Adam Gotsis arrested

[Augusta_Jacket]

Excellent example of police and prosecutorial misconduct. So bad that the lead prosecutor was fired, disbarred (for dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation), and spent a day in jail himself. Nifong was, I believe, the first prosecutor in North Carolina, to be disbarred for trial conduct.

But the arrests were not based on an accusation solely. There was also a bogus (only suspects depicted) photo lineup and DNA tests involved, and a medical exam of the accuser. Not to mention voluntary statements provided by the accused and a search of their residence.

So in summary you are not correct.

DNA tests came back negative against any member of the team. Arrests were still made. A photo lineup IS an accusation, not proof, when the victim is the one doing the identification. The arrests were made solely on the charges leveled by the "victim" because NO OTHER EVIDENCE existed to support her charges.

Again, as you said, this is a perfect example of prosecutorial misconduct. I never said it was ok to arret on an accusation alone, but I am telling you it happens a lot more than you think. The difference is that more often than not, the accusation proves correct and the defendants don't bother looking into the evidence on which they were arrested to begin with.

 

[RonJohn]

A photo lineup IS an accusation, not proof, when the victim is the one doing the identification. The arrests were made solely on the charges leveled by the "victim" because NO OTHER EVIDENCE existed to support her charges.

I would disagree with that a little bit. If a photo lineup is done correctly, then it is evidence. The Duke photo lineup included ONLY suspects and therefore wasn't actually convincing. If she threw darts at the lineup she would have picked a suspect. If a victim is shown a lineup of 30 people with only three suspects, but managed to pick out the three suspects and no non-suspects it would be more than just the word of the accuser.

 

[Skeptic]

Duke Lacrosse team. All the investigators had was the accusation of the accuser and her picking their faces out of a lineup.

Lacrosse team was exonerated, charges were dropped, and DA was disbarred after the facts came out that it was fabricated. No evidence, yet an arrest was made based on one ladies accustion.

Close, but not quite right. They had some DNA "evidence" or it was used as evidence, found in the BR or bedroom, somewhere I forget, but which could have been, had the DA been so inclined, explained easily enough. The good thing about that situation was that the Duke kids, or most of them but not all, had loaded parents who could literally outspend the state. Moreover those who had the money made sure all the players were defended, and their lawyers had the DA on the defensive from the moment he got reelected with that "million dollars worth" of publicity -- his description. (The other good thing, luckily enough given the proclivity of rowdy students, was that the team members were telling the absolute truth when they said they did nothing except oogle the stripper. No hands, grabs, threats, etc. Really solidified their case.)

But, as to your main point, close enough.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

DNA tests came back negative against any member of the team. Arrests were still made. A photo lineup IS an accusation, not proof, when the victim is the one doing the identification. The arrests were made solely on the charges leveled by the "victim" because NO OTHER EVIDENCE existed to support her charges.

Again, as you said, this is a perfect example of prosecutorial misconduct. I never said it was ok to arret on an accusation alone, but I am telling you it happens a lot more than you think. The difference is that more often than not, the accusation proves correct and the defendants don't bother looking into the evidence on which they were arrested to begin with.

No offense but you are just trying to move the goalposts for your asssertion now. We can both agree it was a sham of a case. We will never agree that sham of a case was solely based on an accusation. Whatever though....moving on.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I would disagree with that a little bit. If a photo lineup is done correctly, then it is evidence. The Duke photo lineup included ONLY suspects and therefore wasn't actually convincing. If she threw darts at the lineup she would have picked a suspect. If a victim is shown a lineup of 30 people with only three suspects, but managed to pick out the three suspects and no non-suspects it would be more than just the word of the accuser.

A photo lineup only serves to identify the accused. It is not proof that a crime was committed.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The good thing about that situation was that the Duke kids, or most of them but not all, had loaded parents who could literally outspend the state

This. This is why so many others never bother to appeal their arrests or even say anything about it. You have to be loaded to take on the government.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

A photo lineup only serves to identify the accused. It is not proof that a crime was committed.

He didn’t say it’s proof that a crime was committed. He said it’s a piece of evidence in the case. And that is correct.

 

[Skeptic]

This. This is why so many others never bother to appeal their arrests or even say anything about it. You have to be loaded to take on the government.

I am not one of those anti-government guys, but that point is true. Right or wrong you need money to fight government. I just saw a blurb that a refugee coming into the country with $56,000 in cash had it confiscated although it was declared and bringing that much in is not illegal. The government just took it because they "suspected" him. Now he has to sue to get his money back. If he is really lucky the government will have to pay his lawyers. If not, he loses all around.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

This. This is why so many others never bother to appeal their arrests or even say anything about it. You have to be loaded to take on the government.

