Pathetic

The Smoking Gun provides the letter Mike Nifong sent to the North Carolina bar on surrendering his law license. He claimed that he never had his law license framed because his dog chewed on it.

In a pathetic end to the Mike Nifong saga, the disgraced North Carolina prosecutor who handled the Duke rape investigation has turned in his law license, noting that he never framed or displayed the document because it had been damaged "by a puppy in her chewing stage." Additionally, in an August 7 letter to the North Carolina State Bar, Nifong noted that the law license also contained a misspelling of his middle name (which is Byron).

Can you get more pathetic than this?

Nifong accused three Duke lacrosse students of engaging in rape and sexual assualt on a woman despite no DNA evidence, a lack of corroborating evidence, witness statements that contradicted the accuser's statements, and an accuser whose own statements were contradictory and who was not fully deposed by Nifong's office until months later.

Nifong also made inflammatory statements and professed a slam dunk case against the trio, Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans, despite a paucity of actual evidence. It was those statements that got him in trouble with the State Bar, and for which he was forced to resign and have his law license revoked.

Nifong Officially Disbarred; Lawsuits Still Pending

One chapter in this sad tale is ended, but another is just beginning:

The North Carolina State Bar on Thursday issued a formal order disbarring former district attorney Mike Nifong for his handling of the now-discredited Duke lacrosse rape case.

Nifong must surrender his law license to the bar no later than 30 days from when he is served with the order. He also must pay costs associated with his June ethics trial.

A disciplinary hearing committee decided to disbar Nifong after finding he had committed at least two dozen violations of the state’s rules of professional conduct. The violations included lying to the court and withholding DNA evidence that showed genetic material from several males - though none from a Duke lacrosse player - had been found on the accuser.

The Duke 88 have yet to apologize for their dispicable actions throughout the whole affair, and Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann may still pursue legal action against Nifong and the City of Durham for their malicious prosecution.

Judge Orders Nifong Removal Effective Immediately

Yesterday, I reported that Mike Nifong said that he would step down as of July 13.

That wasn't fast enough for the judge, who ordered Nifong immediately suspended with pay, and that he would have a sheriff bar Nifong from any further business.

Judge Orlando Hudson filed his order this morning, suspending Nifong with pay. Nifong did not appear to be in his office this morning.

Hudson had announced Monday night that he planned to file the order today. In the document, he said Nifong's conduct had brought the office of district attorney into disrepute.

Nifong had pursued charges against three former Duke lacrosse players after a stripper said she had been raped at a team party in March 2006. The state attorney general this year cleared them of the charges and slammed Nifong's actions in the case.

Hudson, by suspending Nifong with pay, will take a first step in a process that allows Superior Court judges to oust district attorneys, elected officers of the court.

Gov. Mike Easley, who appointed Nifong to fill a vacancy in 2005, said Monday that he would begin looking for a replacement for Nifong.

Beth Brewer, a Durham resident, petitioned Hudson in February to remove Nifong, saying the prosecutor's misconduct stymied justice. "That man should not spend one more minute in office," Brewer said Monday.

Hudson asked Robert Zaytoun, a Wake County lawyer, to help prosecute the case against Nifong. Because the process has been used only one other time in North Carolina — against a New Hanover County district attorney who uttered a racial slur — Hudson said he is uncertain what to expect.

After a five-day disciplinary proceeding that concluded Saturday, Nifong stands guilty of numerous ethics violations and awaits the stripping of his law license. That will happen 30 days after the bar files a written order, which could take several weeks.

The judge has a point. North Carolina law is pretty specific as to what a disbarred lawyer can do and the process must be followed. It still is unjust that Nifong gets paid all through the interim given what he has wrought.

The judge also said that he would appoint a special prosecutor to look into criminal charges against Nifong, but his authority to make a move is not entirely clear.

Duke Trio Readies Lawsuits Against Nifong: UPDATE: Duke Settles

[A]ttorneys for Seligmann and the other two exonerated men, Collin Finnerty, 20, and David Evans, 24, are preparing to file a civil lawsuit against Nifong. The bar association found that Nifong withheld evidence that would have helped the men’s defense attorneys and lied about it.

“For me, the only thing I can worry about now is getting back in the classroom, and getting back on the lacrosse field,” Seligmann said. “I do know the attorneys are going to be filing for sanctions for Mr. Nifong.”

What makes Nifong's behavior all the more unbelievable is that he still thinks that something happened at the house where the accuser alleged an incident occurred. He repeated that statement on the stand. What part of "no evidence", does Nifong not understand? There was no evidence that the accuser was sexually assualted at the party, no members of the lacrosse team had any DNA linkages to the accuser, nor was there any other evidence to link the accuser to the team other than her say-so.

Even the accuser's statements cannot be trusted given that she gave multiple versions, each was more implausible than the previous one.

Nifong pushed ahead with a case in any event.

Now, Nifong is disbarred. He will be facing lawsuits from the Duke trio. The money won in any judgment will be little comfort to Finnerty, Evans, or Seligmann and their families, but it will be a vindication for what they always asserted was their innocence in the matter.

