Petition Closed
Petitioning everyone in public and the government

have Nancey Grace & others taken off air for BULLYING & MISREPISENTATION

This is so important because people come home from work and watch these shows to be brought up to date on the news and current events and they GROSSLY misrepresent the events of the day and the facts of any matter that they might be talking about. They continually take things out of context and reshape it to fit the way they think things happened or should have happened instead of what ACTUALLY happened. They sit and character assasinate and try to discredit experts both in the stories they cover and when they have them as guests if they do not feel the same way about a topic to the point of Nancey turning off their mic if they disagree. It would be different if these shows were considered talk shows and these people talk show hosts. But they are not talk shows. These are supposed to be news shows with comments and questions from the viewers and guest. These people are supposed to be News casters. People who are supposed to be able to honestly deliver information accurately so people can make the best possible opinion about the topic. But they do not do this. They take clips and use them out of context. They sit and discredit the credentials of professionals (Guest or otherwise) that they can in no way evaluate because they themselves do not even have the professional ability to do so because none of these commentators have the degrees in the fields of the professions they discredit. These people say outrageous and grossly inaccurate things about people. They conduct themselves in outrageously disgusting ways. I can not believe that these people can so openly cause hate and anger and still be on the air. There is an active example right now of Nancey grace ACTIVELY supporting cyber-bullying and face to face bullying in the clips on hln talking negatively about Alyce LaViolette. This woman is highly respected in her field and because Nancey and Vinni inaccurately informed their viewers she has been hospitalized as a result. I'm not saying that these 3 pathetic people can change the world. but all the THOUSANDS who get their information from them can. Please these people are only wanna be medical professionals ( Dr. drew is only a pcp who specializes in addiction. NOTHING IN PSYCHOLOGY!!NOTHING! and this guy has a PSYCHOLOGY show???? here's some stuff YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE WATCHING supplied by wikipedia - In 2009, Pinsky drew criticism from experts for publicly offering professional opinions of celebrities he has never met or personally examined, based on media accounts, and has also drawn the ire of some of those celebrities. Following comments Pinsky made about actor Tom Cruise's belief in Scientology and Lindsay Lohan's drug abuse, Cruise's lawyer compared Pinsky to Joseph Goebbels, and Lohan posted on Twitter, "I thought REAL doctors talked to patients in offices behind closed doors."[41] Pinsky also received criticism in April 2010 for stating that he would frame Lohan for illegal drug use in order to force her into a sobriety program if he were her father.[42] Pinsky responded in the same publication that his remark was intended as hyperbole and a "flight of journalistic excess", not a suggestion as a treatment modality in any way. He stated his intent was to drive home the point about bringing negative consequences to bear for a person dying of addiction when all other options have been exhausted.[43]

Pinsky, who admits in his 2009 book, The Mirror Effect, that he scored a 16 on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (average is 18 for celebrities), and shares several traits with the "closet narcissist", asserts that he was never motivated by fame to become a media figure, but from a desire to educate the public, especially the youth, on the medical facts distorted by the media. Patient Andy Dick, who made Pinsky his primary care physician, disputes the accusation that Pinsky is motivated by a desire for fame, insisting that Pinsky "really is just this unbelievably caring guy. He really is. He’s almost too caring."[44] Sex Rehab alumnus Duncan Roy, however, has criticized Pinsky's competence. While Roy concedes that Pinsky is highly skilled at treating drug and alcohol addiction, he claims that Pinsky has no knowledge of sex addiction, and that he merely recycled the words and ideas of Jill Vermiere, MFT, one of the therapists on Sex Rehab, who Roy says, along with Dr. John Sealy, were the true therapeutic forces behind his recovery.[45]

Defending the practice of paying addicts to attend rehab, producer Pinsky says, "My whole thing is bait and switch. Whatever motivates them to come in, that’s fine. Then we can get them involved with the process."[46]

In January 2012, journalist Jim Romenesko reported that Pinsky accepted $115,000 in consultation fees from Janssen Pharmaceutica in 2010 and 2011.[47] In response, Janssen released a statement that the money was for a program aimed at "educating teens, parents, and educators about the prevalence and serious risks of teen prescription drug abuse in the U.S." CNN Headline News spokesperson Alison Rudnick, which broadcasts Dr. Drew, stated that Pinsky would include on-air disclaimers during any stories involving Janssen. Charles Seife of Slate magazine, however, pointed out in a July 2012 article that no such disclaimer was made during an episode that aired a week earlier on gastric bypass surgery, despite a Los Angeles Times article questioning the propriety of Pinsky's role as a spokesperson for a firm that did marketing for lap-band surgery. Headline News explained that the lap-band deal had elapsed by the time the gastric bypass show aired, making a disclaimer unnecessary.[48]

In July 2012, it was reported that United States prosecutors involved in a criminal prosecution of GlaxoSmithKline for healthcare fraud, in which the company settled for $3 billion, stated that Pinsky was paid $275,000 in March and April 1999 to promote Wellbutrin SR, a Glaxo antidepressant, "in settings where it did not appear that Dr. Pinsky was speaking for GSK." Glaxo marketed the drug being distinct from other antidepressants by not causing a decrease in sex drive, which Pinsky emphasized in his promotions of it, despite the fact that company did not have FDA approval for that claim.[49]) , and has been prosecutors ( Nancey Grace only has a Law degree and absolutely nothing in human relations or Television. Her law career is not sparkling. Here's some info on Nancey you might not know supplied by wikipedia- The Supreme Court of Georgia has twice commented on Grace's conduct as a prosecutor. First, in a 1994 heroin drug trafficking case, Bell v. State, the Court declared a mistrial, saying that Grace had "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by drawing comparisons to unrelated murder and rape cases.[9] In 1997 the court was more severe, overturning the murder-arson conviction of businessman W. W. Carr in the death of his wife. While the court said its reversal was not due to these transgressions, since the case had turned primarily on circumstantial evidence, it nevertheless concluded "the conduct of the prosecuting attorney in this case demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable".[10][11] Carr was freed in 2004 when the Georgia Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Fulton County had waited too long to retry him, thereby unfairly prejudicing his right to a fair trial.[12]

Despite upholding the conviction she sought, a panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in a 2005 opinion that Grace "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties and failed to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens.[13] The court agreed that it was "difficult to conclude that Grace did not knowingly use ... [apparently false] testimony" from a detective that there were no other suspects, despite the existence of outstanding arrest warrants for other men.[13] here is some of her TERRIBLE MISUSE OF POWER AND INFORMATION regarding her tv career supplied by wikipedia-
Elizabeth Smart kidnapping

During the 2002 Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts' home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN's Larry King that Ricci "was guilty," although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci's girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he died while in custody.[17]

It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.[18]

When CourtTV confronted Grace seven months later to ask whether she was incorrect in her assertion that Ricci was guilty, and whether or not she felt bad about it in any way, she stated that Ricci was "a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?" When Larry King asked her about the matter, she equated criticism of herself with criticism of the police in the case. She said: "I'm not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip."[19]

In July 2006, Grace interviewed Smart, who was promoting a legislative bill. Grace repeatedly asked her for information regarding her abduction. Smart told her she didn't feel comfortable discussing it, despite Grace's persistence in the matter. Finally, Grace stopped when Smart said she "didn't appreciate you [Grace] bringing all this up."[20]
Danielle van Dam case

During the trial of David Westerfield in 2002 for the kidnap and murder of Danielle van Dam, Nancy Grace made it clear on CNN's Larry King Live that she thought him guilty, but she got many facts wrong, and she also made some statements pointing to his possible innocence.

She accused him of steam-cleaning his RV, but Dr. Henry Lee pointed out that, had he done so, they wouldn’t have found the fingerprints and the bloodstain on the carpet.[21][22] In fact, very little cleaning had been done, as evidenced by the absence of the smell of cleaning products, and the fine layer of dust throughout the interior of the vehicle, and it was the van Dams, not Westerfield, who had a steam-cleaner.[23]

Grace argued that Westerfield’s black jacket was leather, so van Dam hairs and fibers would not have been transferred onto it by “dirty dancing” at the bar on Friday night.[24] But the jacket was open and his shirt wasn’t leather, so there could have been transfer. She also thought he kept his jacket on while taking a shower: “that must be some mighty tough DNA to stick to a leather jacket and live through a shower”. That statement shows she made another mistake: Danielle’s blood was not on the jacket he was wearing Friday night - no evidence was found on any of his Friday night clothing.[25]

The strongest evidence against Westerfield was in his RV, particularly a drop of Danielle’s blood and her handprint. All that small amount of evidence could be innocently explained if, at some previous time while it was parked unlocked in the streets outside her home, Danielle had entered that vehicle, perhaps to explore it out of curiosity. There was no testimony she had done so, but to her credit, Grace said she "can imagine a little girl wandering into a RV and playing in it, much as if they saw a swimming pool, they might jump in, or a playground, they might play on it".[21]

She also thought that the parents’ friend Barbara Easton (the one who “let the cat out of the bag” over the parents’ sexual activities), wasn’t called to testify because she “could go into further evidence of wife-swapping and swinging on the part of the victims' family”. So Grace didn’t think the whole truth had been revealed.[26]
Duke lacrosse allegations

Grace took a vehemently pro-prosecution position throughout the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper and North Carolina Central University student, falsely accused three members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"[27] After the disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced all three players innocent of the rape charges made by Mangum and Nifong.[28] On the following broadcast of her show, Grace did not appear and a substitute reporter, Jane Velez-Mitchell, announced the removal of all charges.[29]
Suicide of interviewee Melinda Duckett

In September 2006, 22-year-old Melinda Duckett committed suicide following an interview conducted by Grace concerning the disappearance of Duckett's 2-year-old son Trenton.[30]

Grace interviewed Duckett less than two weeks after the child went missing, questioning her for her alleged lack of openness regarding her son's disappearance, asking Duckett "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"[31] Duckett appeared confused and was unable to answer whether or not she had taken a polygraph test. When Grace asked her why she could not account for specific details, Duckett began to reply, "Because I was told not to," to which Grace responded, "Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day twelve." According to the CNN transcript, Duckett replied, "(INAUDIBLE) with all media. It's not just there, just all media. Period." Grace then moved on to a media psychologist who asserted that Duckett was "skirting around the issue."[30][32]

