuse and/or prosecutorial excuse..
The Duke case is heading for post-Easter dismissal, when co-prosecutor Mary Winstead is expected to be back from vacation.
The North Carolina Attorney General's office is trying to make its investigation look especially thorough this Holy Week.
Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (aka the Duke Three) never should have been indicted, of course, and they and their families and friends are anxiously awaiting dismissal of the remaining charges instead of looking forward to a trial.
I have explained why the case is not even trial-worthy, and should be dismissed, upon defense motion, as a matter of law, but there would have been a silver lining in case of trial.
Since the law treats fleeing as evidence of guilt, it's only fair that the law treat framing as evidence that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt.
It would have been fascinating (as Spock would say) to follow a trial if the defense introduced evidence that the prosecution had attempted to frame the Duke Three, say, tainting the prospective jury pool with improper public statements, rigging an identification procedure, withholding key evidence from grand jurors and concealing exculpatory evidence.
It would be a trial like no other trial.
Because the Duke case seems to be a case like no other case.
The North Carolina Attorney General's office won't risk that kind of "trial of the century," of course, even though it's dawdling over dismissal demonstrates that it's not filled with any more regret than Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong is filled with remorse (except remorse over being caught).
© Michael Gaynor
By In People v. Cintron (October 24, 2000), New York State's highest court wrote about flight as evidence of guilt, as follows: "While we have noted that evidence of consciousness of guilt, such as flight, has limited probative value... ), we have also recognized that its probative weight is highly dependent upon the facts of each particular case ....In this case, defendant attempted to flee from the police officers' vehicle when they turned on their lights and siren, nearly knocking down pedestrians and leading the officers on a high speed chase. He continued to flee on foot after crashing the car into a guardrail. Moreover, he gave an improbable explanation for his conduct at trial. These facts are sufficient to support the reasonable inference that defendant knew that the vehicle was stolen and that he did not have the owner's consent to operate it."
Likewise, in Weeks v. Arkansas (November 4, 1998), the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled: "It was also permissible for the jury to consider Mr. Weeks' flight as evidence of guilt of DWI.
And in Curtis v. Virginia, the Virgina Court of Appeals reiterated that "evidence of flight may be considered as evidence of guilt along with other pertinent facts and circumstances."
Those who want a Duke case trial eventually will be disappointed while the ordeal drags on a bit longer to the consternation of many who abhor prosecutorial abuse and/or prosecutorial excuse..
The Duke case is heading for post-Easter dismissal, when co-prosecutor Mary Winstead is expected to be back from vacation.
The North Carolina Attorney General's office is trying to make its investigation look especially thorough this Holy Week.
Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (aka the Duke Three) never should have been indicted, of course, and they and their families and friends are anxiously awaiting dismissal of the remaining charges instead of looking forward to a trial.
I have explained why the case is not even trial-worthy, and should be dismissed, upon defense motion, as a matter of law, but there would have been a silver lining in case of trial.
Since the law treats fleeing as evidence of guilt, it's only fair that the law treat framing as evidence that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt.
It would have been fascinating (as Spock would say) to follow a trial if the defense introduced evidence that the prosecution had attempted to frame the Duke Three, say, tainting the prospective jury pool with improper public statements, rigging an identification procedure, withholding key evidence from grand jurors and concealing exculpatory evidence.
It would be a trial like no other trial.
Because the Duke case seems to be a case like no other case.
The North Carolina Attorney General's office won't risk that kind of "trial of the century," of course, even though it's dawdling over dismissal demonstrates that it's not filled with any more regret than Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong is filled with remorse (except remorse over being caught).
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)