Duke 3 Want Nifong In Jail

Trading places:

Beleaguered and disbarred former District Attorney Mike Nifong, who prosecuted the Duke University lacrosse rape case, could wind up in jail if a motion is granted asking that criminal charges be filed against him, FOX News has learned.

The three Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape by a stripper plan to file the motion Friday against the ex-Durham County district attorney who built the case against them.

If the motion asking for criminal sanctions against Nifong is granted, the prosecutor could land in prison.

The players, who have been exonerated, are also asking for financial reimbursement.

Nifong finally has his legacy -- the Nifong Law.

On Thursday, North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley signed legislation that grants him the authority to remove any district attorneys or judges who lose their law license. While the law was crafted partially because of Nifong, it will likely be moot in his case.

I kind of doubt this will ever come to pass, but I also doubted the Duke 3 would be declared "innocent" and that Nifong would be disbarred. The nice surprises keep coming, so who knows?

KC Johnson has been posting almost all the video from the disbarment proceding. Viewed without context, it's disappointing that Nifong often sounds reasonable and credible in claiming he just made a mistake. But that's without context. In discussing the contempt motion, Johnson once again underscores Nifong's plainly-contradictory defenses as regard his failure to disclose the DNA results. From the Duke 3's motion, Nifong...

told three diametrically opposed stories about his knowledge of the exculpatory DNA test results, which can accurately be paraphrased as follows: First Story: Ignorance Defense

I did not know about the potentially exculpatory results or that the Defendants had not been provided with the results until December 13, 2006, when I received their Motion, and I immediately took steps to clear it up by having Dr. Meehan here to testify.

Second Story: Knowing/Privacy Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, and I knew the Defendants did not have those results, because I agreed with Dr. Meehan to produce a report that would exclude those results under a theory that it protected the privacy of the players; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

Third Story: Knowing/Negligence Defense + No Harm/No Foul

I knew about the potentially exculpatory results all along, but I did not realize that I had failed to disclose them to the Defendants; regardless, the Defendants have the results now.

The fact that those stories are so diametrically opposed demonstrates that Mr. Nifong was simply continuing a pattern of deception about the DNA evidence in this case that he began nearly nine months earlier, on March 29, 2006, when he first began to suggest to the public that the failure to find a DNA link between the lacrosse players and the accuser’s rape kit items was because condoms were used (when he knew the accuser said they were not) or because there was no DNA on those items sufficient for comparison purposes (when he knew DNA Security had found DNA on items that did not match the players). That pattern continued through the spring, summer, and fall, when he engaged in the repeated misrepresentations and violations detailed in this Motion.

Nifong's attempt to do the impossible -- reconcile these mutually contradictory statements, technically called, in the legal world, "lies" -- on the stand at his hearing, while under oath, might just be considered perjury.

Johnson also notes that one of the few previous felony cases Nifong handled was a rape as well. And as soon as the DNA results came back with another man's profile, he dropped the charges against the accused.

So his claim that he did not find five or so (who's counting?) different DNA profiles, none of which matching any Duke lacrosse player, nevermind the Duke 3 themselves, on Mangum's body "probative" in any direction is dishonest. He certainly found it "probative" in the past. That's not to say he was obligated to treat the Duke 3 case precisely as he treated the earlier case; but it does put lie to the claim he didn't consider the DNA in the Duke 3 case "probative" in any way at all.

posted by Ace at 03:41 PM

| Access Comments