[Marxism] Nancy Grace Rapped Third Time for Ethical Violations

[Brian Shannon <Brian_Shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I can’t help myself. Whenever I flip channels and find this person,* I 
am compelled to turn it off.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1115111123854
11th Circuit: Nancy Grace ‘Played Fast and Loose’ With Ethics
Federal appeals court raps former prosecutor

Nancy Grace, the host of a self-titled legal show on CNN Headline News, 
“played fast and loose” with her ethical duties as a Fulton County, 
Ga., prosecutor in 1990, a federal appeals panel has declared.

Monday’s decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 
triple murder conviction won by Grace, explaining that her actions 
didn’t change the result of the trial.

The three-judge panel on Monday criticized Grace for not following her 
obligations to disclose to the defendant’s lawyer information about 
other possible suspects. The 11th Circuit also agreed with a magistrate 
who found it hard to believe that Grace did not knowingly use a 
detective’s false testimony that there were no other suspects.
. . .
[THREE-TIME LOSER]
This is the third time Grace’s conduct as a prosecutor has been 
criticized by an appellate court.

In 1997, the Georgia Supreme Court skewered Grace for her actions in 
prosecuting Weldon Wayne Carr for allegedly setting fire to his house 
and murdering his wife. Carr later was freed when Fulton prosecutors 
waited too long to bring him up for a retrial. While the court reversed 
Carr’s 1994 conviction for other reasons, the justices said Grace 
withheld evidence entitled to the defense and made improper opening 
statements and closing arguments.
“We conclude that the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case 
demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, 
and was inexcusable,” wrote then Chief Justice Robert Benham. Carr v. 
State, 267 Ga. 701 (1997).

In 1994, the Georgia high court voted 6-1 to reverse a heroin 
trafficking conviction won by Grace because she “exceeded the wide 
latitude of closing argument” by referring to drug-related murders and 
serial rape, which were not at issue. Bell v. State, 263 Ga. 776 
(1994).
_________________

* My visceral dislike of Grace began during the Texas Cadet Murder Case 
of 1996, which was on Court TV in 1998. Two first year military cadets 
(David Graham and Diane Zamora) were involved in the murder of a Texas 
coed. The murder itself was revealed because of Diane’s confession to a 
fellow student.

During the trial, it became obvious that Diane Zamora was an abused 
victim of David Graham. Zamora’s attorney, although an experienced pro, 
didn’t trust his own client and therefore failed to aggressively 
support her side of what happened. The prosecution withheld evidence 
that the victim had not been the one-time lover of David Graham, but 
was in fact a virgin. David Graham, in other words, had a unique 
personal motive for killing the victim--hiding his lie from his Zamora, 
his fiancée--that was not revealed at the first trial.

Everything that happened in the trial was twisted and insinuated by 
Nancy Grace in favor of the prosecution and against Zamora personally. 
I was particularly appalled by her comments on the deferential manner 
of Zamora. For Grace, not only was Zamora guilty, she was also guilty 
of adopting a puppy-dog type appeal, which as anyone who has seen Grace 
on TV, would be anathema to her.

Yet when Diane’s brother appeared, he had the same demeanor--very 
humble, muted, and deferential. In other words, this was the mental set 
and personality of two siblings in this Texas Mexican-American family. 
Grace understands nothing except attack, attack, attack. I suppose that 
it is considered a useful trait for a prosecuting attorney except 
where, as shown above, it violates defendants rights.

Both Zamora and Graham are in jail where they are expected to be remain 
they are 58 years old.

Here is an account of this famous case. Having watched much of Diane 
Zamora’s trial, I have some differences with this version, since it is 
written from the point of view of guilt having been proved.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/zamora/1.html


from Brian Shannon

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism