<p>I am not sure I would agree with the terms “evenhanded” and “principaled” with respect to the handling of this case. And I suspect that if it had not been such a public investigation, the likelihood that those adjectives would be appropriate would be even further diminished.</p>
<p>This is a good article from the Duke Basketball Report about the next chapter in what will surely be a continuing saga for Nifong. </p>
<p><a href=“http://dukebasketballreport.com/articles/?p=22771[/url]”>Thoughts On The Fall Of Nifong & Related Issues - Duke Basketball Report;
<p>I am heartened that some kind of correction has taken place. I have lived in several developing countries where legal corruption is accepted and even expected.</p>
<p>good article, irishforever…I couldn’t agree with it more and it is well-put. </p>
<p>Too bad by the way that Nifong continued to call Crystal “victim” in the hearing yesterday over and over…not even alleged victim. He also made a major error when he conjectured that a crime of intimidation took place in that B/R after a three month investigation by the state Attorney General’s office interviewed every single party and combed through what passed as evidence. The man is clearly morally unhinged and impaired.</p>
<p>
Probably classic narcissism. Narcissists are <em>never</em> wrong.</p>
<p>But, yes, I find that totally disconcerting. All in all, Nifong learned <em>nothing</em> from all of this, and he continues to perseverate in his very warped and biased thinking, in spite all of the evidence mounted against his “theory.”</p>
<p>
This wasn’t what was most notable about this case. What was <em>most</em> notable was that with all of the supposed “safeguards” in place in our legal system, this hideous personal “mission” of Nifong’s took over a year and MILLIONS of dollars of the families’ monies to “right”…and even then, the scars will remain for many, including three boys and their families, a fine university, and the entire community of Durham (not to mention the fired coach and the fractured faculty of Duke). THAT is what is notable.</p>
<p>I completely agree (as a fellow lawyer) with Epistrophy’s statement. While the terrible damage to the boys can not be undone, Nifong IS being punished and was fairly and completely investigated. This would NOT have been the case in all professions, where there is often a reluctance to “go against one’s own”. While it may not be the most “notable” aspect of this entire debacle, it is one positive point, and I am happy to see the result. Yes, the safeguards failed in this instance- it happens in all professions and all through life. I was one of those who for many months could not possibly believe a DA could be acting without strong evidence. I had not witnessed this type of thing before and just didn’t believe it was happening.</p>
<p>I dated a lawyer for several years when I was in grad school. One time, when we got into a discussion about his profession, he said something like “practicing law is not about right and wrong, or about fairness and justice… it is about winning a case within the guidelines of the law”. Now clearly Nifong went way outside the guidelines of the law. But the strategies used in winning civil and criminal cases seem to me to often skirt the boundaries of “evenhanded and principaled” behavior far more often than other professions that I can think of. I have had the pleasure of working with some very principaled attorneys, and some that cause me to want to wash my hands afterwards.</p>
<p>(note: This is not intended as a comment on any of the posters here )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This may be true in some areas of legal practice, but it is not what being an ethical and principled - and truly effective - prosecutor is about. </p>
<p>As the American Bar Association Standards put it: “The duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” (Standard 3-1.2(c), <a href=“http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/pfunc_blk.html#1.2)%5B/url%5D”>http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/standards/pfunc_blk.html#1.2)</a>.</p>
<p>YEs, Nifong violated his role as prosecutor. No question there. As an aside, what about attorneys who threaten to sue clients who are considering filing a Bar complaint. Intimidation isn’t ethical or principaled, IMO. (This is not related to Nifong, just other examples of unacceptable behavior).</p>
<p>(note-- I am not meaning to get into lawyer-bashing)</p>
<p>I have no interest in taking on the Herculean task of trying to defend the behavior of everyone who happens to make his living as a lawyer. Life’s way too short for that. </p>
<p>Some of the best people I know are lawyers - as are some of the worst. That’s part of what makes a life in the law interesting. (Though sometimes the old Chinese curse comes to mind: May you live in interesting times.)</p>
<p>Lets pick on the insurance industry instead :D</p>
<p>It amazes me that some folks think these families are being vindictive because they want compensation for all the money they spent on legal fees defending their sons for something that never happened! Sorry, this is not vindication at all. They are entitled to some compensation. The disbarment of Nifong really isn’t good enough! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>We know nothing really about the financial situation of these families. We did not qualify for any aid to send our kid to Duke, but there is no way in heck we could afford over $1million in legal fees without borrowing lots of money!!!