UPDATE:
While the suits against Nifong are warming up, Duke University has entered confidential settlements with the trio over the way the university handled matters. Duke University issued the following press release, which also includes statements by the Duke trio:

This has been an extraordinary year for Duke students David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, who were accused of serious crimes they did not commit. In April, after a thorough review, the North Carolina Attorney General declared that they were innocent of all charges and that the charges never should have been brought. We welcomed their exoneration and deeply regret the difficult year they and their families have had to endure. They conducted themselves with great dignity during their long ordeal.

These young men and their families have been the subject of intense scrutiny that has taken a heavy toll. The Board of Trustees and the President have also determined that it is in the best interests of the Duke community to eliminate the possibility of future litigation and move forward. For these reasons, and after considerable deliberation, the trustees have agreed to a settlement with each student. Beyond this statement, the resolution is a private matter among the students, their families and Duke.

This past year has been hard for many people who care about Duke -– for students, faculty, staff, alumni, families and friends –- and for the three students and their families most of all. We resolve to bring the Duke family together again, and to work to protect others from similar injustices in the criminal justice system in the future.

STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS, COLLIN FINNERTY AND READE SELIGMANN:

Today, we are pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with Duke University to resolve any differences between us.

Years ago, each of us made a decision to attend Duke because it is one of the greatest universities in the nation. We chose to represent the University on the athletic field and in the classroom as student athletes. We were honored to be admitted and proud to wear the Duke uniform and to compete against the best lacrosse teams in the nation. Duke is a very special place. It balances top-notch academics and athletics, and it offers unparalleled opportunities to its students. We were drawn to Duke because of its sense of community.

The events of the last year tore the Duke community apart, and forcibly separated us from the University we love. It is impossible to fully describe what we, our families and team endured. As we said from day one, we are innocent. But it took three hundred and ninety-four days, and the intervention of the North Carolina Attorney General, before our innocence was formally declared. We were the victims of a rogue prosecutor concerned only with winning an election, and others determined to railroad three Duke lacrosse players and to diminish the reputation of Duke University. Throughout our ordeal, however, we never forgot the lessons we learned, both on and off the field, about character, integrity, and honor. Those lessons, and the love and support of our wonderful families, friends, lawyers and supporters across the country helped us to prevail against those who refused to seek the truth and to protect all citizens from injustice.

We hope that today’s resolution will begin to bring the Duke family back together again, and we look forward to working with the University to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of the last year are never forgotten.

One has to wonder what of the G88 - the 88 professors who professed to know what really happened and have all but assumed the Nifong persona of knowing that something happened despite absolutely no factual evidence to sustain such a position. Does this settlement preclude going after the G88, or is that still an open matter?

Also, the official date that Nifong is set to resign is July 13.

Nifong Disbarred

This is incomplete justice, but it definitely sends a very strong statement to Mike Nifong. He was disbarred by the NC State Bar yesterday.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Nifong lied to the court, made material misrepresentations of fact, and withheld exculpatory evidence.

In court documents and hearings in May, June and September, Nifong told two different judges that he had no more evidence that could be considered helpful to the defense. Nifong said he didn't realize the defense hadn't been given all the DNA test results until December - a suggestion Williamson found laughable.

"He knew. He admits he knew," Williamson said during Nifong attorney Dudley Witt's closing argument. "How could he not know if he had read it? How could he not know?"

Witt admitted his client made "multiple, egregious mistakes." He insisted none were made intentionally, but struggled to offer another explanation.

"It didn't click," Witt said as he tried to explain away one of Nifong's errors. "His mind is just his mind. That's the way it works. It just didn't click."

Along with accusing Nifong of withholding the DNA evidence and making misleading and inflammatory comments about the three athletes, the North Carolina State Bar said he lied to both the court and bar investigators. The committee found Nifong broke the state's rules of professional conduct more than two dozen times.

"I would say there are no winners in this scenario," said Kevin Finnerty, Collin's father. "With that said, I think there's closure. I think it's appropriate and I think it's justice.

"I think he brought it on himself."

The players' defense attorneys have pledged to seek criminal contempt charges next week in Durham from a judge who has already reminded Nifong he has the authority to impose punishment. They suggested the calls for a federal civil rights investigation were not out of line.

"I don't think any of us are done with Mr. Nifong yet," said Jim Cooney, Seligmann's attorney.

The claim that Nifong didn't make those statements or withheld information willingly is laughable. He knew what was in the file, and what he could or could not say. He ignored the rules, he ignored the law, and he ignored the rights of the defendants to the evidence - especially the part that was exculpatory and would have shown that they had nothing to do with any alleged criminal acts.

Cooney is right. They're not done with Nifong yet. The lawsuits are just getting started, and I fully expect the lawsuit to include not only Nifong, but the city of Durham, and Duke University (deep pockets after all).

Priceless Quote of the Day: UPDATE - Nifong Resigns DA Post From Stand

...maybe [update ed - added the "I" to clarify but not to deceive] got carried away a little bit.

-Mike Nifong, former Durham District Attorney.

You did a whole lot more than get carried away a little bit. You prosecuted three men who had no business being indicted in the first place. There was no actual evidence tying the men to the crime, and one even had a full alibi, including photos and video surveillance proving that he wasn't at the scene of the alleged incident. Yet, Nifong indicted Seligmann anyway.

The DNA evidence showed that Finnerty, Evans, and Seligmann didn't so much as lay a hand on the accuser, and yet they were indicted.

