Mike Nifong- One of the most unethical prosecutors in history
| 27
|
by user Tylersarticles
Tyler Hissey
Mike Nifong: Impeding on Ethics for Personal Gain
There are hundreds of ethical prosecutors all over the country who do their best to carry out justice. However, there are a few overzealous prosecutors who will do almost anything to win certain cases. Mike Nifong, the current District Attorney in Durham, North Carolina, is the perfect example of one. I have followed his performance in the Duke lacrosse case, involving rape accusations and race, very closely over the past year in utter disbelief. After seeing the case play out, I have come to the conclusion that he is one of the most unethical prosecutors in our nation’s history. Nifong made derogatory comments early on that tainted any potential jury pool, conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence, and failed to meet with the accuser for over nine months. He also refused to meet with defense attorneys to discuss exculpatory evidence and went ahead with a case that had flimsy evidence for personal political gain. For his egregious behavior, I think that Mike Nifong should be disbarred immediately.
Following allegations that members of the Duke University lacrosse team raped an exotic dancer at an off campus party, every major new station came to Durham, North Carolina. Every news outlet wanted an interview with the local prosecutor, and Nifong did not disappoint. According to Nifong’s own account, he gave around seventy interviews in the first two weeks after the allegations had become public (Neff 1). In several of these interviews, he made derogatory comments about the Duke Lacrosse team. In one interview, Nifong referred to members of the lacrosse team as a “bunch of hooligans” (Stix 13) and told reporters, “I am one hundred percent sure a rape occurred” (13). These remarks clearly tainted any potential jury pool. Still worse, according to several legal experts, is Nifong’s criticism of the members of the team exercising their constitutional rights to counsel. Nifong told a local reporter, “One wonders if they are so innocent then why they need lawyers?” (13) and “Their rich daddies are going to buy them expensive lawyers” (13). In my opinion, these derogatory statements prevented the defendants from ever receiving a fair trial in Durham.
Nifong also misled the public by telling the media that members of the lacrosse team were not cooperating with authorities. These statements jeopardized the safety of every lacrosse player at Duke. Radical protesters and hate groups threatened to harm members of the lacrosse team because of Nifongs’ statements, they believed that team’s members were covering up a rape. In recent months, it has been proven that every player cooperated to the fullest with authorities. Every member even volunteered to take polygraph tests, but Nifong rejected the notion and continuously told the media they were not cooperating. These comments were prejudicial to the accused students receiving a fair trial and led to the accused being railroaded by the media. No prosecutor should ever make derogatory comments about a case in the fashion that Nifong did. Also, no prosecutor should mislead the public with fraudulent statements and drastically contribute to a harsh rush to judgment and harassment of the suspects in their case.
With some of his statements, Nifong made everyone think that he had strong evidence to prove the players guilt. However, reports have now indicated that the only available evidence points to the players’ innocence. In my opinion, he simply let the case get ahead of the facts. Nifong told the local newspaper in Durham that “DNA results will exonerate all innocent members of the team” (Stix 13). He then forced all forty-six white members on the roster to submit DNA samples. The DNA evidence came back negative, but Nifong broke his word, originally saying that the results would exonerate all innocent suspects. All of the players on the team, who have stood by their innocence from day one, thought that this would prove to everyone that the charges were false. After making such bold statements about the case, Nifong could no longer just back down, even if he ever thought the allegations were untrue. He decided to hire a private DNA lab to conduct more advanced tests to further improve his case, which was weakening by the day. Yet again, the new DNA results cleared every member of the team.
On December 15 th, 2006, in a court hearing, Brian Meehan, a DNA specialist at the private lab Nifong hired after the initial tests came back negative, testified that Nifong and the lab conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence. The new evidence showed that the accuser had semen inside of her from five unidentified males (Radutzky, Simon 1). This contradicted the accuser’s story that she had not had sexual intercourse with anyone for two weeks prior to the night of the alleged rape. This also proved that Nifong perjured himself in a previous hearing, where he stated that he had no other DNA evidence. If it is proven in court that Nifong deliberately conspired to withhold this evidence, then he will be disbarred and could face criminal charges.
The DNA results were not good for Nifong’s case or for his political career. Nifong was up for re-election for the district attorney position in Durham at the time of the allegations. According to Nicholas Stix, Nifong was losing ground fast in the polls for the primary election before the accusations of rape. He needed a high profile case to increase his chances of winning and prosecuting the Duke case was the perfect opportunity in his eyes (Stix 15). Durham is a city with one of the largest African American populations in the entire state of North Carolina. Since the accuser was African American, the community was divided about the case from the start, but Nifong assured members of the African American community that a rape had occurred. He told the community at a public forum, "I'm not going to allow Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham” (Associated Press 1). He promised the African American community an indictment because he needed the African American vote to have chance of being elected. He even allowed members of the New Black Panther Party, a known hate group, at some of the earliest court hearings. In a 60 Minutes piece about the case, video footage was shown of members of the New Black Panther Party chanting “guilty” outside of the Durham Court House.
