Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is a sacked North Carolina lawyer. He served as county attorney for County Durham, North Carolina until he was dismissed, fired, and imprisoned following court findings regarding his behavior in the Duke lacrosse case.
Video Mike Nifong
Kehidupan awal
Nifong was born in Wilmington, North Carolina, and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) in 1971 with a degree in political science. He was listed as an opponent of conscience and participated in anti-war protests during the Vietnam War. After working as a teacher and social worker, Nifong returned to UNC in 1975 and obtained a law degree from the University of North Carolina Law School in 1978. He was accepted into the North Carolina bar.
Maps Mike Nifong
Careers
After spending a year as an assistant per diem with the Durham County Procuratorate's office, Nifong was hired on a full-time basis in 1979. He eventually worked to the assistant chief. After District Attorney Jim Hardin was appointed to the High Court in 2005, Governor Mike Easley appointed Nifong to fill Hardin's remaining term. Nifong was sworn in on April 27, 2005. When the Duke lacrosse case took place, Nifong won the Democratic Party on 2 May 2006 for the Durham County District Attorney. He won the election in November 2006 with a margin of almost 833 votes.
Duke lacrosse casing
In 2006, Nifong pursued rape, sexual assault and kidnapping by Crystal Gail Mangum, a local black woman working as a call girl and a stripper, against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, three white members of the Duke's Team lacrosse male university. This case attracted the attention of national and international media. Former public editor of the New York Times Daniel Okrent writes, "This [case] too fits with too much prejudice about too much in the media: white on black, rich above poor, top athlete instead of athlete, man over women, educated more uneducated. "
In the first weeks of this case, Nifong gave an estimate of 50 to 70 interviews. On the day he received his first briefing by police, March 27, 2006, he told the press, "The state of rape shows deep racial motivation for some of the things done." On April 1, he has made 48 statements to the press, including a statement that another person was present at a party in which a suspected alleged incident took place for the accused players, saying, "I would like to think that someone who is not in the bathroom has human decency to call and say, 'What am I doing to cover up a bunch of hooligans?' "The initial media report on the case largely reflects Nifong's statements and opinions.
Nifong said in a court hearing on October 27, six months after the arrest of Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans, that he had not interviewed the alleged victim. "I have not talked to him about the fact that night... We're not at that stage yet." According to Nifong, none of his assistants discussed the case with him.
On December 22, 2006, Nifong dropped the allegations of rape (with sexual assault and kidnapping charges still being pursued) against three lacrosse players after Mangum altered his story, saying that he was no longer sure if he was penetrated vaginally with one or more men. It is a few days after it was revealed in court that Nifong has detained evidence of a plea for DNA testing. Nifong is heavily criticized for pushing ahead with what appears to many as a weak case with no physical evidence. The defense argued that Mangum had given at least a dozen different accounts of the incident, changing the number of attackers from two to three, and modifying the methods with which he was attacked.
In January 2007, Nifong sent a letter to US-North Carolina Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, requesting his office to take responsibility for the case. It came a few days after Mangum changed his story again, claiming that Seligmann's suspects were not involved in the alleged attack. Previously he accused him and two others of alleged rape.
The next day, Cooper announces that his office will take over the case. In April, he announced that the indictment against three players would be dropped and that "based on significant inconsistencies between evidence and accounts accused by accused witnesses, we believe these three individuals are not guilty of these allegations".
Criticism
Defense lawyers and media outlets (who initially quickly condemned the accused players) were critical of Nifong's handling of the case. Nifong said that criticism is the product of defense strategy to slander prosecution and intimidate the alleged rape victim.
When the details of the case arose, Nifong was attacked not only from supporters of the accused students but by news sources such as The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times.
They claim that he became public with a series of allegations that later turned out to be untrue; that he exaggerates and intensified racial tension; that he was too influential in the Durham police investigation; that he was trying to manipulate potential witnesses; that he refused to listen to proof of the exclusion before the indictment; that rules regarding the exercise of identification exercises are violated by failure to include "dummy" photographs of anyone who is not at a party; that he never spoke directly to the alleged victim of the allegations; and that he made incomplete and misleading presentations on various aspects of the evidence in the case (including DNA results).
Critical additional coverage of prosecution cases includes those disclosed by: 60 Minutes , Charlotte Observer , Fox News, Greensboro News & amp; Record , National Journal , Newark Star-Ledger , News & amp; Observers , Newsweek , New York News Magazine , New York , San Diego Union Tribune , Washington Times , Star-News (Wilmington, NC) , and is now dead Rocky Mountain News .