You now say you expect to be punished? Of course you will be. The problem is that you will not have to live with the suffering and agony that you inflicted upon the three out of your zeal to prosecute without having fully investigated matters.

UPDATE:
Mike Nifong resigns his position as district attorney for Durham from the stand.

"My community has suffered enough," a tearful Mike Nifong said Friday during his testimony at his State Bar ethics trial to the surprise of the families and defense attorneys of the cleared lacrosse players, as well as others in the courtroom.

"Throughout the years I have served as a prosecutor I have always tried to do the right thing," a tearful Mike Nifong said. "In this case, I was trying to do the right thing. Much of the criticism directed to me in the is case is justified. The allegations that I'm a liar, however, are not justified."

Nifong said regardless of the State Bar's decision, it would not be fair to the people in Durham County to be represented by "someone who is not held in high esteem."

Actually, Nifong is a liar, but worse than that - he engaged in prosecutorial misconduct that undermines the faith of the public in the criminal justice system and endangered the prosecutions of hundreds of other cases in Durham. This is far from over, however, as the families may still pursue civil damages against Nifong.

Ethics Charges Will Not Be Dropped Against Nifong

Mike Nifong must be living in a dream world. Did he actually think that the raft of ethics charges against him stemming from his abhorrent actions in the Duke case would be dropped by the North Carolina State Bar?

A disciplinary committee rejected a request Friday to dismiss ethics charges against the former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, who is accused of withholding critical DNA evidence from the defense.

The decision by the three-member panel came shortly after an hourlong hearing, at which committee Chairman F. Lane Williamson repeatedly challenged the arguments made by lawyers for Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong.

“I just don’t see where this gets you on your argument to dismiss,” Williamson said.

The North Carolina State Bar has accused Nifong of breaking several rules of professional conduct as he led the investigation into allegations that three lacrosse players raped an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006.

This week, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges in the case. He said the three players indicted were innocent, and his investigators concluded that no attack occurred.

In doing so, he portrayed Nifong as a “rogue” prosecutor who rushed the case by failing to verify the accuser’s allegations.

“I don’t want to make comments outside the courtroom,” Nifong said after Friday’s hearing. “You’ll have an opportunity to hear things I have to say inside the courtroom.”

The panel agreed. There's no reason to drop the charges against Nifong because his actions cannot be explained away as simple mistakes.

Disbarred and sanctioned. That's my bet.

Mrs. Lawhawk (an attorney in her own right) thinks that the best thing for Nifong to do would be to fall on his sword and quit the practice of law. That is the only honorable thing left for Nifong to do, but I doubt that he'd take the honorable route out considering that he was attempting to weasel out of the ethics charges and his so-called apology to the Duke three was anything but.

The News and Observer notes that the quest to convict hid a lack of evidence. Are you reading that New York Times? Your reporters claimed that there was more than sufficient evidence to not only go forward with the case even as it appeared that there was no DNA evidence or any other evidence supporting the rape charges, but continue to keep your readers in the dark about your own shoddy and biased reporting on the case. As the N&O reports:

A News & Observer examination of Nifong's handling of the case, based on documents and dozens of interviews, adds new insights about the investigation's focus on shoring up Mangum's claims. Nifong ignored contrary facts, withheld evidence favorable to the accused and refused to discuss the case with defense lawyers.

His lead investigator, Linwood Wilson, pressured witnesses and produced different timelines and accounts to support Mangum's shifting statements.

There is no evidence that Nifong or any investigator challenged Mangum to explain the contradictions in her versions of what happened at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. Nor did they speak with the doctor who conducted the pelvic examination hours after Mangum said she had been raped.

Baffling those who knew him along with the millions of people around the world who came to know his name, Nifong stuck with Mangum's stories. As he fought to win the Democratic nomination for district attorney, he made a series of decisions and inflammatory statements that propelled the case into an international scandal. It turned three college students into criminal suspects and brought scorn on Durham, Duke and almost every other institution involved.

That forms the basis of the ethics charges against Nifong. And that will ultimately lead to him losing his career over this.

For the record, Mangum is the last name of the accuser.

Nifong's Asinine Apology

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who attempted to railroad the three Duke lacrosse players, issued a statement claiming to apologize "...To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused".

Let's get this straight. Nifong withheld evidence that specifically and explictly exonerated the three players. He knew for weeks and months that the three did not commit rape and yet continued to make statements that suggested that the rape case was going forward.

Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct was extreme and abhorrent and violated the ethical and moral obligations of an officer of the court. He abused his power and three people - the three Duke players - had their lives irrevocably harmed.

This non-apology apology is insufficient.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper was explicit in stating that the three players weren't simply not guilty of a rape, but that no such attack ever even occurred. It was the figment of the accuser's imagination, and that Nifong didn't even bother to interview her until months later and even then she couldn't keep her story straight from one version to the next.

No, Nifong can and should suffer the consequences for his actions. Disbarrment is a very definite possibility as is the possibility of criminal charges. That's how seriously this case should be treated.

Over and Out and the Black Eye

CBS, WFAN, and Viacom have caved to pressure from the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and canned Don Imus. Eight days after Imus uttered that reprehensible phrase (transcript here), CBS determined that it went over the line and fired Imus.