Would I want to recoup some of that money. Abolutely. That is NOT vindication, it is entitlement. :mad:</p>
<p>No, they should not let it go. I wouldn’t.</p>
<p>In this case, there are several people who are alleged to have acted unethically and perhaps illegally to do harm to the reputation, emotional state, academic record, and financial resources of three young men and, by extension, their families. The civil courts are perfectly placed to handle just such grievances, and I hope that the three men and their families take full advantage of the opportunities to win some measure of compensation for the unwarranted actions taken against them.</p>
<p>This is not a case of a thorough district attorney taking on an unwinnable case that nonetheless has legal merits; in those cases it is certainly reasonable for the defense to incur their own costs as a part of the proper functioning of the justice system. This is a wholly different animal.</p>
<p>
Two things. First, fortunately, not all the safeguards failed. The profession did initiate processes to self correct, and begin extraordinary measures for an extraordinary case. It did not happen as quickly as some of us would like, but perhaps the outcome will provide feedback to the State Bar that more aggressive policies are needed. As the attorneys for the players said outside the hearing after this week, one would be foolish to assume this is the only case where a DA has acted unethically.</p>
<p>Second, for the latter part, a silver lining to all this is how many eyes have been opened. Reade Seligmann has captured that aspect well and if he decides to continue his plans to become a defense attorney, doubtless this experience will be most useful. Beyond that, one can only hope that folks heed James Coleman in reiterating that if this can happen to people who <em>do</em> have adequate resources to mount a vigorous and highly qualified defense, one can only imagine what happens to those who don’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What happens is, they spend years in prison–perhaps on death row–as in the case of NC’s Alan Gell, whose prosecutors deliberately withheld key evidence during his trial. Roy Cooper was the Attorney General then, too, I <em>think.</em> Alan Gell obviously didn’t have the “adequate resources to mount a vigorous and highly qualified defense,” nor to subsequently go after his prosecutors in a civil action. Here are some other cases of NC people who didn’t have the comparable “adequate resources,” and where no action was taken against their prosecutors (who also withheld evidence).
<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/misconduct/series/story/386638.html[/url]”>http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/misconduct/series/story/386638.html</a></p>
<p>While it appears that Nifong was punished appropriately, why did Roy Cooper go after him so vigorously, when the prosecutors in Alan Gell’s case (and other cases like his) got no more than a slap on the wrist? One does have to wonder. What do you think the difference is?</p>
<p>“While it appears that Nifong was punished appropriately,…”</p>
<p>I’m not sure everyone would agree with that statement. </p>
<p>In my opinion, the issue of “adequate resources” doesn’t diminish what happened in this case. These families were still harmed and exploited. The harm should not be diminished because they were able to seek justice ! :o</p>
<p>Just from casual observation, it appears to me that prosecutors hardly ever publicly admit to an error in judgment. What we’ve seen in spectacular fashion in recent years are the flaws in the American criminal justice system, and they were they before, clear for all to see. But many Americans just dismissed the complaints of the abused and wrongly convicted. And that disturbs me; that some folks are just waking up to injustice. As a great American once said “…injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”</p>
<p>jack, I also think that the media ultimately helped the Duke case end the way it did in the long run. Maybe these other tragic stories of “injustice” just aren’t as interesting, and don’t make the media? How many times did we read that this alleged case was the “perfect storm”. It had all the elements- a prominent university, rich vs. poor, black vs. white and an alleged horrendous sexual crime.</p>
<p>Who’s fault is that? Certainly not the fault of the families whose lives were totally destoyed for over a year.</p>
<p>Whether these families were “able to seek justice” or not, Roy Cooper was faced with the same ultimate decision: how to fairly “punish” a prosecutor (or prosecutors) who withhold key evidence and continue to pursue conviction in a case that (they are well aware) doesn’t hold water. (And in the case of Alan Gell, in particular, what the prosecutors did there was far, far more blatant and ultimately harmful, in my opinion.) </p>
<p>So, in Roy Cooper’s case, what do you think the difference was in giving Gell’s prosecutors nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and disbarring Nifong? I really have no idea, but I can guess. I do think when Cooper decides to run for NC Governor (which I’m sure he has in his sights), his decision in Gell’s case will overshadow anything positive he did in this case, and will most certainly come back to haunt him.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that the “media ultimately helped the Duke case.” Again, though, the families’ access to “adequate resources” certainly helped there. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong, just answering the question of “what happens to people who don’t have adequate resources.”</p>