The next day, before the airing of the show, Duckett shot herself, a death that relatives claim was influenced by media scrutiny, particularly from Grace.[30][33] Speaking to The Orlando Sentinel, Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said, "Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end. She was not one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this."[30] CNN has also been criticized for allowing the show to air in the wake of Duckett's suicide.[34] Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect in the case at the time, but after her suicide the police did say that, as nearly all parents are in missing-child cases, she was a suspect from the beginning.[30]

In an interview on Good Morning America, Nancy Grace said in reaction to events that "If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing."[35] She then said that, while she sympathized with the family, she knew from her own experience as a victim of crime that such people look for somebody else to blame.[36]

While describing it as an "extremely sad development," Janine Iamunno, a spokeswoman for Grace,[37] said that her program would continue to follow the case as they had a "responsibility to bring attention to this case in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett." Grace commented that "I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts."[30]

On November 21, 2006, exposed pending litigation on behalf of the estate of Melinda Duckett, asserting a wrongful death claim against CNN and Grace. The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace's aggressive questioning traumatized Duckett so much that she committed suicide. She also argues that CNN's decision to air the interview after Duckett's suicide traumatized her family. Trenton has never been found.[34][38]

On November 8, 2010, Grace reached a settlement with the estate of Melinda Duckett to create a $200,000 trust fund dedicated to locating Trenton. This settlement was reached a month before a jury trial was scheduled to start. According to the agreement, if the young boy is found alive before he turns 13, the remaining proceeds in the trust will be administered by a trustee – Trenton's great-aunt Kathleen Calvert – until he turns 18 and the funds are transferred for his use. If Trenton is not found by his 13th birthday, or if he is found but is not alive, the funds will be transferred immediately to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We are pleased the lawsuit has been dismissed. The statement speaks for itself," a spokeswoman for CNN said.[39]
Caylee Anthony case

From 2008 to 2011 the Caylee Anthony disappearance and the prosecution, trial and acquittal of her mother Casey Anthony on charges of murder of the child were a regular feature of the Nancy Grace show. She would reveal every new detail of the story.[40] Her program is cited as having "almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession".[41] Nancy Grace referred to Casey Anthony as the "tot mom," a phrase Elizabeth Flock in the Washington Post described as “almost derisive-sounding.”[42]

The Nancy Grace audience more than doubled in the weeks after the start of the Anthony trial.[43] David Carr wrote that Grace took her show to the trial scene in Clearwater, Florida in order to “hurl invective from a close, intimate distance.”[16] Grace expressed rage at Anthony's acquittal right after announcement of the verdict, saying: "Tot Mom's lies seem to have worked."[41]

In a press conference after the verdicts were read, Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys, blamed the media for a "media assassination" which led to public hatred toward Casey Anthony. He also said: "I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about, and don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it."[44]

Grace took it personally and responded, "What does he care about what pundits are saying?" Stating she had as much legal experience as Mason, she criticized the defense attorneys for taking on the media before mentioning Caylee's name in their news conference and stated that "[T]here is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth."[44]

Michelle Zierler, director of the Project in Law and Journalism at New York Law School said Grace "is always certain that the defendant is guilty and needs instant punishment" and this had affected her analysis of the case.[44] Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County, Florida public defender said "Nancy Grace should offend every journalist out there. These lawyers on TV during the Anthony trial only offered one side, everybody believed them, and now you've got a big chunk of the population that thinks the legal system let them down. Every time that happens, you lose part of the national community."[41]

On the day Casey Anthony was sentenced on misdemeanor counts of lying to investigators, a supporter held a sign reading: "Nancy Grace, stop trying to ruin innocent lives. The jury has spoken. P.S. Our legal system still works!"[45]

In a televised appearance with media expert Dan Abrams, Grace stated about Anthony’s being freed from jail that “No one wishes for vigilante justice; nobody advocates that. People who are opposed to the jury verdict, that think it was wrong, are really seeking justice, and I do not believe those people are interested in harming Tot Mom Casey Anthony.” Abrams commented that “There are too many people out there who love Nancy Grace, who watch Nancy Grace on a regular basis, who are going to see her (C.Anthony) out there somewhere and are going to give her a very, very hard time wherever she goes.”[46]
Whitney Houston death

Mainstream media have suggested that Grace made "wildly speculative" allegations on her program that the investigation into Whitney Houston's death should include the possibility that someone may have been responsible for drowning Houston. Some reporters have pointed out that Grace should have waited for the coroner's report before making this allegation.[47]
Toni Annette Medrano Suicide