CBS has been down this road before (see Rathergate). They wanted to test the waters. They didn't act to force an apology the day after the incident happened, and Imus was claiming that it was a joke gone awry. Then the likes of Sharpton and Jackson got involved and things took on a life of its own. Executives apparently didn't think there was much of a problem after the segment happened and only began to consider the situation to be serious once Sharpton and Jackson got involved.

Just a day ago CBS President Les Moonves was considering the options. What changed between yesterday and today other than the fact that they axed Imus in the middle of the annual telethon that supports the foundation founded by Imus to help kids with cancer among other charities? More sponsors decided to pull out and MSNBC canceled their simulcast. Money was quickly becoming an issue, but the sponsors were reacting to what Sharpton and Jackson were doing, not necessarily because they had a problem with Imus - who's been paid handsomely over the years because he generated tens of millions of dollars a year for all involved.

Imus made his apology (multiple times) however forced or coerced it may have been. He was supposed to meet with the Rutgers team that he denigrated to discuss the matter face to face. That goes by the wayside (and was not canceled because of despite a completely unrelated incident when Gov. Corzine was injured in a car crash on his way to attend the meeting).

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

If that was the consideration, he should have been fired long ago for various other indiscretions and hateful statements made on various broadcasts. Yet, no action was taken then, and none was taken until today.

Why did Moonves act now and not against others within the organization that have engaged in other acts that affect young people, minorities, and women?

CBS canned him because he supposedly violated some kind of standards. This is what I find so incredible distasteful. If he violated the standards last week, CBS should have fired or suspended him on the spot. They chose not to until pressure from outside sources became too great.

So much for standards. That's just cover for the fact that the suits thought that the network might suffer more economic harm by keeping Imus on than by letting him go.

Then, there's the issue of applying those standards to other aspects of CBS and CBS sister companies. How about applying those standards to the other divisions of Viacom (CBS's parent company). Movies? Music? Television?

CBS had no problem considering a season of the show Survivor where the participants were split along racial lines and didn't change its tune until people complained about the concept. No action was taken against the people who thought up that idea.

CBS had no problem trying to defend the wardrobe incident at the Super Bowl where Justin Timberlake ripped a portion of Janet Jackson's top revealing her nipple for all the world to see over and over and over again on TiVo. How long did the network stonewall on that one? No action was taken by the network against those involved.

Imus claimed originally that it was part of a joke gone awry. To him, it was art. Is that any different than Snoop Dogg saying nasty things about women? Oh, is there a difference because Dogg lived in the neighborhoods about which he sings and writes exploitative lyrics and Imus is an Upper Manhattan rich white guy?

The problem here isn't solely Imus. The problem is the way CBS operates. We saw problems with the way the network handled Rathergate. That was a big black eye for the network, and yet network executives are still tone deaf over crisis management.

There's a larger issue over the way people react to indecency and repugnant speech. Everyone has a right to free speech and a freedom from government interference in that right, but that doesn't prevent companies from acting to fire people who make stupid comments. I don't agree with the firing or its timing, but the company was well within its right to do so. Demanding that the FCC get involved or having politicians getting involved demanding he be fired were uncalled for here since there were no laws broken. This is one of many gray areas that people like Imus have inhabited for years. That doesn't just include talk show hosts, but cable television programs and other media outlets.

The inconsistency over standards and what people find decent or indecent is the issue. Consider that ABC has no problem allowing Rosie stay on the air despite the despicable and hateful things she's said (not to mention stunningly stupid things relating to 9/11 conspiracies). No one called for her to be fired.

Opie and Anthony got run off regular radio and ended up on satellite radio because of an on-air stunt that. Now they're back on regular radio. Bob Grant was also fired and ended up back on the radio some time later, but never recovered from the incident where he made insensitive comments about Clinton era Commerce Secretary Ron Brown who died in a plane crash.

So, who will replace Imus in the morning? That's going to be none other than Mike Barnicle, who was a frequent guest on Imus's show. Barnicle has issues of his own, including being involved in a plagiarism scandal and fabricating a story. This is who CBS thinks is a suitable replacement? Then again, they just fired one of Katie Couric's producers for plagiarizing a piece on libraries. They must have a blind spot for folks who have ethical or moral problems.

Actually, Paul at Wizbang has the kicker of the day: Don Imus was fired and Mike Nifong still has his job.

UPDATE 4/13/2007:
Despite Gov. Corzine's serious car crash, the meeting between Imus and the team went on for three hours and was described as being very intense and productive.

A Day Later And Many Dollars Short

The fallout from the North Carolina Attorney General's report on the Duke case continues to reach far and wide. Still, Mike Nifong has been silent on the report, as has the accuser (and she's not going to face charges for her part in this mess).

Some people, like John Podhoretz are naming her and are calling her out. He thinks public shaming is in order, in addition to the possibility of criminal charges, though he notes that AG Cooper has already noted that no such charges will be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, two people who were quite vocal about the Duke non-rape case, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, have also been quiet about the turn of events and complete exoneration of the trio. Where are their apologies? They put their considerable energies into defending the accuser even as her story was coming apart at the seams.

Guess who's asking that question. Don Imus. Yes, that Don Imus who's busy losing his simulcast operation and is expecting to be fired by CBS at any time.

It's a good question, but why is it up to Imus to ask that question in defense of his own indefensible statements about the Rutgers lady's basketball team? Why haven't other media outlets and journalists asked that question? After all, Sharpton and Jackson have made quite a few inflammatory and derogatory statements over the years and have not been held accountable for their actions, and yet they want to go on a witchhunt.

