Nifong's punishment could have ranged from a written reprimand to disbarment. He already announced Friday his intention to resign as district attorney. With the panel's decision, the long saga of what was once known as the Duke Lacrosserape scandal may be largely over, though a raft of civil lawsuits are expected. Nifong's conviction was widely anticipated as long-overdue justice for the three players who were indicted in spring on charges of rape, kidnapping, and sexual offense.
Last April, the three were cleared of all charges and declared innocent by the attorneygeneral of North Carolina. They listened intently as Nifong was found to have behaved unethically, but showed little emotion. Later, as Nifong's disbarment was announced, there was an air of relief and satisfaction among the lacrosse players and their families. The three lacrosse players' families are moving on.
David Evans found a new job in finance. His first offer was revoked after his indictment. Reade Seligmann will be attend Brown University this fall. Collin Finnerty will make a decision shortly about where to start his junior year. Moving on won't be as easy for Nifong. Attorneys for the exonerated lacrosse players say they have more in store by way of legal action. Brad Bannon, a lawyer for David Evans, said that motion would request that the court sanction Nifong with fines and contempt of court.
Nifong could also face civil lawsuits; Bannon's partner Joe Cheshire said on Friday that he expects "extensive civil action. The mood at the trial Saturday was a remarkable reversal of the courtroom atmosphere in the early days of the case.
Then, the parents of the players sat wide-eyed and stone-faced, occasionally shedding a tear, while the now-disgraced prosecutor moved through the court room smiling and navigated the camera crews outside in the hallway with a grin on his face. Saturday, Nifong and his wife wept during a recess and held each other, clearly shaken, while the players and their families smiled and chatted with easily with one another. As the first witness to testify in the penalty phase, David Evans Sr.
He described how his family learned of his son's indictment on Dave's graduation day, and testified that his son's job offer from the Wall Street firm J. Morgan was withdrawn after the charges were brought.
He said he recently "Googled" the phrases "Dave Evans" and "Duke Lacrosse," and that the search turned up more than five million hits. Evans said his son and the other players "stepped up to the plate'' and cooperated fully with investigators. He said that Nifong has now acknowledged he "crossed the line'' of ethical conduct and "maligned an entire team -- 47 players, their parents, their grandparents. David Evans Jr. He couldn't understand.
He was consumed with the case. As it moved along he would call several times a day. He'd say, 'Why is this district attorney going forward? Look at all this information? The accuser is not credible. Why isn't the system working? In a statement that seemed to both echo and mock Nifong's tearful claim Friday that the case will be associated with him until he goes to his grave, David Evans Sr.
Next up was Colin Finnerty's mother Mary Ellen Finnerty, who said that after 26 years as a parent, learning her son was indicted for rape and kidnapping was "the hardest moment as a mother I have ever had. From that day on that was our job as parents. What's more important is providing the defendant a fighting chance by eliminating a plea bargaining system that is inherently stacked against them. The accused need a system of oversight during the bargaining phase — one that includes more than just the relevant attorneys who may or may not be influenced by biases that taint whether a plea is given or how well the accused is defended.
Sol Wachtler , a former chief judge of New York state, once said that a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich. During grand jury hearings, prosecutors should present a balanced case , which would include some evidence that could exonerate the accused and in some states is required to do so.
However, on the federal level and in a number of other states , prosecutors aren't compelled to present exonerating evidence by anything but principle. The scariest part is the rate at which federal grand juries indict: State grand juries are a mixed bag. Only around half of the states in the U. In other states, the use of a grand jury is optional. The fact that the hearings are held in secret contributes to the lack of transparency and the inherent, systematic flaws in our criminal justice system.
The government protects itself from the consequences of unfair indictments through absolute immunity, which largely shields prosecutors from being sued for any wrongdoing. But those who make a living building cases for indictment should be just as indictable as the general public. Without accountability, there is less incentive for them to act with principle. But we also must address the systemic failures that have allowed our culture of punishment to reach this point — resulting in broken homes, victimless crimes and a costly war on drugs.
If our second step focuses on prosecutorial conduct, justice may be reformed once and for all. Christian Watson is a writer at Young Voices. He can be found on Twitter at OfficialCWatson.
0コメント