Toni Annette Medrano committed suicide by setting herself on fire, after being condemned by Grace.[48] Following Melinda Duckett's suicide, this is the second suicide to which Grace has been linked.[49] On January 4, 2012, it was announced that CNN had settled with the Medrano family for an undisclosed amount of money based upon Grace's conduct.[50] . her activity has been so disgusting in regards to humanity and the rights of others it was noticed by The New York Times in 2011. David Carr wrote “Since her show began in 2005, the presumption of innocence has found a willful enemy in the former prosecutor turned broadcast judge-and-jury". He criticized her handling of the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, the Duke lacrosse case, the Melinda Duckett interview and suicide and the Caylee Anthony case. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Carr that Grace, as an attorney and reporter, “has managed to demean both professions with her hype, rabid persona, and sensational analysis. Some part of the public takes her seriously, and her show erodes the respect for basic rights”.) and Vinni Politan who surprisingly enough does actully have a degree in both communication and law. Which i find ex termly sad and unnerving because he continues to spout off rumors and nonsense even though he has learned about the help or harm the media can cause. So it makes me wonder is he just a mouth piece for HLN and spouting off what they tell him to say or does he really think these things? Both of which are bad. Look I understand freedom of speech and all that but these people go way beyond freedom of speech. Hell Adrian on RHOBH sued brandi for calling her a bitch which is so far away from what these people do on a daily basis the light can't even reach it. These people actively pick out people to prosecute in the public eye, and even if those people are found innocent they still beat them into the ground until people who watch their show take action. This is crazy. Our founding fathers came here to escape unjust prosecution and many die everyday protecting that right. And when we have even 2 suicides from the on going documented footage of on going bullying from people like these that is to many. Especially when the ones who cause it DON"T EVEN CARE!! THESE PEOPLE DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! THESE PEOPLE ONLY CARE FOR RATINGS!! These people want terrible things to happen so they can prosecute the next person. They do not care about facts. Even if you do not sign my petion today please go away form this plea knowing YOU COULD BE NEXT!! Please tell your friends and stop this MOST DISGUSTING DISPLAY OF BULLYING EVER DOCUMENTED  I have found an article that further displays more information but the facts I have given  here it is.


Published in slightly different form in Flagpole Magazine, p. 8 (May 17, 2006).

Author: Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.

Nancy Grace with Diane Clehane
Hyperion, 2005
326 pp., hardcover, $24.95


Although the prosecutor is viewed as a quasi-judicial official whose duty “is to seek justice, not merely to convict,” the reality is often different.  Public prosecutors are frequently ambitious, aggressive, adversarial, and biased.  “Prosecutors act like prosecutors” because a successful conviction rate is important to them and because their mental attitude often conditions them to believe unquestioningly that the defendant is guilty and that society’s welfare demands a conviction.  Contending against an aggressive advocate for the defendant, the prosecutor not surprisingly will subordinate his function as a minister of justice to appear as an overzealous champion of the people.–Bernard Gershman, Prosecutorial Misconduct § 10.1 (1995).

The fair way is the safe way, and the safe way is the best way, in every criminal prosecution.  The history of criminal jurisprudence and practice demonstrates generally that if everyone prosecuted for crime were fairly and fully conceded all to which he is entitled, and if all doubtful advantages to the state were declined, and if adventurous forays into dangerous and unknown fields were shunned, and if the beaten paths were heedfully followed, there would be secured as many convictions of the guilty, and such convictions would be succeeded by few or no reversals.–Hill v. State, 72 Miss. 527, 534-35, 17 So. 375, 377 (1895) (Woods, J.).

Nearly three-quarters of a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States, expounding on the legal and ethical responsibilities of a prosecutor, announced that “while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.”  Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935).

To Nancy Grace, the Supreme Court’s admonition is bleeding-heart twaddle. 

Before she became a TV celebrity, Grace was an assistant district attorney in Fulton county with a deserved reputation for overzealousness and harshness.  (In her book Objection!, Grace admits that she “quickly gained a reputation for being unreasonable when negotiating pleas and vicious at trial.  I didn’t care.”)  Her detestation of criminal defendants and the attorneys representing them, her end-justifies-the means philosophy, her semi-maniacal desire to obtain a conviction at all costs, and her relish for draconian sentences propelled her to strike foul blows against the defendants she prosecuted.  For a brief discussion of three appellate court decisions officially reprimanding Grace for her prosecutorial misconduct, see the Appendix to this book review.

Nancy Grace has ceased prosecuting cases, but has not stopped striking foul blows against persons accused of crime.  Her book Objection! is a writhing mass of such blows.  In the book, as in her breathless TV posturing, Grace relentlessly heaps scorn on, and endeavors to undermine, the constitutional protections afforded criminal defendants, particularly the rights to counsel and to a fair trial.  Grace demonizes persons charged with crime.  She ascribes to criminal defendants the same qualities the Nazis ascribed to the Jews: they are vicious, dangerous, clever, cunning, sly, and diabolically evil.  Nancy Grace does the same thing in her book that Florida journalist Tom Lyon says she does on TV: “pop off with shoot-from-the-hip condemnations and pronouncements without doing any research.”

A major defect of Objection!, subtitled “How High-Priced Defense Attorneys, Celebrity Defendants, and a 24/7 Media Have Hijacked Our Criminal Justice System,” is that it makes unfounded  generalizations about the criminal justice system based on atypical cases, i.e., criminal proceedings against such celebrities as Robert Blake, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart, and Jayson Williams.  Nowhere in her book does Grace acknowledge that she herself is part of the “24/7 media” she excoriates or that she is one of a unique group of individuals who day after day make vast sums of money out of horrible or notorious crimes.

