Duke lacrosse: McClatchy's N&O still with Nifong

An old Raleigh Q&A goes:

Do you know why there are so many mistakes in News & Observer editorials?

Because the editors only read the N&O.

Today the McClatchy Company's N&O's lead editorial (“Rape case gaps?”) tells readers there are reports of “discrepancies between some of [Durham DA] Nifong's statements and information contained in various court filings”, something the public’s known and been discussing for weeks while the N&O’s been silent.

The N&O opines:

It may well be that Nifong, in his many public statements describing the alleged March 14 assault, went beyond what some key evidence tends to show. That could be a sign of overzealousness, which for prosecutors spells trouble.

What about the innocent and public confidence in justice? Don't they always suffer as a result of DA overzealousness?

The N&O says nothing about the innocent in Durham or the public’s confidence in Nifong’s justice.

Folks, how can any editor fail to mention them?

The editorial also fails to mention evidence no one is disputing: the Nifong/Durham Police photo ID set up had only photos of Duke lacrosse players. No fillers were used.

As Duke Law Professor James Coleman notes:

According to the police account of the identification, however, the police officer who presided over the proceedings told the alleged victim at the outset that he wanted her to look at people the police had reason to believe attended the party.

Thus, the police not only failed to include people they knew were not suspects among the photographs shown the woman, they told the witness in effect that there would be no such "fillers" among the photographs she would see.

This strongly suggests that the purpose of the identification process was to give the alleged victim an opportunity to pick three members of the lacrosse team who could be charged. Any three students would do; there could be no wrong choice.

If your interested in justice, can you ignore what Coleman’s talking about?

The N&O did.

Coleman believes:

Nifong can no longer personally restore public confidence in the prosecution of this case.

Someone with professional detachment and unquestioned integrity must review the case and determine whether the evidence against the three students warrants further prosecution.

That would serve the best interest of the alleged victim, the three defendants and public.

The N&O disagrees. It has confidence in Nifong but worries he might be intimidated by the defense team:

Certainly the defense is campaigning to swing public opinion in their clients' favor, and can be counted upon to highlight anything in the record that will help achieve that. As long as the accuser holds to her account, the authorities must not let the defense intimidate them.(bold added)

But the accuser has offered many accounts. So the N&O is, in fact, urging Nifong to press the case so long as the accuser holds to at least one of her accounts.

What the N&O is urging Nifong to do directly contradicts the North Carolina State Bar’s Rule 3.8 – Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor – which says in part:

"A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”

An accuser’s account isn’t “sufficient evidence,” especially when it's one of many she's told.

Even editors who read only the N&O should know that.

Hat Tip: K. C. Johnson
_____________________________________________
Post URLs:

http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/451509.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/580/story/449892.html

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/26662.html

http://www.ncbar.com/rules/rul_sel.asp?ID=34&BACK='rul_adv.asp?type=V'&LIST=title&type=V