30 For 30: Fantastic Lies

The 2006 Duke Lacrosse Case brought to light many of the issues and divisions currently plaguing our media sphere. This terrible act of injustice, which blamed three innocent Duke lacrosse players, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, for the rape of an African-American stripper, garnered extensive media attention that gripped America for almost an entire year (Wasserman, 3). Today, many scrutinze the media’s methods of covering the case, and deem that certain codes of ethics were not adhered to. Rather than remaining neutral, newspapers and TV outlets allowed themselves to “be used” by Mike Nifong, the former District Attorney for Durham and prosecutor of the case, by reporting

In terms of the actual trial, it was highly dramatized and clearly intended for a cinematic audience. For one, there were no opening statements given and the trial started off going directly into witness testimony through direct and cross examinations. This is highly inaccurate as the opening statements are a crucial part of the trial in that they aid the jury in understanding the complex legal issues that will unfold (Budziak).

The Duke lacrosse is one of the most famous criminal cases in recent U.S. history, which caused different responses from the public and media and once again fueled debate about politics within the criminal justice system and related professional ethics. The case involved Crystal Mangum, the African American female who claimed she had been raped by three white members of the Duke University lacrosse team, who hired her as a stripper to their party (Wilson, 2007). This serious case turned an unexpected turn because of Mangum’s attorney Mike Nifong, who agreed to help the alleged victim despite reasonable claims against her credibility. the Duke lacrosse case resulted in dismissing the charges against the players and convicting Nifong for withholding exculpatory evidence.

Mr. Nifong from the beginning of the investigation seemed to have his mind set on convicting these white males of the allegations they faced from the accuser. The unethical manner in which Mike Nifong proceeded in the investigation tested the judicial system. The tactics that were used in the case undermined that you are innocent until proven guilty. A Duke was facing a crisis little did the judicial system in North Carolina know that they were about to have their work cut out for them as Mr. Nifong continued his journey to find these three lacrosse players guilty. According to

The judge, in the movie, actually listened to the prosecutor’s witnesses and decided there was enough probable cause to move forward to a trial. Many judges are often too busy to examine the facts of the case before making a probable cause determination as stated in our text.

There were several sub issues found during this case, the first being that Mike Pressler, the Duke University Lacrosse team coach was forced to resign when faced with the possibility of several of his players being charged with rape. Sub issue two is that one lacrosse player, Ryan McFayden, sent a private email to his teammates threatening to kill strippers which was later found to be a quote from the film American Psycho. Sub issue three is that the way that District Attorney, Mike Nifong handled the case was the way that socio-economically disadvantaged accused and accused of color are handled often nationally. False evidence is placed in the case, or evidence is omitted, to charge otherwise innocent

     On August 2nd, after two hours and 47 minutes of deliberation, the jury came back with “not guilty” verdicts for the players. Judge Hugo Friend agreed stating that it a just verdict and in legalese admitting that the case of “intent to defraud the public” was near impossible to prove.

The entire trial was a sham, extremely corrupt due to jury manipulation from the defendant. The jury was allowed to go home to deliberate, giving them time to be threatened, and create a biased opinion from family, friends, media, ect. Also in the court, the judge had suppressed both the wire tape recordings and the lie detector test, throwing away crucial evidence. Not to mention that the only survivor of the

District Attorney Michael Nifong acknowledged and offered a full and unqualified apology for his crusade to convict three innocent white Duke University students who belonged to the lacrosse team of raping a black woman in March 2006. Nifong acknowledged there had been “no credible evidence” of their guilt. In fact there had been exculpatory evidence that he had quashed. His apology was rendered to a judge who later sentenced him to one day in jail and a $500. fine for contempt of court. He could have received thirty days (Prosecutorial Indiscretion, 2008).

It is almost impossible for justice to be served when the trail was a mess. There was a 12 hour police interrogation of Jessie Misskelley. He is intellectually disabled, causing him to give a false confession. The police should have known the psychology of false confession and shouldn't have interrogated Mr. Misskelley for 12 hours. The sentences were based on hearsay testimony of witnesses who heard the boys talk about the murders: “...the defendant had been motivated as members of a satanic cult” (Robertson 4). Hearsay doesn't prove anything in the court of law. The jury is supposed to know nothing about the case; but of course one juror already had his mind set on his conviction. This juror

That being said, let's remember how undeniably biased media, broadcast or social, is. Although these are supposed to be our reliable sources of information, they've hardly proven to be. Remember the effect media have. Don't let "facts" from a Facebook post compel you to go out and do something irrational and violent. Don't let Don Lemon talking out of his ass cause you to cuss out the nearest person next to you or be smug if you feel otherwise. If you read or hear something, ALWAYS FACT CHECK. Remember you weren't there, and likely nor was your source of information. If you're really upset about Mike Brown's death not going to trial along with the countless other injustices, sit down take a look at the evidence once it's released with an open mind and decide for yourself. That way when you're talking about it with someone, credibility isn't an issue.

In the State of Wisconsin with the trial of Jamie Covington we found him guilty of first degree murder. Jamie ment to shoot Dallas because dallas was always above him and better. Dallas forgot his keys one evening and he went through the window because he forgot his keys, he claims that he had gone through the window before and he didn't think anything would happen. This is why everyone is being questions to see if he was guilty or no, which he is guilty. During this case the lawyers questioned many people, but their stories weren't adding up. They talked to Ronnie Cecop, Casey Kramer, and Lane Smith they were on the defence side. Then Morgan Dexter, Blair Allen, and Jamie Covington where the prosecution. Most of the people on the prosecution side were very nervous, didn't know some answers, but on the other side the people on the defence side knew every question and didn't seem nervous. All of these people had their strengths and weaknesses.

There was plenty of evidence to prove him guilty, if this trial took place in today’s day and time i believe OJ would have been guilty. I believe the reason he got off was because the lack of knowledge of DNA testing and lack of research as we have today. If the jury would have the knowledge and the research sources we have now he would have not got off. If the jury wanted to convict him they could have easily, but they didn’t look at him as a murderer. This man killed two people and got away with it, just because the jury looked at him as a hero not a

The Duke Lacrosse team’s story illustrates how a single lie can set off a storm of racial and status related tension that has been simmering for years. The events that took place can be best described by the ideas associated with the Conflict Theory Approach to socialization. The clash of white versus black, rich versus poor, and privileged or entitled versus normal, made this the perfect opportunity for media outlets to shed light on this idea of entitlement in society. Ultimately, turning what was supposed to be a criminal investigation into a full on status war within Durham, North Carolina and communities across the nation. This snap judgment of guilt that was portrayed throughout the media without the presence of facts or real evidence,

The entire trial lasted only a few hours in which the jury’s verdict was not guilty. This didn’t mean no one realized that Roy and Milam were truly