Objection!, in the words of reviewer S. Shirazi, has an “aggrieved and paranoid tone” that betrays its author’s “hideous inner certainty.”  The book is in fact pervaded by high-strung, overexcited exasperation: “I was devastated” (p. 3); “I am sick at heart ... it’s so disheartening” (p. 7); “I was sick when I learned ...” (p. 10); “I was shocked” (p. 11); “It took me a solid year to accept that [Johnny] Cochran was not the one responsible for the double murders of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman”(!) (p. 16);” “I was so angry” (p. 16); “My head was spinning” (p. 19); “I felt numb” (p. 51); “I have a waking nightmare every time I hear about another abuse of the justice system” (p. 67); “my disgust is reserved for the others who slither into court” (p. 77); “I was shocked to discover” (p. 93); “I predict you’ll soon be as nauseated as I was when I discovered the truth” (p. 93); “I forced myself to look at [the defendant]” (p. 116); “it all became overwhelming” (p. 117); “It strikes fear in my heart” (p. 134); “it pains me to say this” (p. 166); “I found this absolutely outrageous” (p. 188); “It causes me genuine pain” (p. 304); “I was torn ... [a]nd it hurt” (p. 304); “Put that in your pipe and smoke it” (p. 305); “I very frequently cry ... when I hear about a victim” (p. 310).  This overwroughtness explains why Grace’s argumentation is laden with non sequiturs and at times downright irrational, and why she tends to shade her facts.  Reason, facts and fairness mean nothing to the author of Objection!

Objection! eliminates any doubt on one matter: Nancy Grace loathes and is incapable of understanding the indispensable role of the defense attorney in our criminal justice system.  Grace compares criminal defense attorneys to snakes (p. 18) and pigs (p. 17), and the first chapter of her book is entitled “Defense Attorneys and Other Wily Characters I Have Known.”  Over and over she professes her contempt for defense attorneys, who she says are part of “the dark side”(!).  The list of their transgressions is long: “By twisting the rules of evidence, the defense can score a myriad of pretrial victories;” “the ‘job’ of defense attorneys is to use every means possible to get their clients acquitted–regardless of the truth;” “juries are hoodwinked every day by defense lawyers;” criminal defense lawyers “attack the truth and hide evidence from the jury” and are “adversaries who trick Lady Justice;” “defense attorneys obscure the truth from the jury;” defense attorneys employ “deplorable strateg[ies]” and “dirty trick[s]”; defense lawyers “have a host of trial tactics at their disposal that I would never even consider;” “defense attorneys truly believe it’s all a big game;” “the defense bar has Lady Justice over a barrel;” “[t]he truth doesn’t matter to the defense;” defense lawyers are “wily characters” and “quick and wily”; “[t]he state seeks the truth and the defense zealously defends its client;” “It’s set up for the state to seek the truth behind the crime and for the defense to protect its client;” the experts retained by a criminal defense lawyer to testify in behalf of the defendant are “hired guns”; defense lawyers are “much more dangerous ...  than I had previously thought;” and Barry Scheck, the defense attorney who started the Innocence Projects which have used DNA evidence to obtain the exoneration of scores of wrongfully convicted persons (including death row inmates), is “brilliant but clearly misguided.”

Bizarrely, Nancy Grace has convinced herself that a criminal defense attorney should ally himself with the prosecution and seek the conviction of his own client.  Grace actually believes–at least where the attorney knows the client is guilty–that the defense attorney should join the prosecution team and assist in the client’s conviction.   Grace thinks it is abominable for an attorney representing a defendant he knows is guilty to work for his client’s acquittal.  No reputable attorney should ever, Grace believes, seek the acquittal of a violent criminal he knows is guilty of the offense charged.  Grace would never cross over to “the dark side” because she fears she might help cause a guilty person to be acquitted: “I could never live with myself if I helped a violent felon by prostituting my law degree, my energy, and my experience to free someone that I know is guilty.”

Defense attorneys are scum-sucking bottom-feeders.  Defense attorneys who represent guilty defendants are prostitutes.  Defense attorneys ought not to represent guilty persons or should if they do represent such a person assist the prosecution in obtaining a conviction.  Ethical lawyers could never be defense attorneys (although they could be prosecutors).  This is the weird, weird world of Nancy Grace.

How is it possible for a lawyer who prosecuted felony cases for a decade and has been a TV legal commentator for nearly as long to be so clueless about one of the basic protections of the Bill of Rights–the right to counsel, which distinguished law professor Yale Kamisar labels “the most pervasive right”?  Why can’t Nancy Grace comprehend that the right to counsel clause of the Sixth Amendment does not contain the proviso “provided the defendant is innocent”?  Would she, or anyone else charged with crime, want to be represented by an attorney who, convinced of the defendant’s guilt, gives the defendant less than his best efforts or refuses to seek an acquittal?  Why does Grace disagree with the obvious truth that anyone on trial for crime is entitled to a competent attorney whose diligence and devotion cannot and must not be attenuated by whether the defendant is guilty or whether the attorney thinks the defendant is guilty?  Doesn’t she know that in the long run the fundamental fairness essential to the administration of criminal justice will be overthrown if there is not an aggressive, able defense bar giving their clients their complete loyalty?  Doesn’t she realize that her odious view of the right to counsel, if implemented, would result in criminal trials like those in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany where guilty persons facing trial could not find an attorney who would take their case or where attorneys who did represent guilty persons took the side of the prosecution and actually sought to have their own clients convicted and punished?