Here's Sharpton today:

'It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves...

So, it's a broad discussion that Sharpton wants. He has no problem demanding Imus be fired, but when it comes to the much larger issue of misogynistic statements and derogatory comments against women and minorities by others in the media and entertainment field, he's looking to have a discussion? Where are the demands to fire those involved in the creation, production, and distribution of music that is derogatory of women and minorities?

Who is Sharpton to demand such things? Who is Sharpton to pass judgment on what others say.

Editor and Publisher has a long list of losers and possible winners in the Duke case. The media didn't distinguish itself over the case either, choosing to sensationalize the racial aspects of the case and ignored the clear problems with the case from the outset. There were several in the media and online who didn't succumb to the sensationalism and instead engaged in investigative journalism including the late Ed Bradley, whose piece on 60 Minutes showed the case for the farce that it was.

The calls to disbar Nifong have been growing. Well, join the club. Anyone who has been following this case for months knows by now that Nifong's actions were indefensible and the withholding of exculpatory evidence is one of the biggest no-nos in the criminal justice system.

UPDATE:
Durham DA Mike Nifong has issued a statement. He's apologizing, though the damage has been done by his abject failures and compounding error on error:

The local prosecutor who charged three Duke lacrosse players with raping a stripper apologized to the athletes Thursday, acknowledging that the North Carolina attorney general's decision to drop the case was correct.

"To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused," Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said in a statement.

While we're on the subject of apologies, where's one from the NYT for their biased coverage?

Charges To Be Dropped In Duke Case: UPDATED - DROPPED

Numerous sources are reporting that the remaining charges against the trio of Duke lacrosse students will be dropped, with some reporting that the decision may come as soon as today. Well, there have been several similar reports over the past couple of weeks, but this time it appears based on the fact that the NC Attorney General's office has completed its own investigation into the charges.

As always, check in with KC Johnson for up to the minute changes in the case, and the ongoing analysis and fallout.

Others blogging: Sister Toldjah, LaShawn Barber (who names the accuser, though I will not), and Powerline notes that the three players have thus far only managed to recoup about $1 million of the $3 million in legal expenses incurred thus far. One suspects that a civil suit might rectify that situation, as could any potential book/movie deals, though the three may simply want to put this horrible episode behind them.

Also, it's an interesting ethical question as to whether one should name the accuser. She claimed to be the victim of a sexual assault, and the law generally extends the protection of anonymity to such victims. However, this case no longer is about a sexual assault or a rape, and the accuser herself may become subject of legal actions both in civil and criminal court (though a criminal case may be quite difficult under the circumstances and the accuser isn't exactly rolling in money to be worth the effort of a civil suit). ABC News says that it is their policy not to name the accuser, even as there's no longer a case. It will be interesting to see if they hold to that line even as other networks may or may not release her name.

UPDATE:
According to CNN: The North Carolina Attorney General’s office says it will make an announcement on the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case at 2:30 p.m. ET.

UPDATE:
It will be interesting to see how the Attorney General's office phrases the dropping of the charges. Will it issue a pro forma statement stating that the charges were dropped because they could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or will the AG's Office detail why the charges should never have been brought in the first place.

I think the AG's Office will try to split the difference, but the statement will essentially slam Nifong for his prosecutorial misconduct and failure to meet with the accuser early in developing the case in chief to determine whether the assertions were believable and consistent with the evidence as it was developing.

UPDATE:
Nifong's tragic rush to accuse was met with an equally tragic rush to condemn by the Duke faculty who rushed to judge, adjudicate, and condemn the trio without all the facts being considered. This is the full text of the NC Attorney General's speech. A portion includes:

We believe that these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. Based on the significant inconsistencies between the evidence and the various accounts given by the accusing witness, we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges.

We approached this case with the understanding that rape and sexual assault victims often have some inconsistencies in their accounts of a traumatic event. However, in this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.

The prosecuting witness in this case responded to questions and offered information. She did want to move forward with the prosecution.

However, the contradictions in her many versions of what occurred and the conflicts between what she said occurred and other evidence, like photographs and phone records, could not be rectified.

Our investigation shows that:

The eyewitness identification procedures were faulty and unreliable. No DNA confirms the accuser's story. No other witness confirms her story. Other evidence contradicts her story. She contradicts herself. Next week, we'll be providing a written summary of the important factual findings and some of the specific contradictions that have led us to the conclusion that no attack occurred.

In this case, with the weight of the state behind him, the Durham district attorney pushed forward unchecked. There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado. And in the rush to condemn, a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly. Regardless of the reasons this case was pushed forward, the result was wrong. Today, we need to learn from this and keep it from happening again to anybody.

I think the strongest way to keep this from happening again is to deal with Nifong harshly but fairly. Cooper's statements suggest that disbarment is a distinct possibility.

Drudge has posted the name of the accuser, as has Smoking Gun, and her name has apparently been revealed in a number of legal documents connected with the case.

UPDATE:
Others providing analysis of the unfolding events and pressers: Outside the Beltway, Dan Riehl, Hot Air (complete with video), and Ed Morrissey.

Not Dropped Just Yet

According to reports yesterday, the charges against the three Duke students was going to be dropped yesterday.

