NC Bar Files Complaint Against Nifong; Punishments Range Up To Disbarment
UPDATE: Complaint Alleges "Dishonesty, Fraud, and Deceit" -- Quite A Ways Up From Merely Speaking Loosely With The Press

Document Here... At the Smoking Gun. Reading it now. It seems to be cataloguing Nifong's statements to the media as not merely being injurious to the accused, but false.

I see now why the first report only mentioned that one bite, as most of the 17 pages are quotes from Nifong and the dates he supplied those quotes to the meida.

Allegations 124 and 125 start the conclusory case against Nifong. (Page 11.) Those allege that Nifong made statements about the "attack" -- that no semen was left behind because a condom was used -- that he knew, or should have known, was untrue, based upon the "victim's" claim that no condom was used.

Thus, "misleading." Or a flat out lie. Picking and choosing which parts of his victim's story matched the evidence.

...

Okay... All the way through, and it does seem to be only about improper extrajudicial statements prejudicing the defendants, though there are those two specific recitations alleging misrepresentation. At the very end it says "Nifong engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation," but those charges are only directly addressed by the two sentences I noted.

Maybe it's a good sign -- they've decided to hang him already, and are just casting about for any pretext for doing so. Kind of rough justice for his deciding to hang the Duke Non-Rapist Lacrosse Players without a fully vetted case.

I guess the stuff about the improper photo array, and failure to produce DNA results, can't be addressed by the Bar until the judge in the case actually rules on these issues, in order not to prejudice his ruling?

...

This story is crap. The only one of the four citations of possible professional misconduct they cite is Nifong's making statements injurious to the reputations of the accused -- surely the most penny-ante of the charges, and one of the ones most frequently breached by prosecutors, right?

Gabriel, Michael, do tell: I don't want to be a total cynic, but I have a sneaking suspicion that many prosecutors -- not most, but many -- get away with some of the crap Nifong pulled on a regular basis. The difference here is these shoddy tactics being used in the service of something obviously so grossly unjust; that he would stoop to cheating because he grew to suspect his witness was a liar and the defendants were innocent.

And I also think the bar is hestitant to disbar any lawyer for practically anything, short of stealing a client's money or dealing crack.

But in this case, where we pass overzealousness easily into the realm of intentional malice, is it a decent possibility? Or still a likelihood of a mere slap on the wrist?

posted by Ace at 06:58 PM

| Access Comments