Nancy Grace’s discussion of the Central Park Jogger Case furnishes an excellent example of how she manipulates the facts to serve her pro-state agenda.  In 1989 a young woman jogging in New York City’s Central Park was beaten and sexually assaulted, and the following year five young men were tried for the crimes.  The case involved, Grace claims, “the brutal gang rape of a woman who’d been left for dead.”  At the trial, Grace asserts, the defense attorneys adopted a “blame the victim” strategy, thereby demonstrating that they “were not interested in pursuing the prevention of violence against women.”  Grace omits an important fact.  Whatever the truth of how the defense attorneys proceeded (Grace’s account of the presentation of the defense case at the trial is not necessarily to be trusted), the defense attorneys were totally unsuccessful in that all their clients were convicted and sentenced to long prison terms.  You would never know from reading Objection! that the defendants were found guilty.

More importantly, Grace conceals the fact–firmly established before Grace wrote her book–that actually there had been no gang rape and that the five young men charged and convicted were innocent on all counts.  She neglects to mention that these young men served up to 12 years in prison for crimes they never committed.  She also conceals the fact that police had induced these young men, all minorities, into making the false confessions which were used to convict them.  Over two years before Objection! went to press, the trial court, with the consent of prosecutors, granted the defendants’ motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.  People v. Wise, 194 Misc. 2d 481, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York County 2002).  From that decision setting aside the convictions, we learn that the defendants’ innocence was proven by DNA evidence and by the volunteered confession of the actual criminal, Matias Reyes, who had acted alone.  See also Davies, “The Reality of False Confessions–Lessons of the Central Park Jogger Case,” 30 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 209 (2006).

Nancy Grace’s essentially misleading account of the Central Park Jogger Case does not inspire confidence that she can be trusted with the facts.

Nancy Grace’s sophomoric defense of the death penalty in America relies on falsehoods and distortions.  “Only a handful of wrongful capital convictions and penalties are known, and none has occurred since 1976, when capital punishment was reinstated in this country,” Objection! claims (p. 265).  This is entirely false.  In Spite of Innocence (1992), a 399-page treatise by scholars Michael Radelet, Hugo Bedau, and Constance Putnam, for example, lists over 400 convictions of innocent persons for capital crimes since 1900; and, as the Death Penalty Information Center points out, 123 innocent death row inmates have been exonerated and released since 1973 (see < >).  And what does Grace have to say about the hundreds of recent DNA exonerations of death row inmates and other innocent convicted prisoners?  “When an allegedly wrongful conviction has taken place, we hear about it eternally”(!) (p. 267).

This book review will now reveal a secret about Nancy Grace which she does not appear to want the public to know.  On one occasion, soon after her graduation from law school, Nancy Grace defected to “the dark side”!  See Thomas v. Newsome, 646 F. Supp. 583 (M.D. Ga. 1986) (in federal habeas corpus proceeding, Nancy Grace assisted in preparation of legal brief in behalf of prisoner convicted of armed robbery and of kidnaping with bodily injury by shooting victim in the head, and sentenced first to death and later to consecutive terms of life imprisonment).

Nancy Grace’s Objection! is so pro-government and anti-individual rights (e.g., “the power of the state is a myth”(!)), so contemptuous of opposing views (e.g., “Trying to reason through the evidence with these ladies [who sat on the jury that acquitted O.J. Simpson] was like shrieking at a deaf man”), and so eerily laced with pious invocations of the Almighty (e.g., “I know that God will lead me to my next battle”(!)), that a reader not knowing the identity of the author of the book might well deduce that it presents the appearance of having been penned by a God-fearing, fascist-leaning escapee from a lunatic asylum.


On at least three occasions appellate courts scathingly rebuked then-assistant district attorney Nancy Grace for striking foul blows against an accused person.

In Bell v. State, 263 Ga. 776, 439 S.E.2d 480 (1994), the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a drug conviction in a case where Grace had gone bonkers in her closing presentation to the jury by raving about irrelevant drug-related murders and serial rapes.  Speaking of Grace’s misbehavior, the Court said: “By referring to such extraneous and prejudicially inflammatory material in her closing argument, the prosecutor exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument, to the detriment of the accused and to the detriment of the fair administration of justice.”

In Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195 (11th Cir. 2003), a federal appeals court weighed strong indications that Grace had knowingly elicited a police officer’s false testimony at Stephens’ state murder trial.  Although ultimately concluding that the false testimony did not rise to the level of a due process violation, the court nonetheless blasted Grace, saying that at the murder trial she “had played fast and loose with the rules” and had “fail[ed] ... to fulfill her [constitutional] responsibilities.”

The most stinging condemnation of Grace’s inappropriate overeagerness to convict occurred in 1997, when the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously reversed the murder conviction of Weldon Wayne Carr, who had allegedly killed his wife.  Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 482 S.E.2d 314 (1997).  The court castigated Grace for her prosecutorial misbehavior in these words: “Our review of the record supports Carr’s contention that the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial.... [T]he prosecuting attorney abused the subpoena process by, among other things, inserting false information regarding hearing dates; ... the witness list delivered on the eve of the trial contained many names new to the defense; ... the prosecuting attorney repeatedly made references to physical abuse although the trial court had ruled out all such evidence of purported abuse ...; and the closing argument was replete with ... patent misrepresentations of fact such as the prosecuting attorney’s use of a chart falsely indicating that a defense expert had not disagreed with a specific opinion by a State’s witness....  We wish to register our stern disapproval of tactics which give rise to the appearance that the prosecution, by act or omission, has attempted to subvert or circumvent the right[s] of an accused.... 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.”