The North Carolina Attorney General has not yet made a decision.

Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield told FOX News on Thursday that several sources have revealed to him that the assault and attempted kidnapping charges still pending against Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J., will soon be dropped.

Caulfield said his sources include more than just attorneys for the defense.

"There is no case here and they will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days," Caulfield told FOX News.

But Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Roy Cooper, told FOX News that there are no plans to make any announcement on the case this week. But the announcement could come at any time, she said, and is at the discretion of the attorney general and the special prosecutors who took over the case from Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

The case is still being reviewed.

HT: Anonymous emailer.

As always, see KC Johnson's ongoing coverage for more details.

Remaining Charges In Duke Non Rape Case To Be Dropped?

The long nightmare may be over for the three Duke lacrosse players who were accused of raping a woman during a party last March. The accuser was ordered to appear before the Special Prosecutor today. That should make for an interesting appearance indeed considering one has to wonder which version of events she'll refer to in her statements.

Fox is reporting the charges may be dropped shortly:

Inside Lacrosse Magazine writer Paul Caulfield told FOX News on Thursday that several sources have revealed to him that the assault and attempted kidnapping charges still pending against Collin Finnerty, 19, of Garden City, N.Y.; Dave Evans, 23, of Bethesda, Md.; and Reade Seligmann, 20, of Essex Falls, N.J., will soon be dropped.

Caulfield said his sources include more than just attorneys for the defense.

"There is no case here and they will be hearing a dismissal in the coming days," Caulfield told FOX News.

Meanwhile, KC Johnson notes the date for the hearing on Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's conduct has been set. June 12. He also comments on Nifong's ongoing fight with the State Bar and the absurdities of some of Nifong's arguments in defending his indefensible actions and prosecutorial abuses in this case.

The Dog Ate Nifong's Homework

In his letters to the bar, Nifong said he did not intentionally withhold evidence nor did he mean to cause pretrial prejudice through the numerous interviews he gave to the news media between March 27 and April 3.

In one of the letters, Nifong said he feared the bar was "looking for a prosecutor" to punish for the misdeeds of other prosecutors whose misconduct has recently come to light and who have gone largely unpunished.

He offered several explanations for some of the problems that have arisen:

* The lacrosse case arose "during the last few weeks of a hotly-contested Democratic Party primary in which I was seeking to retain my office," he said. "I was not always able to give the case my full attention."

So, because there was an election, the district attorney's office is supposed to operate with less of an eye to protecting the rights of defendants and adhering to the law?

* The volume of material to be copied for each defendant meant that a number of lawyers and support workers were involved in the numbering and copying of pages, he said. "These people were neither concentrating on the actual contents of the documents being copied nor familiar enough with the facts of the case to have known whether anything was missing."

Taken together, this would constitute the dog ate his homework defense. It wouldn't fly in a law school classroom, and it most certainly wouldn't fly in the real world where prosecutors have tremendous power to make and break peoples' lives. It also leans heavily towards prosecutorial misconduct and negligence on his part.

* He said he had never before encountered such determined pretrial resistance. "A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals -- most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina, have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial."

So, he was out of his league when defense attorneys began questioning the basic fairness of the process to which all defendants are entitled?

UPDATE:
This will serve as my open posting for the day. Submit your best and brightest posts.

Duke (Non) Rape Case Hearing Postponed Until May

A critical hearing in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has been postponed until May as the new prosecutors continue to study evidence.

Prosecutors from the state attorney general's office met with defense attorneys and the judge for about two hours Tuesday. It was the first meeting between the parties since the state took over the case this month from embattled District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Lawyers said afterward that a planned Feb. 5 hearing where the accuser was expected to appear would be rescheduled for May 7.

"We will use this time to continue reviewing the case files, talking to the many people involved in the cases, and making sure that all discovery requests have been responded to properly," state Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement.

Joseph Cheshire, a defense attorney for one of the players accused of attacking a woman hired as a stripper during a lacrosse team party, said he anticipated more meetings with the attorney general's staff.

"We are very hopeful about this case, and where it stands, and where it will go, and at least we know that it will be dealt with professionally," he said.

Everyone is trying to figure out what the next step in the case will be and the Attorney General's office is trying to pick up the pieces in the botched investigation and prosecution initiated by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong (who himself is now under investigation by the NC State Bar). It had been anticipated that the February 5 hearing would result in additional charges being dropped against the trio.

However, given that the AG's office received boxloads of information relating to the case only two weeks ago, they need more time to evaluate the case and materials. Postponing the hearing is a sensible measure as all sides appear to agree. KC Johnson has more.

(Hat Tip - MandyManners at LGF)

UPDATE:
KC Johnson's NY Post editorial hits at the NYT coverage of the whole Duke scandal. It's a must read. (HT: Jammie Wearing Fool).

UPDATE:
Based on the comments and an email conversation with Anonymous emailer, I think addressing the issue of why this case should be allowed to drag on is worthy of further scrutiny. A defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the US Constitution, so why should one of the defendants put themselves in a situation where this case drags on for three more months.

It's a very good question but I think there's an adequate reason. The defendants have spent months demanding that Nifong recuse himself from the case, and now that he's gone, the defendants want to give the AG's office the opportunity to review the evidence and make their own determination in a reasonable amount of time.