Nifong gave more than 50 interviews, many with national media, according to his own account and confirmed by News & amp; Observer . In this interview, Nifong repeatedly said that he was "convinced that the rape occurred", calling the players "a bunch of hooligans" who "dads can buy them expensive lawyers." From early April 2006, however, Nifong generally refused to speak with the media.
On July 18, 2006, defense lawyers alleged that Nifong made the statement "unprofessional and disrespectful". During the initial trial, Nifong said, "The [Defense] lawyers are almost disappointed because their clients are not charged so they can be part of this spectacle in Durham." A lawyer insisted that "Nifong's statement is an affront to the legal profession as a whole and certainly unreasonable with any facts in this case." Others see it as a personal insult. Nifong then went on vacation and could not be reached for further comment.
On October 27, 2006, Nifong said in court that neither he nor his assistant had discussed the alleged assault with the accuser, saying they had so far left the investigation aspect to the police.
Critics of the district attorney requested that Nifong be investigated, punished, and fired for his actions in this case. On December 12, 2006, Representative of the Republic of Walter B. Jones from the 3rd district of North Carolina reportedly sent a letter to US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales requesting an investigation into whether Nifong committed "prosecutor's offense" and violated the civil rights of the three suspects in this case ; Gonzales stated that his office might investigate how Nifong handled the case. Critics noted that the police were instructed to "Go through Mr. Nifong for any direction on how to do things in this case." This is an unusual step for prosecutors to order.
On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that the laboratory director of Nifong and DNA Brian Meehan conspired to withhold DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team.
The prosecution of the case was criticized by legal analyst for the National Journal, Stuart Taylor, and New York Times columnist David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof. Investigations by CBS ' 60 Minutes disclose [ed] disturbing facts about the behavior of the police and district attorneys, and increase [d] serious problems. " (Segment 60 Minutes was awarded the Peabody Award on April 4, 2007.) Some authors at Slate criticized the prosecutor's actions and especially criticized the mainstream media for accepting prosecutions. at face value despite evidence of contradictions.
Given the fact that Nifong failed to submit very strong evidence to defense lawyers on December 22, 2006, The News & amp; The observer writes that "to move forward in the case of [...], District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on little evidence when turning serious questions about whether he violates the law or violates the ethical rules governing prosecutors."
Thomas Sowell accuses Nifong of using the case to increase his chances in the next election by gaining great support from the African American community. Nifong finally won the main and general elections in the middle of the case, despite the fact that allegations of ethical injustice have been revealed. A federal judge in 2011 ruled that a civil lawsuit could proceed against Nifong, including claims of "malicious prosecution" and "counterfeit proof forgery".
Ethics tariff
On December 28, 2006, the North Carolina State Bar filed an ethical allegation against Nifong for his actions in this case, accusing him of making public statements that "harmed the administration of justice" and engaged in "behaviors involving dishonesty, deceit, deceit, or falsehood." The seventeen pages accused Nifong of violating four rules of professional conduct, and recorded more than fifty examples of statements he made to the media.
The State Bar filed a second round of ethical indictments on January 24, 2007. In this document, he accused Nifong of being a "systematic abuse of prosecution policy... harming the administration of justice" when he held back DNA evidence to mislead the courts.
Nifong's lawyer filed a report requesting the dismissal of several charges against him on March 19, arguing that his actions did not prevent the defendants from a fair trial since defense lawyers received DNA reports before the trial date was set. The State Bar rejected the request, pointing out that the North Carolina law "is not ambiguous: Anyone subject to the NTO [Nontestimonial Identification Order] should be given a test report as soon as the report is available." The Bar goes on that "Nifong effectively argued that he could make a false statement to court that resulted in an order entry, and then using a command based on his misinterpretation to claim that he did not infringe upon the discovery."
At the April 13 hearing, another request for dismissal of the allegations was rejected. Nifong's team argued that the law about uncovering burdensome evidence to the defense was too vague about time schedules. Lawyers for the State Bar pointed out that it was only through the vigorous efforts of the Duke's defense team that a DNA report was finally made available to them. The formal ethical session begins on June 12 in Raleigh.
On June 15, Nifong took the stand to testify in his own defense. During the testimony, he apologized to the families of the Duke athletes and stated that he would resign as district attorney. Joseph Cheshire, lawyer David Evans, one of the accused players, rejected the apology as "a cynical political effort to save his legal license". During the trial, Nifong admitted he knew there was no DNA evidence linking lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to a 28-year-old woman who accused them of attacking him when he sued them for alleged rape, sexual harassment and kidnapping a year earlier.