And one more-

Nasty Nancy Nation

by William L. Anderson

Recently by William L. Anderson: Tucson Murders and the Modern American Political Culture


Because we don’t have cable or satellite television in our home, I rarely watch the cable "news" shows that feature confrontational "debate," as people scream unfounded accusations at each other, all in the name of discussing "issues." Thus, we are deprived each night of watching Nancy Grace "seek justice," and that alone makes missing The History Channel and Mythbusters worth the self-denial.

These days, Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor turned television host, is a popular person. Fox Business News apparently wanted to "balance" the liberty-minded shows by Judge Andrew Napolitano and John Stossel with a show in which anyone accused by the State automatically is guilty of whatever crimes the show’s host claims. Alas, the deal fell through because Grace kept upping the ante for salary and perks, and she stayed with the HLN network.

I must admit to not being very familiar with Grace until the Duke Lacrosse Case burst into our body politic in the spring of 2006. A stripper with a criminal record made rape accusations against three members of Duke University’s lacrosse team, and despite the fact that her stories did not match the laws of time and space, Grace immediate declared the lacrosse players guilty, and permitted her nightly show on CNN to be a conduit of outright lies, fabrications, and innuendo.

Because the show’s clips were available on the Internet, I was able to watch her interrogation of anyone who did not agree with her assessment, and I am not sure that I ever have seen a nastier person at work. When one skeptic of the case noted that the law required criminal defendants to be regarded as "innocent until proven guilty," she declared that such viewpoints were what one would expect in Nazi Germany. (That is right. Nancy Grace declared that the Rights of the Accused really were a product of Adolph Hitler, and that declaring someone guilty even though there were no proof was a product of a free nation. And people enthusiastically buy these lies.)

Throughout 2006, Grace and her frequent sidekick, Wendy Murphy (who claims that there is no such thing as a "false rape accusation," declaring on Grace’s show, "My own statistics speak to this fact") backed up whatever prosecutor Mike Nifong said was true, even though Nifong’s stories continually shifted. No matter how many holes appeared in the case, Grace continued to ape the same narrative: the boys come from "privileged" families; a poor prostitute has accused them of rape; therefore, they are guilty of rape.

As people familiar with the case know, the whole thing began quickly to unravel when at a December 15, 2006, hearing Nifong’s supposed DNA expert admitted under oath that he and Nifong conspired to withhold important DNA results that would have been considered exculpatory to the three defendants. That bit of news never made it to Grace’s show, as it violated the established narrative.

In April 2007, North Carolina’s attorney general, Roy Cooper, announced after an extensive investigation of the charges by two experienced prosecutors that there had been no rape, that the stripper-prostitute Crystal Mangum was lying, and that Nifong was a "rogue prosecutor." The players, Cooper declared unequivocally, were "innocent." Now, one would think that such news would be very important to Grace, who declares often that "I want justice." After all, justice clearly was being done here.

The truth, however, is not Nancy Grace’s style. She refused to appear that night, leaving a guest host to announce Cooper’s actions and at that point, the Duke Lacrosse Case went down Grace’s Orwellian Memory Hole. In a recent post on his famous blog, Durham-in-Wonderland, K.C. Johnson included a Daily Show commentary on Grace's performance during the lacrosse case, including her non-appearance on the night of the exoneration of the players. (Scroll down on the post until you reach the embedded broadcast.)

Why is Grace so afraid of the truth? Perhaps it is because Grace herself has had a problem with telling the truth in important situations. When Grace was a college student in the late 1970s, her fiancé was murdered; that much can be verified. Furthermore, Grace, whose shattered life was changed by that event, decided not to be an English major and went into law and became a Georgia prosecutor instead. Unfortunately, after that fact was established, Grace began to play fast and loose with the facts of the case.

Grace publicly has claimed a number of things about the murderer and the case:

  • The killer was a 24-year-old career criminal who killed her fiancé after robbing him;
  • The killer denied his crime and a jury took three agonizing days to convict him;
  • In a moment of weakness, Grace told the court she did not want the killer executed;
  • After that, the killer filed a series of appeals, further traumatizing Grace and her family.

Thus, her own personal experience, according to Grace, is "proof" that the American justice system is too much weighed toward the "Rights of the Accused," and if we want "justice," the "rights of the victims" must be put front-and-center. While Grace’s emotional appeal seems to be rooted in her tragic story, it turns out that Grace has not been telling the truth. The New York Observer, after investigating the case, found out the following things:

  • Her fiance was shot not by a random robber, but by a former co-worker;
  • The killer, Tommy McCoy, was 19, not 24, and had no prior convictions;
  • Mr. McCoy confessed to the crime the evening he was arrested;
  • The jury convicted in a matter of hours, not days;
  • Prosecutors asked for the death penalty, but didn't get it, because Mr. McCoy was mildly retarded;
  • Mr. McCoy never had an appeal; he filed a habeas application five years ago, and after a hearing it was rejected.

