Duke Case Prosecutor Reports to Jail
The former prosecutor who charged three Duke lacrosse players with rape — charges that were later dropped — reported to jail today to serve a 24-hour sentence for lying to a judge about evidence he had withheld that helped exonerate the young men.
The disbarred former district attorney, Mike Nifong, said nothing to reporters as he arrived at the courtroom early this morning, surrounded by television cameras as well as supporters and others who shouted criticism at him.
Mr. Nifong charged the three players with raping a young woman they had hired to dance at a party in March 2006.
Judge W. Osmond Smith III of Superior Court said Mr. Nifong “willfully made false statements” to the court last September when he insisted that he had given defense lawyers all of the results from a critical DNA test. The judge found that Mr. Nifong had provided the lawyers with what he knew to be an incomplete report, omitting results showing that the DNA of multiple men, none of whom were the lacrosse players, had been found on the woman,.
Mr. Nifong was disbarred for ethics violations for the way he handled the case. Roy Cooper, the North Carolina attorney general, took the case from Mr. Nifong in January and announced in April that the woman was not credible and that the former students — David F. Evans, 24, Reade W. Seligmann, 21, and Collin Finnerty, 20 — were innocent. He declared the three victims of a “tragic rush to accuse.”
Today, as Mr. Nifong entered the jail house, some supporters carried signs that said “We believe in your integrity and goodness.” A group of critics also watched Mr. Nifong as he arrived to begin serving his sentence, and one woman shouted out, “Justice works!” The Associated Press reported.
As that jailhouse drama played out, lawyers for the three players were in talks with city officials over a settlement to avoid a lawsuit they said their clients would file, The Herald-Sun of Durham reported.
The newspaper said in today’s edition that lawyers for the three falsely accused men were willing to set aside a civil rights lawsuit if the city agreed to pay each of them $10 million and to put in place reforms to make sure police investigations remain independent of the prosecutors who try cases in court.
9 comments:
It amazes me to see how they actually only had out sentences for 24 hours or 82 hours.
I look forward to the discussion.
This case was troubling on so many different levels...first, what on earth were these college kids doing with a stripper at a party?
Second, why did the prosecutor who was up for re-election as I recall, make this into such a headline grabbing case, before all the evidence was in?
Why did the Duke Univ. authorities shut down the lacrosse program and suspend the students before there was a complete trial with full evidence and testimony and a verdict?
Would the three young men have gotten as far as they did with their complaints of unfair treatment by the prosecutor, had they not come from wealthy upper middle class families who had deep enough pockets to hire attorneys that could mount an excellent defense?
Finally, I agree with Kanisha - why such a short sentence? Yes, he was disbarred for his actions, but he lied to a judge about evidence and knowingly witheld evidence from the accused men and their attorneys that would have exonerated them...isn't that obstruction of justice? I think he got off way too easy, and meanwhile whatever did happen to the young woman who started this whole sorry mess?
Margaret
Margaret and Kanisha, you both bring up very good points. I found this whole matter disgusting. First of all because of the whole way it started; the publicity that it was given. I could not believe the attention it was getting. I felt the students were acting immorally. The college I am sure knows about this type of behavior going on and look the other way. The prosecutor lied about evidence found on the women that should have caused further investigation. Why did that not happen? Who were the other men? Why was this not investigated after this information was disclosed? Now the matter seems to be closed with the students filing lawsuits in the future. Interesting turn of events.
I would have to agree with Kanisha regarding the sentence imposed. However, I do not quite understand Margaret commenting as to the "reason why these kids were at a party with a stripper." I am not going to say it is proper, but some "kids" will be kids. For the 3 students accused, it may have just been a party. As far as Mr. Nifong withholding evidence, I am not exactly sure what his motives were behind the whole ordeal. In my belief, it's in part of the reason why some people serve sentences on crimes they never committed. Some governmental officials take actions and/or inactions if it will benefit them in some way. Perhaps convicting the lacrosse players would allow him some kind of bonus or promotion.
Without knowing much about law, I kind of remember a saying---"It is better to let 9 guilty people free than to covict 1 innocent person." Well, this case takes the preceding quote and kicks it right in the teeth. Why? Because if a relative of a convicted felon harbored that felon, I would be willing to wager that the so called relative would suffer a comsequence not quite as soft as Mr. Nifong's, who intentionally assisted in an attempt to send not one but 3 innocent young men to prison for a long time. It certainly deserved more than a meditation session of a sentence to get his thoughts together. Picture what could of happened to these young men if Mr. Nifong's slimy secret never revealed itself? If the courts' are not going to take into consideration how serious this could have been, than these same courts should not punish a man who attempts to kill the president but does not succeced because the act did not play out as bad as it could have. Why should Mr Nifomg's sentence be so light--his slimy intentions were there and he should be held accountable for them. Furthermore, Why did Mr Nifomg risk so much for this admitted stripper? Must have been 1 good lap dance!
Just one other point: according to the PA Rules of Professional Conduct, the Prosecutor in this case violated Rule 3.8 (a), (d), (e) Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor. There's also a likelihood of his having violated PA Rule 8.4. I don't know what the specific rules in NC were numbered, but I'm guessing that this was the reason for his disbarrment. Anyway, it still seems like more sanctions should have been imposed for this kind of unethical behavior by a minister of justice.
My earlier comment on the three college kids and the impropriaty of having a stripper at a party, was strictly coming from the prospective of being the parent of a college age child and my expectations of how I'd want my kid to behave (or not).
Everyone seems to have made some great comments about this article with relevance to our class, and I particularly agree with Margaret.
As an aside, it is outrageous the way universities treat their athletes. More often than not, a skilled athlete is spotted in high school where he/she is excused from academia and merits of conduct in order to focus exclusively on a sport. Then, using an athletic scholarship, he can go on to a four-year university and repeat the behavior.
It is very empowering for an adolescent (and more specifically, an adolescent male) who spends four years of high school and a few years of college being told "Don't worry about your classes, don't worry about your projects, and don't worry about anything at all. Just play the game well, and we'll take care of the rest". This sense of "invincibility" and an inflammation of ego can easily lead these kids into bad behavior. The rules, in their minds, do not apply to them. And why should they? Their high schools and colleges made it clear that they are never to be held accountable for anything other than scoring a goal. In fact, I'd guess that the better you are at your sport, the more likely it will be that you can get off for anything you do wrong, and the less likely you'll ever be held accountable.
Everyone is interpreting this article with an eye for the legal ethics of the prosecution, which is fair because that's why we're here :)
But as an aside, does anyone stop to question the moral ethics of the players? The KIDS who have strippers at parties? The rich kids whose families could afford such an elaborate defense? The opportunistic brats that are now trying to weasel millions of dollars out of the taxpayers?
I agree, the prosecuter made a grave mistake by witholding evidence. He deserves his disbarment, and to be honest, the sentence was a little light.
But had the prosecution succeeded, would it really have been a detriment to society to have three less brats running around town thinking their above the law?
In fact, to make a Philadelphia sports reference, without this lawsuit pushing national attention on those three players, each one of them could have easily turned into an Eddie Griffin.
- Bob
Go Bob!! Well said. I did not want to comment to much on that end but my sentiments exactly.
Great use of the resources at hand.....the Rules of Professional Conduct. The special responsibility of a prosecutor is an important part of the puzzle.
I know of no other prosecutor that has been disciplined this way....ever, ever.
I agree as to the "brats" part, disagree with notion of supporting a "brat" incarceration program.
Post a Comment