Nifong’s biggest competitor in the May primary was Freda Black (McElroy 1). Black was an assistant district attorney in Durham for a number of years, but was fired by Nifong after he was appointed the DA position, by Governor Mike Easley. In my personal opinion, without the indictment that he promised to members of the Durham community, Nifong would have lost in the primary to Black because she was the favored to win the election before the rape allegations surfaced. The African American community viewed Nifong as a hero, standing up for the truth, and the case quickly brought him to local celebrity status. As many African Americans in Durham have now realized, Nifong simply used them and this case to be elected. Even after the DNA results came back negative and without his meeting with the accuser, Nifong decided to go ahead with indictments with very flimsy evidence. I can’t imagine a prosecutor going ahead with a case for political reasons in a more obvious fashion than Nifong did in the Duke case.
The only evidence Nifong was able to present to the grand jury in order to get indictments was testimony from the accuser when she picked her alleged assailants from a photo lineup. However, the photo lineup procedure may be one of the most unethical actions from Nifong and Durham authorities in the entire case. According to defense attorneys, Nifong and Durham investigators went against the state of North Carolina and Durham’s guidelines for photo lineup procedures and provided the accuser with a photo lineup that only featured members of the lacrosse team (Scott 1). It is common practice for all law enforcement agencies throughout the nation to also include fillers, people who obviously did not commit the crime, to test the credibility of the witness. There were no fillers used meaning the accuser could have picked any one and Nifong would have tried to convict them. Nifong conspired with Durham investigators and took pictures of every white member of the team from the Duke Athletics website. Some legal experts have said that the accuser “simply had a multiple choice test with no wrong answers” (Meadows, Thomas 2). Legal experts have stated numerous times in the media that the improper photo procedure is grounds alone for all of the charges to be dropped.
After two tries of going through the photos of every member on the roster where the accuser could not identify any of the men, she finally chose David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann. All three were indicted on charges of rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault a few weeks later. Nifong went ahead with the indictments, even though he knew the only evidence he had was from the accuser’s testimony, which had already changed numerous times. Before the indictments, Nifong knew the accuser’s testimony was his only solid evidence and that her story had changed several times already. I feel that the only reason he still went ahead with the case was because the primary elections were just around the corner.
Little did Nifong know, Seligmann was immediately able to produce an alibi with video footage and cell phone records that proved he could not have been at the house during the time of the alleged rape. There was video footage that he was taking money out of an ATM at a Wachovia bank branch during the time of the alleged attack. The Wachovia branch was several miles away from the house where the alleged rape occurred (Avram, Cuomo, Setrakian 1). Seligmann’s attorney tried contacting Nifong for months with this exonerating evidence, but he refused to meet with him or any of the defense attorneys for the accused. I believe that Nifong did not want to see Seligmann’s exculpatory evidence because it would have hurt his political agenda.
As a prosecutor, Nifong’s job is to carry out justice and not to win cases. Every prosecutor has to work hand in hand with defense attorneys to do so. In my Criminal Justice course that I took last semester, an assistant prosecutor from Pinellas County and a defense attorney spoke to our class. They presented about how important the relationship between prosecutors and defense attorneys is. They both agreed that it is essential for prosecutors and defense attorneys to work hand in hand to reach justice. It is simply mind-boggling that Nifong did not to communicate with the defense attorneys for months. He knew that he put it all on the line for this case, but the truth was not on his side and meeting with defense attorneys would hurt the case he needed.
Following the hearing where Meehan testified that Nifong deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence, Nifong met with the accuser to talk about the events of March 13 th for the first time. (Lewis 1). I will say that again, for the first time! Nifong knew that the only chance he could get a conviction was with her testimony, so some legal experts have also theorized that he did not meet with her before the elections because he needed to prolong the case for as long as possible. Following the meeting, the accuser changed the story for the fifth time and told Nifong, “I can no longer be sure a rape occurred” (Beard 1). Nifong dropped the rape charges the following day, the Friday before Christmas, but the charges of kidnapping and sexual assault still remain to this day. Once again, the accuser changed her story and the man who told CNN, NBC, ABC, Fox News, and MSNBC that he was certain a rape occurred was proven wrong.
