Cja224 Week 2
Court Room Professional Standards
CJA/224
February 28, 2013
Court Room Professional Standards District Attorney Michael Nifong acknowledged and offered a full and unqualified apology for his crusade to convict three innocent white Duke University students who belonged to the lacrosse team of raping a black woman in March 2006. Nifong acknowledged there had been “no credible evidence” of their guilt. In fact there had been exculpatory evidence that he had quashed. His apology was rendered to a judge who later sentenced him to one day in jail and a $500. fine for contempt of court. He could have received thirty days (Prosecutorial Indiscretion, 2008). What did Nifong do that was wrong? Nifong had a vested interest in winning the Duke University Rape case. He was using the rape case as leverage to move into a more powerful office. He provided interviews to the press early on in the case at which time he stated his absolute belief that the three accused men were guilty. Nifong went on a media tour discussing the case publicly, thereby polluting the jury pool. He knowingly suppressed evidence that had the possibility of clearing the men of the rape charges. He ordered the handling of a photo lineup to only have lacrosse team members included and tainted the police identification process. He refused to meet with defense attorneys, and failed to interview the alleged rape victim whom he had claimed to the press, “I believe her.” * Why is so little done when a prosecutor is found to be abusing his office? It is because of Absolute prosecutorial immunity which is a legal doctrine established by federal statute. It provides a prosecuting attorney with immunity from lawsuits or criminal charges for his acts, whether or not they constitute intentional misconduct. The intent of this statute was to protect prosecutors from retaliatory or frivolous actions that could cripple their ability to do their jobs. Nifong’s conduct revealed
CJA/224
February 28, 2013
Court Room Professional Standards District Attorney Michael Nifong acknowledged and offered a full and unqualified apology for his crusade to convict three innocent white Duke University students who belonged to the lacrosse team of raping a black woman in March 2006. Nifong acknowledged there had been “no credible evidence” of their guilt. In fact there had been exculpatory evidence that he had quashed. His apology was rendered to a judge who later sentenced him to one day in jail and a $500. fine for contempt of court. He could have received thirty days (Prosecutorial Indiscretion, 2008). What did Nifong do that was wrong? Nifong had a vested interest in winning the Duke University Rape case. He was using the rape case as leverage to move into a more powerful office. He provided interviews to the press early on in the case at which time he stated his absolute belief that the three accused men were guilty. Nifong went on a media tour discussing the case publicly, thereby polluting the jury pool. He knowingly suppressed evidence that had the possibility of clearing the men of the rape charges. He ordered the handling of a photo lineup to only have lacrosse team members included and tainted the police identification process. He refused to meet with defense attorneys, and failed to interview the alleged rape victim whom he had claimed to the press, “I believe her.” * Why is so little done when a prosecutor is found to be abusing his office? It is because of Absolute prosecutorial immunity which is a legal doctrine established by federal statute. It provides a prosecuting attorney with immunity from lawsuits or criminal charges for his acts, whether or not they constitute intentional misconduct. The intent of this statute was to protect prosecutors from retaliatory or frivolous actions that could cripple their ability to do their jobs. Nifong’s conduct revealed
References: Mcelroy, W. (2008). Prosecutorial Indiscretion. Retrieved from: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/prosecutorial-indiscretion/#axzz2MY4SJKtH Prosecutorial(2008). , Jan 1, 2008, Wendy Mcelroy, retrieved at http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/prosecutorial-indiscretion/#axzz2MY4SJKtH Prosecutorial Indiscretion, Jan 1, 2008, Wendy Mcelroy, retrieved at http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/prosecutorial-indiscretion/#axzz2MY4SJKtH McClatchy Newspapers, January 22, 2007, Stephen Henderson, retrieved at http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003535304_deathrow22.html Jacksonville.com, Judge Amanda Williams quitting before hearing on judicial misconduct charge, December 20, 2011, Retrieved at; http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-12-20/story/judge-amanda-williams-quitting-hearing-judicial-misconduct-charges