What did Mike Nifong do that was so wrong?

Question

I realize that he publicly accused several players of rape, but ultimately had to drop the case because the accuser later recanted. I don't understand why Nifong is being threatened with santcions however. Everyday in this country prosecutors make arrests based on initial findings and later release suspects when more evidence comes forward. Believing innocent people are guilty is part of our criminal justice system. Did he withhold evidence? Arrest someone he believed to be not guilty? Did he plant or fabricate evidence? What has he done wrong other than make a mistake in judgement?

Answer 1

Most prosecutors gather the majority of the evidence first BEFORE they indict, not after as was done in this case. Also when they commit breaches such as this one, defense attorneys are reluctant to press ethics charges against them because they will probably end up facing the same person involved in another case they have and that would make the situation even more untenable. This one was under the glaring lights of nationwide media attention and could not be overlooked.
Here is what Mike Nifong did that was so wrong
1) He went out and gave 73 interviews which called the guys "Hooligans" and " racist thugs". In essence, his statements inflamed racial tensions and also prejudiced the potential jury pool.
Most competent attorneys, either would have said " no comment" or " there seems to have been a crime that was committed and we will follow the evidence to find the truth and justice"
2) In one of his early interviews, he claimed that the players were not cooperating. This was a lie. These guys were clamoring to give up their DNA and spoke with the police readliy
3) He gave an interview in early April, he stated that the DNA testing would exonerate the innocent. It did. The results came back April 10,2006- 8 days before he indicted these boys which clearly showed NONE of the 46 Lacrosse players who were there had deposited saliva or seminal fluid on the alleged accuser. The initial report further stated that they found 4 other deposits of male DNA on and in the accuser which did not match any of the known samples. This included the boyfriend whom she claimed she had not slept with in over a week prior to the attack. Now to be descriptive and clear, sperm survives 3-4 days inside a womans body, the samples as described by the DNA specialists had not been degraded which mean they had to have been deposited within that 3-4 day period which showed she was lying from the start
4) He directed how the Durham P.D were to do the police " lineup" where there were no fillers to ensure that the story was true. Fillers are added of people who could not possibly be associated with the case and if the alleged victim had chosen one of them, they would have known it was a hoax. So it was like shooting fish in a barrel- she could not go wrong with choosing a Lacrosse player BUT she went wrong with choosing 2 out of the 3 players. We all knew about Reade Seligman's alibi. After the case was dropped, we also found out about Colin Finnerty's alibi which did not have him in the house at all. He stated he left when she got there, went and bought food, went back to his dorm and was on his cel phone with his sister and he had the proof to back it up.
5)Whether intentional or not, personally I think it was intentional, he needed to get the black voters behind him to win the nomination for Atty General in the primary. It was his first time running for the office ( he had been appointed in 2005) and he was behind in the polls- behind a lady he had fired from the AGs office when he was appointed-Freda Black and desperately needed the black vote. They came out in droves to vote for him.in both the primary and the General Election.
6)He had a 2nd set of testing done by the FBI which ALSO cleared the boys. What he did was take that information and bury it in the 3,000 odd pages he provided to the defense. The DNA testing lab stated in their testimony in Dec that Nifong never requested a final report that would have summarized and included the exculpatory evidence. This they said was the first time that had ever happened.
7)He refused to listen to the former defendants attorneys prior to the indictments when they had information that would have been useful to the case.
8) After the indictments, the attorneys tried again to provide the information and he had told them he was not going to listen to works of fiction- surprising since he had listened to a work of fiction in the first place.
9) He himself NEVER spoke to the accuser until Dec 2006 where her tall tale changed yet again. FIrst her rape started after midnight and one was in front, one had a broomstick and one sodomized her. Then one held her down and she scratched them (none had any scratches and they all had had on short sleeved shirts). Then it was 20, then 3, then 5, then 4 then back to 3 rapists. Now I personally know 2 rape victims and they told me, the minor changes they had in their statements related to the length of time of their moments of hell and clothing type because they were able to see them clearly but things like facial features, those never wavered unlike this liar who descriptions shifted like the sands in the Sahara. The day after speaking with her himself, the rape charges were dropped but the others stayed and he made comments such as " aren't you sorry that you showed me your time line alibi
10) Then when he realized just how much his nuts were in a vice, out came the 2nd time line where the accuser changed the time line to state the attack started 1/2 hour earlier that previousl stated, which was supposed to ensnare Seligman. He did not do due diligence because if he had he would have dropped all charges instead of " staying the course" and turned around and put that female in jail for filing a false police report and committing perjury to the grand jury. The defense lawyers pointed out that there was yet another problem with the time line. At the new time she claimed she was being pushed around and forced into the bathroom and the attack began, she was on her cel phone with her father. So the public was supposed to believe she kept quiet and said nothing to her father while she was being pushed around and being prepped for rape.
The charges brought against Nifong are justified and he should be disbarred.