On December 28, 2006 the North Carolina State bar filed the first series of ethics charges against Nifong. The charges accused Nifong of making derogatory remarks about the case “that were prejudicial to the administration of justice and of engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation” (Associated Press 1). The complaint contains over fifty specific examples of derogatory remarks Nifong made to the press. Nearly a month later, the second and more serious set of charges from the North Carolina State Bar were filed against him. These charges accuse Nifong of "systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion and being prejudicial to the administration of justice when he withheld DNA evidence to mislead the court” (Associated Press 1). If he is found guilty of these charges, Nifong will be disbarred and with strong evidence against him; there is a good chance this will happen. After the first set of ethics charges, Nifong recused himself from the case and the case has been turned over to special prosecutors who are currently reviewing the evidence.
Recently, Nifong’s last name has even been used as a verb in some legal columns meaning to “frame an innocent person.” According to Orlando Sentinel and Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker, "now we can 'Nifong' someone when we want to trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes. In short, when we want to screw up someone's life" (Parker 1). Any prosecutor whose last name is a verb synonymous with corruption should not be practicing law anywhere.
I believe that Nifong should be disbarred and should be held personally accountable for his outrageous behavior in this case. It would be a difficult task to find an example of more gross prosecutorial misconduct. Fortunately, the accused all had the opportunity to defend themselves with outstanding and expensive lawyers. Their bills have reportedly reached over five million dollars. It makes you wonder how many people are currently in prison because they did not have the means to defend themselves like the accused in the Duke case and who were also victims of Nifong’s corruption. I predict and hope that Nifong will be disbarred and the state of North Carolina will be forced to pay a huge portion of the legal fees for the accused. I now fear that the next time a woman is actually raped; she will be taken less seriously because no prosecutor or law enforcement agency wants to be labeled as the next Nifong.
Nifong wanted the rape allegations to be true and let the case he wanted to exist get ahead of the truth. The derogatory remarks that he made early on, his conspiring to withhold DNA evidence, and the unethical procedures that he used are a level of egregious behavior that is unprecedented. In my opinion, Mike Nifong is one of the most unethical prosecutors in history, and he should be disbarred today before he has the chance to ruin more innocent lives for personal gain.
Works Cited
- Associated Press. "Complaints Against Mike Nifong." News and Observer 03 Dec. 2006. 01 Feb. 2007
- Associated Press. "Former Duke Lacrosse 'Rape' Prosecutor Charged with Withholding Evidence, Misleading Court." Foxnews. 24 Jan. 2007. 01 Feb. 2007
- Associated Press. "Nifong accused of breaking four rules of conduct." www.espn.com. 28 Dec. 2006. 01 Feb. 2007
- Avram, Eric, Chris Cuomo, and Lara Setrakian. "ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE: Key Evidence Supports Alibi in Potential Rape Defense for One Indicted Duke Player." ABC News. 19 Apr. 2006. 25 Feb. 2007
Beard, Aaron]. "Duke Lacrosse Case Takes Dramatic Turn." Washington Post. 23 Dec. 2006. 03 Feb. 2007
- Blythe, Anne. "Nifong Cites Attacker ID, Says More Tests Pending in Lacrosse Case." News and Observer. 12 Apr. 2006. 01 Feb. 2007
- Lewis, Julia. "Duke Lacrosse Accuser Subpoenaed, Meets with DA." WRAL.Com. 12 Jan. 2007. 15 Feb. 2007
- McElroy, Wendy. "Did Justice or Politics Drive Arrests in Duke Lacrosse Case?" The Independent Institute. 23 Apr. 2006. 25 Feb. 2007
- Meadows, Susannah, and Evan Thomas. "Doubts About Duke." Newsweek. 29 June 2006. 25 Feb. 2007
- Neff, Joseph. "Nifong Conduct Rebuked Early." News and Observer. 15 Jan. 2007. 28 Feb. 2007
- Parker, Kathleen. "Parody At Duke." 27 Dec. 2006. 5 Feb. 2007
- Taylor Jr., Stuart. "Witness for the Prosecution?" Slate. 29 Aug. 2006. 01 Feb. 2007
- Radutzky, Michael, Simon, Tanya. "Duke Rape Suspects Speak Out." www.cbsnews.com. 15 Oct. 2006. 29 Jan. 2007
- Radutzky, Michael, Simon, Tanya. "The Duke Case." 60 Minutes. 14 Jan. 2007. 1 Feb. 2007
- Scott, David. "Defense in Duke Lacrosse Case Claims Photo Lineup Flawed." USA Today. 14 Dec. 2006. 21 Jan. 2007
- Stix, Nicholas. "Nicholas Stix’ Absolutely Definitive Account of the Incredible Disappearing Duke Rape Hoax." 13 Jan. 2007. 23 Jan. 2007