Most plea out because the cases against them are rock solid. Your assertion contends public defenders are inept. The more lawyers you can hire the better your chances, like with OJ. So yes, money helps and the very wealthy have advantages the rest of us don’t. Even Michael Flynn can attest to that and he’s no pauper.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Most plea out because the cases against them are rock solid. Your assertion contends public defenders are inept. The more lawyers you can hire the better your chances, like with OJ. So yes, money helps and the very wealthy have advantages the rest of us don’t. Even Michael Flynn can attest to that and he’s no pauper.

No. It doesn't. Most plea out because it's a guaranteed lesser sentence. It's not that they are inept, it's that they are overwhelmed. There are simply not enough of them to be able to devote ample time to anything more than a basic defense unless it's extremely high profile. I've got good friend who is a public defender, and he spends very little time at home, because his case load is through the roof.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

He didn’t say it’s proof that a crime was committed. He said it’s a piece of evidence in the case. And that is correct.

Agreed here, but it is nothing more than an accusation. That's all a photo lineup is really. You're just selecting who to level the accusation against.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

No. It doesn't. Most plea out because it's a guaranteed lesser sentence. It's not that they are inept, it's that they are overwhelmed. There are simply not enough of them to be able to devote ample time to anything more than a basic defense unless it's extremely high profile. I've got good friend who is a public defender, and he spends very little time at home, because his case load is through the roof.

Most plea out because the case against them is solid, they would most likely lose, they benefit in getting less time than they would under sentencing upon conviction, and the state benefits from not utilizing resources at trial.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Most plea out because the cases against them are rock solid. Your assertion contends public defenders are inept. The more lawyers you can hire the better your chances, like with OJ. So yes, money helps and the very wealthy have advantages the rest of us don’t. Even Michael Flynn can attest to that and he’s no pauper.

Flynn plead guilty to a charge he was not guilty of. He didn’t want to bankrupt himself taking on the government. That case was the epitome of prosecutorial misconduct. They knew he was innocent and ran him up the flagpole anyway.

 

[AE 87]

Flynn plead guilty to a charge he was not guilty of. He didn’t want to bankrupt himself taking on the government. That case was the epitome of prosecutorial misconduct. They knew he was innocent and ran him up the flagpole anyway.

and apparently they threatened to go after his kid too

 

[Skeptic]

Flynn plead guilty to a charge he was not guilty of. He didn’t want to bankrupt himself taking on the government. That case was the epitome of prosecutorial misconduct. They knew he was innocent and ran him up the flagpole anyway.

If we are talking about the same Flynn, and we may not be, he is rolling in money from his "defense fund" and is guilty of a hell of a lot more than his plea. He was a walking conflict of interest and a big threat to national security. This isn't the thread for it, but don't feel sorry for his ilk.

 

[iceeater1969]

If we are talking about the same Flynn, and we may not be, he is rolling in money from his "defense fund" and is guilty of a hell of a lot more than his plea. He was a walking conflict of interest and a big threat to national security. This isn't the thread for it, but don't feel sorry for his ilk.

wow, i thought i had some inside connections at gtaa.

info from the special council! very cool

 

[LibertyTurns]

If we are talking about the same Flynn, and we may not be, he is rolling in money from his "defense fund" and is guilty of a hell of a lot more than his plea. He was a walking conflict of interest and a big threat to national security. This isn't the thread for it, but don't feel sorry for his ilk.

I know Newsweek is a hardcore conservative bastion of news but it was the best I could find. Perhaps there’s a liberal news source out there that has contradicted this story abut Flynn selling his home because he’s rolling in so much money.

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-flynn-house-legal-fees-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-832874

 

[AE 87]

wow, i thought i had some inside connections at gtaa.

info from the special council! very cool

I blame you for making me see the post to which you replied.

As I read the thread, I at first thought you were replying to me.

On the bright side, it confirmed a decision I made a while back.

 

[GSOJacket]

I know Newsweek is a hardcore conservative bastion of news but it was the best I could find. Perhaps there’s a liberal news source out there that has contradicted this story abut Flynn selling his home because he’s rolling in so much money.

http://www.newsweek.com/mike-flynn-house-legal-fees-robert-mueller-russia-investigation-832874

Unless Newsweek has changed big time (and I admit I've haven't looked lately due to their slant), this pub is anything but "a hardcore conservative bastion of news."

 

[AE 87]

Unless Newsweek has changed big time (and I admit I've haven't looked lately due to their slant), this pub is anything but "a hardcore conservative bastion of news."

I suspect sarcasm from @LibertyTurns