Do you think D.A. Mike Nifong of the 'Duke Rape Case', should be disbarred ???

Question

If not then why ?

Answer 1

Yes, it looks like he purposely hid evidence in order to further his political career. That seems criminal to me, I feel bad for those guys, having parties with strippers might not be a wise decision on their part, but they don't deserve to have their lives ruined for it.

Answer 2

Nifong should be disbarred at the very least, if not, put in jail. Here is a guy who did not consider the fact that he was causing 3 families tremendous grief and ruined these young men's lives just to keep his job. How selfish can one get?

1) He likely conspired to withold DNA evidence that would haved cleared the 3 boys of rape about 8 months ago. Meanwhile, the boys continue to pay a large legal bill for no reason at all, not to mention the worrying that is going on.

2) He failed to look at Reade Seligmann's phone records that would have proven that the accuser was wrong at the beginning of this case.

3) He allowed a rigged lineup with only Duke players. That is against normal procedures.

4) He biased the media by indicating that a crime likely occured, even though he did not even question the "victim" or examine all of the counter evidence.

Answer 3

No. What he's done hasn't warranted disbarment. If you're a lawyer, you've probably read the cases of actual disbarment. In my state, the state bar publishes a monthly newsletter that outlines all the discipline cases at the back. What Nifong has done warrants punishment, but not disbarment. That's the "death penalty" for lawyers and you've got to pretty egregiously break rules (and show no remorse about it) to warrant disbarment.

Nifong hasn't shown much remorse (other than saying he regrets talking to the media so much early in the case), but the rules he broke haven't been too bad.

He deserves to be publicly disciplined, taken off the case, and possibly has lost all credibility to be a DA (which is not a punishment, just a practical reality), but it doesn't mean he should be disbarred.

Answer 4

So far he hasn't done anything that would result in his being disbarred.

Note that the ONLY case-related files that we have seen thus far are what have been released and interpreted by the DEFENSE, whose JOB is to try to keep anything that makes their clients look guilty from the public, to try to make the Accuser look like a liar, to try to get the charges dropped, and to sway public opinion in their favor - regardless of whether their clients are actually guilty or innocent. Out of OVER 2500+ pages of evidence turned over by the Prosecution, the Defense has released FEWER THAN 200 pages. WHY is the Defense keeping the other 2300+ pages HIDDEN, if there's truly "nothing" in them? We will find out at the trial.

If the Defendants are truly innocent, they should be DEMANDING a trial, so the D.A. can be proven to have no evidence in court, under oath, in front of a national audience. Any future lawsuits would have a much better chance if the case actually goes to trial. Why are they so afraid of having all of their teammates et. al testify, if they are totally innocent?

Answer 5

Definitely. Witholding evidence is a sanctionable offense for any attorney. That he did this while in public office and in such a serious case ought to be grounds for immediate removal from office and disbarment.

Answer 6

might want to he be disbarred? No. i don't have self assurance so. IMHO, he merely befell to do publicly what others have performed privately even as their cases have not been so extreme profile. He might want to, inspite of the indisputable fact that, get replaced as District legal professional. one in each of the different solutions requested even if he did it because the human beings who elected him demanded he do it. I say actual not. many of the activities to that end got here earlier his re-election marketing campaign. He did it because he needed to win votes.. or a minimum of not lose any. He had to do inspite of change into mandatory to cover up that he had insisted on prosecuting what had consistently been a susceptible, if not non-existent case. He also couldn't replace his thoughts and drop prices earlier the election for worry of being considered as incompetent or wishy-washy. What extremely burned my biscuits with a view to talk is the very truth even as a number of the non-accused crew contributors refused to testify or inspite of, he went and produce them up on previous prices hostile to them that could want to have remained on the shelf. It change into extremely minor stuff, which to be honest i do not bear in mind the specifics of. It change into petty and it change into vindictive.

Answer 7

Yes he and other grandstanding prosecutors should be and tossed in jail to boot, their primary job s to see justice administered, not just slam any one who happens to be accused, but no most go for the conviction rate ad don't care if someone is innocent, he wrecked those players lives and made a mockery out of justice doing it.

Answer 8

This is a fun one. Republicans think this guy should be disbarred for making mistakes, but yet look the other way repeatedly when Bush makes a mistake. Where is the consistency?

Answer 9

He may have been a prosecutor for 27 years, he sure blew this one, tried to make a case for himself. Watch-after he DOES drop the other charges, the state is going to pay millions of $$$ when they get sued. Rightfully so.

Answer 10

Maybe not disbarred, but definately taken off of the case.