For that matter, Grace has failed even to get the year correct (the murder was in 1980, not 1979) and her fiance’s age right (he was 23, not 25). So, while Grace’s fiancé, indeed, was murdered, the real story does not fit Grace’s "the killer thumbed his nose at the justice system" narrative.

As a prosecutor, it turns out that Grace also embraced lies, even when the truth itself was strong enough for a conviction. In 1994, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a conviction in Bell v. State because Grace "exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument" by comparing this heroin case to unrelated cases involving murder and rape.

While her conduct in the Bell case might be explained by overzealousness by the "justice-seeking" prosecutor, her contempt for simple "due process of law" and "fairness" helped to influence the Georgia Supreme Court to overturn a murder-arson conviction against W.W. Carr.

But, it gets even worse. It seems that Grace managed to move from overzealousness to outright lying during court proceedings, with the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that she "played fast and loose" with her ethical duties, failing to "fulfill her responsibilities" as a prosecutor in the 1990 triple murder trial of Herbert Connell Stephens.

While the court said that it could not prove that she used a detective’s testimony, knowing that it was false, nonetheless the justices wrote that it was "difficult to conclude" that she had not lied. Grace, it seems, had told jurors that there were no other arrest warrants for others (from a detective’s false testimony that Grace had used during the trial) in the case when, in fact, she had been made aware of those warrants before the trial began.

What is significant here, I believe, is that the court did not overturn the murder conviction despite Grace’s misconduct. No doubt, Grace would argue that this was a controversy over nothing, but as I see it, this incident goes directly to her character: Grace lied in a trial in an attempt to secure a conviction, even though the truth was enough to convince jurors that the defendant was guilty. In other words, she lied simply because she could do it.

By the time the 11th Circuit noted Grace’s lack of truthfulness, she already was becoming a TV star, holding forth in an imperious style first on Court TV and then with CNN. That national television shows would hire someone who had lied while performing her duties as an officer of the court tells us volumes about the desire for veracity in the corporate offices of cable news outfits. Furthermore, Grace’s fractured telling of the story of her fiancé’s murder should have been enough to warn broadcast officials that she was willing publicly to lie.

While I never have had any personal contact with Grace (thank goodness), nonetheless I know people who have had to deal with her accusing and dishonest tongue. I have come to know a number of the families in the Duke Lacrosse Case and to a person, they loathe Grace and everything about her. This woman, literally not knowing one correct fact in the case, nonetheless regularly slandered the players and their parents.

(She purposely misrepresented DNA evidence, claiming on the air that the "flesh" of David Evans was found under Crystal Mangum’s fingernails. It turned out that the "flesh" was a DNA mixture with 14 other young men on a false fingernail that was found in the trash can in the bathroom where the rape allegedly occurred. Grace called this "finding" a "home run" for the prosecution when, in fact, it pointed to Nifong’s dishonesty and ultimately led to the case falling apart when his DNA "expert" under oath confessed to professional misconduct.)

The Tonya Craft case brings Grace even closer to my circle of friends. Last year, Craft was acquitted of child molestation in a trial that involved more prosecutorial, police, and judicial misconduct than I ever have witnessed before. North Georgia jurors not only acquitted her, but publicly declared that the case was a farce and said that they knew the prosecutors were lying and the judge was teaming with the prosecutors in an obvious attempt to frame Craft for something that never happened.

The evidence supporting these charges was so tainted and so contrived that even Nancy Grace should have seen what was happening. Instead, Grace in her Pavlovian style told Craft that she was "guilty" of all charges after Craft went to Grace’s office to present the facts to her.

(Actually, Grace did not have personal contact with Craft, instead, sending an assistant to tell Tonya, "She says you are guilty." Furthermore, when Craft was acquitted after a month-long trial, Grace did not air that result. Again, according to Grace, once there is an indictment, guilt is always assumed and if a person is found innocent, then that result either was due to "slick lawyers" or jury misconduct.)

Nonetheless, despite the fact that she represents the worst of prosecutorial misconduct and openly is willing to defend lies by officers of the court sworn to tell the truth, Grace is very popular. And why not? Anyone who has been a victim of crime knows just how bad the government system of "justice" can be, and Grace manipulates this situation.

As I see it, Grace has become the embodiment of modern American society, where truth and the Rights of the Accused are openly despised. Unlike nations like the former U.S.S.R., China, and Vietnam, where people living under government tyranny have sought – sometimes at the cost of their own lives – to be free, Americans have come to despise their liberties and openly to support the worst of dictatorship.

Grace plays off the American hatred for liberty and the lust of people for vengeance, an attitude of "someone must pay, even if the person accused is innocent." With Grace, anyone accused automatically is guilty, and in Nasty Nancy Nation, that is the new standard of justice.

June 17, 2011

William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant with American Economic Services. Visit his blog.

Copyright © 2011 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Best of William Anderson



 There is a mountain of documented evidnce showing this accusation to be true.  There are others like me and our voice Will be heard. There are young men and women who take there own lives because of bullying.  There has already been 2 associated with Nancy Grace. Why are HER victims VOICELESS? Is it because of WHO bullied them? Give them their turn. Give them their voice.  I will seek a lawyer when i get 30,000 signatures to start the steps in taking action in this matter . thank you for your time.

Letter to
everyone in public and the government
have Nancey Grace & others taken off air for BULLYING & MISREPISENTATION