Citizen to Court: “Remove Nifong”

From Liestoppers:

On Thursday, Durham County NC resident, Elizabeth Brewer, filed a sworn affidavit with the Clerk of Superior Court in Durham County requesting the Court remove District Attorney Mike Nifong from office.

Under the provisions set forth in NC General Statute §7A-66, Removal of district attorneys, Ms. Brewer’s affidavit charges Mr. Nifong with §7A-66(2) Willful misconduct in office and §7A-66(6) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute. Either of the charges, if found to be true, are grounds for removal under the statute.

In her affidavit Ms. Brewer cites many of the same charges recently brought against Mr. Nifong by the NC State Bar.

Brewer’s a Durham resident with no connection to Duke University or the three young men wrongly indicted during the Duke Hoax witch hunt.

Last fall Brewer chaired of the Recall Nifong – Vote Cheek campaign which sought to defeat Nifong in the November election. Nifong was elected with 49% of the vote in a three-way race.

Liestoppers again:

Brewer [says], “There can be no faith in our justice system with a district attorney who, in a very public case, conspires to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense and repeatedly makes misrepresentations and false statements to the Court and opposing counsel about the matter.”

Brewer's affidavit is part of this post. (Scroll down)

I’ve read it. It’s carefully constructed, clearly stated, detailed, and fact-based. Brewer cites many of the same Nifong statements and actions that convinced the NC State Bar’s Ethic’s Committee to bring charges against him which many say will result in his disbarment.

What happens now?

According to KC Johnson:

The affidavit [will be brought to the attention of the Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for Durham County,] Orlando Hudson. Within 30 days, he must: dismiss the charges; act upon them by suspending or removing Nifong from office; or refer them to another judge.

If he takes the third option, the referring judge gets another 30 days to review the case, at which point the judge can suspend or remove Nifong.

If either Hudson or the referring judge entertains Brewer’s affidavit, Nifong would be entitled to a hearing between 10 and 30 days later. The hearing would be open to the public. All testimony shall be recorded. The judge would hear all evidence and make all findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Maybe in the course of his proceedings, Hudson could also take time to interview the grand jurors, to determine whether they were given misleading or false testimony by either Sgt. Gottlieb, Det. Himan, or both.

Of course, JinC will follow this story as it plays out.

Later tonight I'll say more about Brewer's action today.

Almost all of you who come here are cheering what Brewer's done. So am I.

I hope you drop Beth Brewer an email at: bbrewer@liestoppers.com

What Beth Brewer did today is rare but vital to democracy.

She stepped forward and exercised her citizen’s right to “speak truth to power.”

We all think about it; few of us do it.

Thank you, Beth.