Prosecutorial misconduct
Guilty?: Rouge prosecutor D.A. Mike Nifong; False rape accuser Crystal Gail Norman
Innocent: Duke players
Not caught up on the story? Here are the facts and timeline.
Mike Nifong faces ethics charges for prosecutorial misconduct by misleading the media and public in an effort to gain notoriety in a big case and ensure his re-election. He now stands as an example of what happens when a member of the bar lacks the ethics and higher standard to which we hold our selves and our peers.
March 13, 2006 — Duke University lacrosse players throw a party at an off-campus house, hiring two strippers.
March 14 — One of the dancers tells Durham, N.C., police she was forced into a bathroom by three men and beaten, raped and sodomized.
March 23 — Forty-six of 47 team members comply with judge's order to provide DNA. The sole black member is not tested, because the accuser said her attackers were white.
March 28 — Duke suspends lacrosse team from play.
March 29 — District Attorney Mike Nifong calls members of the team "a bunch of hooligans."
April 4 — The accuser identifies her attackers in a photo lineup.
April 5 — Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler resigns. Duke President Richard Brodhead cancels the rest of the season.
April 10 — Defense attorneys announce DNA tests fail to connect any of the players to the accuser.
April 17 — Grand jury indicts Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty on rape and other charges.
April 25 — Granville County authorities confirm the accuser told police 10 years ago she was raped by three men when she was 14. None of the men was charged.
May 15 — Grand jury indicts team co-captain David Evans on rape charges. He calls the allegations "fantastic lies."
June 5 — Duke president says team can resume play in 2007 under close monitoring.
Nov. 7 — Nifong wins election to continue as district attorney.
Dec. 15 — Director of a DNA lab testifies that, in an agreement with Nifong, he omitted from a report that genetic material from several men — none of them team members — was found in accuser's underwear and body.
Dec. 22 — Nifong drops the rape charges, saying the woman is no longer certain whether she was penetrated. The players still face charges of kidnapping and sexual offense.
Dec. 28 — North Carolina bar files ethics charges against Nifong, accusing him of making misleading and inflammatory comments to the media about the athletes. (He is also later accused of withholding evidence and lying to the court.)
Jan. 3, 2007 — Duke invites Seligmann and Finnerty to return to school. (They have not returned.) The accuser gives birth. Both sides later say she was not impregnated at the party.
Jan. 12 — Nifong asks to withdraw from case because of ethics charges.
Jan. 13 — North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper takes over the case.
Apr. 11 – Duke players announced innocent of charges
What happens now? I certainly hope that Mike Nifong is afforded what he attempted to deny the Duke players; due process, equal access to evidence, and an ethical prosecutor.
The biggest question that this all raises is what if these guys did NOT have the recorces to combat a rouge prosecutor? The answer is simple. They each would be serving 30 years for something they did not do.
Prosecutorial misconduct? Probably so. Do personal ethics affect your performance as a lawyer? Absolutely!
And if Nifong is guilty of this misconduct, how far does it go? Are there innocent people in jail (or worse - facing the death penalty) right now because of his actions? This my friends is why we hold our selves to a higher standard, because we are the defenders of the weak, the balance on the stong, and the protectors of the blessings of liberty.
Someone said they didnt get the cartoon. The lady standing there is lady liberty. Does that help?
No comments:
Post a Comment