Answer 2

Mike Nifong

Answer 3

I believe Nifong acted in the best interests of Durham and truly believed that these 3 men were guilty when the case was first breaking. He requested the arrests based on the limited evidence that was available early in the trial (much of it based on testimony and the proof that there was a party hosted by a group that these 3 guys were part of).

After DNA evidence was taken, Nifong only released the evidence that supported the claim of guilt and did not release any conflicting DNA evidence. He should have made all of the evidence available. This being examined to determine whether he purposely withheld this information from the defendants.

There is also a question about whether the a reasonable person would consider these men guilty if they had all of the information available to them that Nifong had available. In other words, did he ignore the evidence to further another cause.

The fact that he continued to support the claims of the accuser until her statements were recanted did not show good judgement. People expect a DA to have good judgement, so this puts his job at risk.

Answer 4

I asked a question sort of like yours. But he was wrong. My thing is what you said. I used to work in the legal field. Everyday in this country prosecutors act just like he does.They are rarely disbarred. He went after rich men so they were going to make a statement out of him. I wish the public was this passionate when prosecutors do the same thing to the INNOCENT poor and INNOCENT minorities over and over again. We hear about that 17 year old that had consensual relations with a 15 year old. That isn't rape because they were both underage. Now he has given up his college career and his future just like those Duke boys. And he served time. Those boys didn't. And after all this the prosecutor is defiant. He is pressed on keeping this innocent honor roll student in jail after years. Why aren't they looking into what the prosecutor did in that case? What a double standard. He needs to go down like Nifong. It will never happen since this guy doesn't look like the majority. The justice system has issues and it don't start with Nifong.

Answer 5

Simple - he brought charges because he was in a re-election campaign and he used the race card to help him win. He charged those men because they were white and he knew it would make him look impartial for the black voters - even though he never even spoke with the woman making the accusations until just a few days before she recanted. "Believing innocent people are guilty is part of our criminal justice system" - since when did that take the place of "innocent until proven guilty"? DA's have the obligation of investigating the claims BEFORE they bring charges before a grand jury - NIFONG DID NOT DO THAT and now he is facing the errors of his way,

Answer 6

i'm shocked that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have not shown as much as lend help to the accuser yet. IF this undertaking isn't brushed aside you will see a backlash in assessment to something you have ever seen. Is the DA incorrect? he's done. he will in no way be suitable back. i'm going to wager he turns to coaching regulation in a school that celebrates his sort of creativity in upholding the regulation. you recognize, a place like Columbia college, or Berkley.

Answer 7

Withholding dna evidence that cleared the players. It was right around election time. Wanted to be sure he would be re-elected by being "tough on crime".

Answer 8

he had exculpatory evidence early in the investigation. He KNEW they were innocent of rape, but charged them anyway.

There are also accusations of withholding evidence.

Answer 9

Can't read or something?

Jeez.....can't believe you even asked that one!