The Duke Case: Nifong On Trial
(CBS)
Do you really care what happens now to Michael Nifong, the Durham (North Carolina) district attorney whose colossal misjudgments in the Duke lacrosse case left a scattered trail of misery in their wake? I don’t. No matter what happens as a result of his disciplinary hearing which begins today in Durham, Nifong is as a practical matter finished as a trial attorney in the State. Would you want him representing you in court? Me neither. No judge or future juror ever will be able to listen to him again without thinking of the mess he helped create.
Curiously, though, Nifong is not under the gun for his infamously poor judgment. Instead, he is in trouble for other aspects of the sex assault case. He is charged with withholding evidence from the defense, making false statements about it to the court, and of making unduly inflammatory out-of-court comments about the defendants and the evidence. The hearing is expected to last the rest of the week and could result in his disbarment. He won’t be prosecuted and I’m not sure he’s vulnerable either to a civil case brought by the students—governmental immunity goes a long way.
But the hearing is important anyway because Nifong is expected to testify in his own behalf and if he does he will be in a position to finally tell us what we really need to know about his role in the scandal. Just what was he thinking when he endorsed the accuser in the case even when there was such strong direct evidence undercutting her story? Just what was he thinking when he went so aggressively public with his accusations at the very start of the case, even before his investigators had completed their work? And just why exactly did he play fast and loose with the rules that govern the transfer of evidence from government to defense?
If Nifong answers those questions, he will have finally provided a public service to the people he purported to represent (and to the rest of us). He also will have offered a valuable lesson to prosecutors all over the country, who ought to be following the sorry Duke story with a “there but for the grace of God go I” mentality. In fact, if Nifong truly is repentant he ought to now dedicate the next few years of his life to traveling around the country talking to trial lawyers about how not to handle a high-profile case. He is after all more than anything else now a grand symbol of failure, of overzealous prosecutorial power, and of just plain bad judgment.
Yes, I do regard it as important, extremely so.
Prosecutors in the US have vast powers to intimidate, coerce and investigate citizens accused of crimes. With this power goes great responsibility. Most prosecutors are aware of this second part. Nifong chose to ignore it.
Nifong had direct physical evidence showing that the three players he indicted were innocent. If Nifong truly believed that the accuser had been attacked, why did he not pursue the evidence left on her body by the multiple other male "donors" or "attackers"?
In my opinion, if Justice is to be served and if future prosecutors are to have any credibility, Nifong must be held accountable for his actions. Otherwise, what happens when the next group of innocent people are railroaded because open discovery laws are ignored?
In my cynical opinion, this pettifogger will either hide behind the attorney work-product doctrine, or acquire selective amnesia. He will never satisfy the court with any useful answers. Anyone expecting otherwise had better stock up on plenty of antacid.
ShysterStalker
The pathetic pandering for votes was brought to our attention by the "liberal" media as soon as some "reporter" actually did the job and looked beyond what was in the press release. Oops, they weren't doing their job. A slow news day somewhere and they actually let the defense lawyer's statements run without "editing".
What we are missing, is why we let our "liberal" media to get away with it time after time! "Here's the DA live", followed by 5 minutes of ranting on about the case. Then the defense has a 20 second soundbite that is cut off so he doesn't address the points made in the rant.
Not news-worthy, I guess. It just doesnt inflame enough passion, so we had to cut it for the awsome video shot of the day, whatever it is. Usually bloody or explosive. And then the familiar "That's what we gotta do. That's what the public wants", begins.
From the LATimes today:
WASHINGTON Fueled by disappointment at the pace of change since Democrats assumed the majority on Capitol Hill, public approval of Congress has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade, according to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll.
Just 27% of Americans now approve of the way Congress is doing its job, the poll found, down from 36% in January, when Democrats assumed control of the House and the Senate.
And 63% of Americans say that the new Democratic Congress is governing in a "business as usual" manner, rather than working to bring the fundamental change that party leaders promised after November's midterm election."
.......the "key" word being decade....................come on 2008
If it is determined that he acted outside of the scope of his employment, his governmental immunity will not be worth a thing.
He should, at the very least, be criminally investigated to determine if he can be charged based on the facts. If he acted within the scope of employment, then fine. If he didn't, then he should be aggressively prosecuted.
Eric