The defense team knows that they've got not only the criminal case to concern themselves with, but potential civil cases against Nifong, Durham, Duke University and the accuser. They do not want to jeopardize those efforts by calling for a speedy trial in which the possibility exists that unsavory and damaging testimony as to the character and conduct of the trio might come out, which could prejudice the trials down the road.

Nifong Slapped With More Ethics Charges

You could have seen this coming a month ago as it was all but telegraphed by the State Bar. Still, it is good to see that they're pushing this case hard:

The state bar has added ethics charges to a complaint filed against the prosecutor who brought sexual assault charges against three Duke lacrosse players, accusing him of withholding DNA evidence and making misleading statements to the court.

The new charges by the North Carolina State Bar against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong were announced Wednesday and could lead to his removal from the state bar, according to a copy of the updated complaint.

The State Bar charges deal with the ethical impropriety of Nifong's actions. There is still the specter of criminal charges not to mention civil claims against Nifong going forward.

Nifong's recently hired lawyers are going to be kept busy for a good long time to come.

KC Johnson has more on the costs that the defendants are racking up as this case continues to grind forward. $80,000 per month per defendant. Think about that for a moment. That's not only a huge sum considering that we're about nine months into this ordeal. It's staggering to think of what would have happened had the three not had the legal team they assembled. Railroaded comes to mind.

UPDATE:
Others taking note of the additional charges and the fact that the State Bar didn't bother to wait until the February hearing to file them: Hot Air, Right Voices, Sister Toldjah, and LaShawn Barber.

Struck "Association" from the opening paragraph. The name of the organization is the North Carolina State Bar.

UPDATE:
The Smoking Gun has the papers.

UPDATE:
Bring It On thinks that Nifong now faces more charges than the Duke trio. I wouldn't want to be in any of their shoes. This has been hellish for the Duke players, and Nifong is only now beginning to realize the mess he's spawned.

Others blogging: Dvorak Uncensored, Real Clear Politics, Poliblogger, Daily Pundit, Scared Monkeys, and Lew Rockwell.

Nifong Hires Lawyers; Duke Case Grinds On

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has hired attorneys. He knows that the gavel is going to drop on him in a real bad way. Disbarment is not out of the question here considering the egregious behavior that includes withholding exculpatory evidence from the defendants.

The prosecutor who removed himself from the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has hired a well-known law firm to defend him against ethics charges before the North Carolina State Bar.

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has retained Winston-Salem lawyers David Freedman and Dudley Witt, law partners known for defending lawyers facing professional misconduct charges.

"Years ago, I just started helping out lawyers who got in trouble for various things," said Freedman, a 1982 graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's law school. "I have a firm belief that you look out for your own."

The state bar filed ethics charges against Nifong in December, accusing him of violating rules of professional conduct. The bar said Nifong made misleading and inflammatory remarks to the media about the lacrosse players.

The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment.

KC Johnson has much more on this and other developments in the case.

Nifong's Troubles Intensify

Is Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong looking at additional charges even as he recused himself from the Duke case? Bullwinkle notes that the problems at the prosecutor's office and DNA lab could affect every prosecution case that both worked on. You think there's trouble now. Just wait till every other defense lawyer in Durham gets their hands on the case files.

The families of the three Duke students went postal on Nifong in their interview with 60 Minutes. Not that one can't understand where they're coming from. They saw their kids smeared by Nifong, the University, and the media without so much as a shred of evidence.

Disbarment is the least of Nifong's worries. Jeff Goldstein coins a new word to sum up how he feels. Allah has a simpler word choice.

Gross abuse of prosecutorial power. That's how Irish Pennants puts it.

The accuser picked the three defendants from a photo lineup consisting only of lacrosse players, a violation of police procedures. (Clearly innocent people are supposed to be mixed in with suspects.)

The players she selected did not match the description of the alleged attackers the accuser had given police earlier. Two of the accused had alibis.

The only evidence against the lacrosse players is the testimony of the accuser, who was inebriated at the time of the alleged assault, and who has changed her story in significant ways on multiple occasions.

DNA from five men was found on the accuser, but none of it belonged to the three defendants. Mr. Nifong knew this before he indicted the trio. He and Brian Meehan, the director of the lab where the DNA testing took place, concealed the exculpatory test result from defense attorneys, a violation of procedure and perhaps of the law.
The case has drawn national attention because the accuser is black, and the accused are white males.

He's right, and it extends beyond this case. The Duke case merely shines a light on how much power a prosecutor has in the lives of people that come under even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

If a prosecutor violates his ethical and legal obligations, it spells bad news for the defendants, many of whom are not able to afford the kind of legal protections that the Duke defendants got. Prosecutorial misconduct undermines the criminal justice system and the constitutional rights for all.

Falling Apart at the Seams

The Duke case continues to circle the drain as the accuser's story changes with every telling, and now 60 Minutes has an interview that will air Sunday with the forensic expert involved in the case who admits that there are serious errors in how the evidence was handled.

The forensic expert hired by the prosecutor in the Duke rape case says he made a "big error" in judgment by not stating in his report that the only DNA he found on the accuser was from several men who were not on the Duke lacrosse team.

Dr. Brian Meehan speaks with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in his first interview about the controversial case this Sunday, Jan. 14, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. "We haven't done that before," he tells Stahl. "In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information."

Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.

While those who have been following the case have known this for the better part of a month, that the story is getting wider play can only increase the focus on Nifong's actions and push this sad chapter in prosecutorial misconduct to a close. KC Johnson calls Meehan hapless. I'd call him a weasel, because he chose not to do the right thing from the outset and instead let Nifong lead him down this sad road.

Also, KC points out ongoing problems with Nifong's case relating to Colin Finnerty, who does not match any of the supposed psuedonyms used by the accuser. Considering that the accuser has said that Reade Seligmann did not engage in any sexual acts towards her, this already flimsy case is getting worse by the day.

Liestoppers doesn't mince words, calling the situation a hoax. LaShawn Barber calls this the latest version of the accuser's gang rape fantasy.

The thing is that Nifong had a duty to investigate the claims, but when the DNA evidence showed that the three defendants did not leave traces on the accuser, Nifong had the legal obligation to produce exculpatory evidence and to dismiss the charges when it became apparent that the accuser could not keep her story straight. That he has dragged his feet on dismissing charges and withholding evidence from the defense is blatant prosecutorial misconduct and must be addressed by the North Carolina Bar (which is currently investigating the matter).

UPDATE:
A Duke University professor resigned to protest the University allowing two of the three students back into the university (the third student graduated). Forget the way the University acted first, throwing the students out without even waiting for a trial, and when the DA's case started falling apart, realized that they had serious egg on their face and reversed the decision. Never mind the whole judicial process, this professor had their mind already made up.

UPDATE:
Ah, the joys of a Friday night news dump. ABC News has learned that Nifong has sent a letter to the North Carolina Attorney General seeking to recuse himself from the case. That's the absolute least that Nifong should be doing here. His handling of the case should be an object lesson to all prosecutors on what not to do in a case.

istrict Attorney Mike Nifong has requested that he have himself removed from prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse rape investigation, ABC News has learned.

A source close to the investigation said Nifong sent a letter to North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper asking his office to assume responsibility of the case. Calls to the Attorney General's office and Mike Nifong's office were not yet returned.

Three Duke Lacrosse players, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans were indicted in 2006 on charges of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping.

The rape charges were dropped in December after the accuser could not recall key details of the alleged attack.

UPDATE:
Randy Barnett, a former prosecutor, takes a closer look at the imploding case and credits the defense team for pushing matters in this direction. He also notes that many of the problems with this case stem from the politicized nature of Nifong's approach to the case.

UPDATE:
KC Johnson notes that only Nifong could recuse himself from the case:

"Under North Carolina law, as we all have learned, only the DA himself can recuse himself from a case. Significantly, the Nifong request removes his entire office from the case--including Linwood Wilson, or any of the ADA's who could be subjected to pressure from Nifong to try the case regardless of evidence."

Rusty thinks that the countdown to counter suits by the accused commences shortly. I would think that the defense team is already looking at that. Others weighing in on the latest news about Nifong seeking to recuse himself from the case and other related aspects: Outside the Beltway, Don Surber, Blue Crab Boulevard, Protein Wisdom, and Liestoppers.

Technorati: duke rape case, duke, nifong, lacrosse.

Dismiss the Case

In yet another setback for DA Mike Nifong's 'case' against the three Duke lacrosse players, the accuser now says that one of the players did not commit any sexual assault at all. The player was identified as Reade Seligmann.

The attacker identified as Reade Seligmann only watched, she told an investigator, the papers said. While he was repeatedly urged to take part in the alleged attack, she recalled, he said he could not participate because he was getting married.
"The accuser's most recent recollection of events demonstrates clearly that she cannot accurately recall and describe her attackers and that any identification made by her is necessarily unreliable," the defense filing said.

The new description of Seligmann's role in the alleged assault was one of several changes the accuser made in her story during a Dec. 21 interview with an investigator from District Attorney Mike Nifong's office, the defense said.

This case has been beset by prosecutorial misconduct, lack of DNA evidence tying the three accused defendants to the crimes alleged, and an accuser whose story has changed so many times that there's no way that she should ever be allowed to testify, and other witnesses dispute the allegations made by the accuser. The timeline has also been changed too many times to count and contradicts her earlier accounts.

Meanwhile, the judge has called for the accuser's baby to undergo a paternity test to determine the father:

The filing comes a day after the judge overseeing the case ordered a paternity test to determine the father of a child born to the woman. Defense attorneys requested the test in December to eliminate any paternity question, although Nifong has said the pregnancy is almost certainly unrelated to the night of the team party.

Both sides agreed the test should be conducted to silence any doubts about a connection to the case.

The accuser gave birth to a girl last week at UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill, a person familiar with the case has told The Associated Press. The source spoke anonymously because the information had not yet been made public.

KC Johnson has much more analysis on the defense motion and where this leaves Nifong's case. I say it pretty well shreds what little remained of the case after Nifong dismissed the rape counts.

UPDATE:
Paul at Wizbang thinks that today is the day that the Duke case officially died. Well, until Nifong drops the case, it's still kicking - a Black Knight kind of life such as it is. Every last bit of evidence has been hacked to shreds, and if Nifong believes that there is still a case, the accuser would never survive the cross examination. LaShawn Barber also weighs in.

Technorati: duke rape case, duke, nifong, lacrosse.