Disbarment
On June 16, 2007, the North Carolina State's Discipline Committee of the Bar unanimously voted to dissolve Nifong after passing a guilty verdict on 27 of the 32 allegations. The committee found Nifong's previous disciplinary records and the recognition of his false pre-trial statement was substantially defeated by (among other things) the player's vulnerability and his failure to recognize the "wrong nature of his behavior in relation to the handling of DNA evidence."
Committee chairman Lane Williamson called the case a "failure" and said Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, deceit, fraud and misinterpretation." Williamson further stated, "When he faces a major problem, and yes, he is politically naive, but we can not draw any other conclusion that his initial statement was to advance his political ambitions." Ultimately, the panel concludes that "no discipline is less than the corresponding negligence in this case given the magnitude of the violations found."
Nifong agrees to give up his legal license and says he will not appeal; through his lawyer, he says that neglect is a worthy punishment. Nifong is the first district attorney to sit in North Carolina history to be fired. Earlier in the day, Nifong offered to voluntarily submit his legal license. However, Williamson said that the panel must issue a verdict, and issue an excommunication order shortly thereafter. Under North Carolina law, the order took effect 30 days after Nifong received it in writing.
Immediately after the trial, lawyers for the three players said they would try to get Nifong detained in a criminal court for his false statements. The lawyers added that calls for a federal civil rights investigation on the issue were not out of line. The players' lawyers called for an independent inquiry into the case, and in June 2007 Cooper was considering whether to open a criminal investigation into the affair.
The players' lawyers said on June 18 that their clients were very likely to file a civil lawsuit against Nifong to recover their legal costs and restore their reputation. It is unknown how much they can recover; Nifong has no income other than his salary as DA, and public records show that he has no important assets other than his home in Durham, real estate in western North Carolina and a retirement account. According to The News and Observer players spend $ 3 million in legal fees.
On June 18, Nifong submitted his resignation to Governor Easley and Durham Chief Justice Judge Hakim Orlando Hudson, saying he would leave office on July 13. Hudson said that Nifong should immediately resign, saying that defense lawyers can challenge Nifong authorities. Easley, former state prosecutor and attorney general, also felt that Nifong should immediately resign.
On June 19, Hudson issued an order to suspend Nifong from the office on a salary. Under North Carolina legislation, this is the first step in a process that allows a local district judge to remove the district attorney from his post. Hudson also appointed Raleigh's lawyers as special prosecutors to oversee the repatriation process. A resident of Durham, Beth Brewer {} had asked Hudson to move Nifong in February on the grounds that Nifong was involved in a deliberate abuses and brought an abomination in his office - two criteria needed to get a prosecutor out of the office. This process was only once used once, when district attorneys for the New Hanover and Pender regions were removed from office in 1995 for making a racial insult.
On June 20, Nifong started talks with a special prosecutor about the possibility to leave immediately, but later that day, Easley appointed Jim Hardin, Nifong's predecessor, as district attorney. This happened several hours after Easley signed a bill that would allow the governor to remove an attorney or judge from the office if he had been dismissed or suspended from legal practice. Easley strongly supported the bill, which unanimously passed the two legislative assemblies.
Easley has told her that she will soon get rid of Nifong from work if she has the authority and power to do so. It is unclear how quickly Easley can get rid of Nifong under this new law. The bill does not allow a governor to issue a prosecutor or a judge until the State Bar officially issues its ostracization order, and all calls have been exhausted. However, as mentioned above, Nifong said he would not appeal. Hardin was sworn in the next day, and served until September 2007, when Easley appointed Assistant District Attorney David Saacks to fill the first half of Nifong's term. At the time of Hardin's shedding, negotiations are still underway between Nifong and the special prosecutor, and Hudson goes on trial to get rid of him for good. However, according to a spokeswoman for the State Administration of Courts, Nifong's term as DA ends with Hardin's oaths. Nifong officially resigned from office on 2 July.
Nifong former assistant district attorney, Tracey Cline, was elected as District Attorney in a special election in 2008 and re-elected in 2010. She was expelled from her own office in 2012 because, among other things, made allegations of slander against Judge Hudson. The license for his legal practice was deferred for five years in 2015 but he was not fired.
