Doubts About Duke

[Amianthus]

I don't know that a prosecutor with copious supplies of interview videos and statements would need to reinvent the wheel and personally re-interview a witness who the police have done a thoroughly professional job of interviewing in the first place.

And yet, the prosecutor felt compelled to meet with her and ask how her son was doing.

Guess he felt the police weren't touchy-feely enough during their thorough job?

[Michael Tee]

<<And yet, the prosecutor felt compelled to meet with her and ask how her son was doing.

<<Guess he felt the police weren't touchy-feely enough during their thorough job?>>

Could be a smart asset-management move.  A little setting of the stage.  Establishing yourself as a likeable guy before getting down to business.  He knows who he's dealing with and conceivably he might even have had some experience dealing with others like her.

Tell ya what, Ami - - when you're the prosecutor, you can do things your way and when Nifong's the prosecutor, he can do things his way.  Different strokes for different folks.  Not all of us have the same management style.

[Amianthus]

Tell ya what, Ami - - when you're the prosecutor, you can do things your way and when Nifong's the prosecutor, he can do things his way.  Different strokes for different folks.  Not all of us have the same management style.

Yeah, it just seems like "his way" was to garner votes among the black community just before the election with some tough statements. Now that his election is over, doesn't look like he cares much anymore - hence the "no interviews about the case".

[sirs]

<<(sirs; WE'RE NOT AT THAT STAGE [talking to the accuser] YET??  SHOULDN'T THAT BE LIKE......THE 1ST STAGE??)>>

No, far from it.  The police investigate all alleged crimes, not the prosecutor.  The prosecutor is a lawyer.  He presents the facts of the case that the state (in this case, the police) believes warrant prosecution.  (The prosecutor must also believe that the case warrants prosecution otherwise he or she won't waste the court's time with it.)

 

Yo Tee, I realize the police and detectives are responsible for the initial investigation, and crime scene assessments.  When the DA is handed the case to that point, that in no way procludes the DA, if they are going to prosecute, to look into the facts as well.  I never clamed that Prosecuters were detectives.  That isn't the point.  The point that if a crime was committed, and the DA believes they may have enough to take to court, 1 of the 1st things they should do is INTERVIEW THE "VICTIM", both to coordinate the facts and assess credibility.  My guess is that's done 98% of the time.  Now, if you wish to show me stats that demonstrates something quite different, I'll be able to defuse this current criticism of mine, vs deducing this current effort of yours as another rationalization example on why they didn't do what was perfectly within reason and should have been done from the get go

[domer]

Tee presents a jejune, perhaps feckless, account of the role of a prosecutor in a criminal investigation. Depending upon notification and the progress of the investigation, a prosecutor can often have significant if not crucial and controlling input into the course of an investigation. Indeed, most prosecutor's offices have their own team of investigators, who complement or later supplant the police detectives. The important point to remember, however, is that regardless of what law-enforcement arm produces evidence -- evidence, presumably, for ultimate use in court -- the prosecutor is charged with sharing any material items with the defense under the so-called "Brady rule." Thus, unless Nifong is a crank -- which his failure to interview the victim (through his investigative resources) clearly demonstrates to me -- NO ONE in the phalanx of police has interviewed the woman! Further, only a crank would make a distinction between a sworn, formal statement and an informal statement made to an officer for purposes of a report, say. Recognizing the standard difficulties in holding a declarant to an oral statement recorded by another when misunderstanding and memory may cloud accuracy, the oral statements are at least usable for impeachment purposes, I believe, and thus "discoverable."

[Michael Tee]

<<Indeed, most prosecutor's offices have their own team of investigators, who complement or later supplant the police detectives.>>

I'm not doubting your word, domer, but would this piss off the police if the prosecutors have their own investigators doing the job the police are supposed to do?  It sounds like some kind of rebuke to the cops, their investigations aren't reliable or professional enough.  Would this not lead to a lot of infighting, cops versus prosecuting attorney's investigators?

[domer]

I can't be any more specific, Michael, never having worked in a county prosecutor's office. My view is from the other side, the defense perspective trying to retrospectively piece together police investigations.

I am certain the practices vary from state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in New Jersey at least, having reached a certain stage in the case (which I can't specify precisely), the prosecutor's investigators take over most aspects of the investigation, or, stated differently, the management of the case under the prosecutor's direction. This would include, most prominently, final witness interviews, and the taking of custody of physical and documentary evidence, and assuring they're processed correctly. Others items such as follow-up canvassing and the general following of raw leads to other witnesses and evidence MAY fall within the prosecutor's domain, or they may stay with the police, depending on the jurisdiction.

So far, as has been relevant to my cases, I have observed no infighting that would create a problem for law enforcement. Either the lines of demarcation are clearly drawn, or the elans of the different units breed a cooperative attitude.

[Michael Tee]

Well, thanks, domer, at least the picture is becoming a little bit clearer.  Although I have to say, the process of having two sets of witness interviews must make your task quite a bit easier, more material to cross-examine on, more potential discrepancies between what was said or not said to the police investigtors and what was said or not said to the prosecutor's investigators.  Assuming that you get full disclosure of all prosecution material as our Canadian defence lawyers do.