It is imperative that we recognize Ms. Diallo’s right to file criminal charges against someone who she believes tried to rape her.  She must understand that the accused will be considered  innocent until proven guilty. The mere fact that she has accused Mr. Strauss of attempted rape does not mean that we can dispense with the jury, enter a verdict of guilty and proceed directly to sentencing. Ms. Diallo has rightfully drawn the public’s distain and condemnation; she was not truthful with law enforcement authorities who originally investigated her complaint and she lied before the grand jury.  She has pursued the American dream by lying when it suited her needs. Ms. Diallo cannot now escape public scrutiny for her past transgressions.

Mr. Strauss’ fate will not be decided by public opinion. Assuming that the case actually goes to trial a jury will decide his guilt or innocence.  If Mr. Strauss’ attorneys believe that he cannot get a fair trial in New York County  due to pre-trial publicity, they can ask the presiding judge to move the case to a  county in which a fair trial could be received. Unfortunately for Ms. Diallo the District Attorney does not have a corresponding right to ask that the trial be shifted to another county because the complaining witnesses is generating bad publicity about her or himself. I am sure that Mr. Strauss would be tried
and adjudge based upon the evidence and not public opinion. Do the attorneys and advisers for Ms. Diallo believe otherwise?

Ms. Diallo’s public campaign for continued prosecution of Mr. Strauss is  a ruse. She and her advisors understand the consequences of the case going to trial. Ms. Diallo would have to testify under oath in support of the criminal charges that she filed. Once the prosecutors  had finished questioning her, Mr. Strauss’ attorneys would cross-examine her without remorse. The attorneys through their questions would portray Ms. Diallo as a liar, an opportunist and a person that does not respect the rule of law. The case  would probably end with the charges being dismissed. Her imagine as  a victim would be irrevocably damaged and its commercial value would be appreciably diminished. A dismissal after trial of criminal charges would adversely affect her chances in the civil lawsuit. Under this scenario Ms. Diallo gains nothing by pursuing the criminal case but, could lose everything if the case was tried. Ms. Diallo and her legal team are correct in  concluding that the prosecution of Mr. Strauss would hurt her economic interest. This “ignorant and poor black African immigrant” understands business  101. We should give her  and her attorneys more credit.

Politics and law combine to exacerbate Mr. Vance’s problems. Ms. Diallo’s supporters and liberals portray her as a victim of continued racial injustice and inequality of opportunity. They demand that Mr. Strauss’ prosecution continue. This group argues that the jury should resolve the issue of Ms. Diallo’s  credibility. They are correct, though, they fail to understand the extent of the problem; Ms. Diallo has compromised her credibility to such an extent that a fair prosecution of Mr. Strauss might be impossible. A trial based upon lies and deceit would violate Mr. Strauss rights to due process. Also Ms. Diallo is in danger of being criminally prosecuted herself for past and present lies. The D.A. has a legal and ethical responsibility to uphold the laws of the State. He must prosecute cases based upon the law and not political considerations even if  the accused is a complainant in a criminal case. Prosecutors know  that at trial Ms. Diallo will have to admit that she committed certain acts which constituted crimes or commit perjury and deny ever having committed the acts. Mr. Vance might be obligated to file criminal charges against Ms. Diallo and he certainly is ethically required to tell the proper law enforcement authorities that she has broken the law. Do the supporters of Ms. Diallo expect Mr. Vance to simply ignore these transgressions? I believe that the prosecution team must decide how to handle Ms. Diallo’s transgressions before considering if to go ahead with the case against Mr. Strauss.