On June 22, players' lawyers filed their motions asking High Court Judge Osmond Smith, who led the case, held Nifong in disgust. The players also want Nifong to pay 60 to 100 hours to prove that he misunderstood DNA evidence. Nifong was charged with violating at least a dozen laws, rules and court orders designed to protect the rights of defendants by playing "hide-and-seek games" with evidence that cleans the players. The motion of the players also alleges that Nifong's bad behavior "shocked conscience and opposed the idea of ​​accident or negligence". At the beginning of the same month, Judge Smith had filed letters stating that he remained in control of the case even though the indictment had been dismissed, and had the power to impose his own sanctions against Nifong.
On July 25, Nifong issued an unqualified apology for his actions, saying he did not challenge Cooper's conclusion that there was "no reliable evidence" to support the allegations he made. While player lawyers expressed skepticism about their sincerity, they withdrew their demands that he pay for the legal work necessary to find DNA evidence.
In a letter addressed to the North Carolina State Bar on August 7, Nifong officially submitted its legal license. He later denounced the "fundamental injustice" with which his dismissal was carried out, contrary to his own lawyer's statement that Nifong believed in ostracism to be an appropriate punishment. To explain the physical condition of the license, Nifong says the license has been corrupted "by the puppy in the chewing stage", and therefore never framed or displayed.
Sentences and prisons
On September 7, 2007, Nifong reported to Durham County prison for a one-day jail sentence for contempt of court. He was arrested alone in a cell for his protection.
Claimed by player
On October 5, 2007, Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann filed a federal suit stating that Nifong designed a broad conspiracy to frame the players. Also mentioned in the suit was a laboratory dealing with DNA work, the city of Durham, a former city police chief, deputy police chief, two police detectives who handled the case and five other police officers. The players look for unspecified damage, and want to place the Durham Police Department under court supervision for 10 years, claiming police action poses "a huge risk of irreparable injury to others in Durham City." According to the lawsuit, Nifong's sole motive was to win support for his reelection bid; the lawsuit alleges that Nifong told his campaign manager that the case would provide "millions of dollars" in free advertising. " This charge was confirmed by The New York Times, and by interview with Nifong's campaign manager. Nifong asked the state attorney general's office and the Court Administration Office to pay his legal fees and help defend him, but both offices declined on the grounds that Nifong's actions involved "fraud, corruption (and) crime."
Bankruptcy filing
On January 15, 2008, Nifong filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He recorded assets of nearly $ 244,000 and liabilities of more than $ 180.3 million, almost all of which stemming from six $ 30 million "unsecured non-priority claims", one for each of the six members of the 2005-06 Duke lacrosse team that demanded Nifong, between other.
While filing a bankruptcy automatically suspends a civil lawsuit against him, it may not protect Nifong from civil liability for his actions in this case. Unsecured creditors can still pursue claims against someone who filed for bankruptcy if the debt occurs through "intentional and harmful injuries" to them. Seligmann's lawyer, said Triangle lawyer David Rudolf, said that the players intend to pursue such a claim.
According to at least one bankruptcy lawyer, Nifong's bankruptcy filing is a tacit admission that he has no resources to defend himself against the players' civil suits, and is trying to protect what assets are allowed to be protected under the law. On March 11, 2008, the Bankruptcy Administrator recommended that the bankruptcy case of Article 7 Nifong be dismissed or changed to Chapter 13 bankruptcy case because Nifong earned above the requirements set forth in the Test Means to be eligible to file a Bankruptcy case Chapter 7. However, the Bankruptcy Court finally stated that Nifong was eligible to become a debtor in the bankruptcy case of Chapter 7 and granted him bankruptcy bankruptcy on June 4, 2008. Later in the same year, Judge William L. Stocks revoked the automatic postponement imposed by Nifong filings of bankruptcy, and announced that the plaintiff may pursue their lawsuit.
Next development
In July 2014 there was a call for all the cases Nifong prosecuted for review on the basis of his case which has been proven to neglect legal proceedings in some cases including the murder trial of Darryl Howard, who was convicted in 1995 of the 1991. murder of a woman and her daughter.
In 2014, Darryl Howard, who at that time has been jailed for murder for 20 years, was given a new court because Nifong has detained evidence in a trial that led to his conviction. Two years later, after a hearing in which the state was asked why the conviction should stand, the assassination conviction was discharged and Howard was released from prison, noting that DNA evidence not given to the jury would likely release him.
References
External links
- News & amp; Observer: A copy of the order of Orlando Hudson Superior Court Judge suspends Mike Nifong (PDF)
- A copy of the distarment command
- News about Michael B. Nifong, including commentary and archive articles published at The New York Times
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments