|
TheSequitur.com Editorial Board
Jan. 27, 2007
The recent disclosure of DNA evidence exculpating the Duke lacrosse defendants of rape charges was the coup de grâce in a case whose history reads like a grim parody of the U.S. criminal justice system.  Former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong. Photo - NCDistrictAttorney.org
Thus, before hastening to reach the storybook ending (which, for most, entails Nifong dangling from the gallows of the Ethics Board) it is vital to consider how the notion of presumed innocence is suffering in courts and in the press, and, most importantly, to consider what the general public can do to advance justice and prevent trial-based character assassination in future.
One needs little understanding of the nuances of the North Carolina criminal code to appreciate the extent to which the D.A.’s office bungled the case from the outset. The most flagrant injustices are as shocking as they are well known (at least in retrospect, and perhaps this is the problem).
One needs little understanding of the nuances of the North Carolina criminal code to appreciate the extent to which the D.A.’s office bungled the case from the outset.Even before Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans were formally indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping, DNA testing of all of the 46 players on the Duke lacrosse team revealed no matches with samples taken from the accuser or her clothing. As is now well publicized, the director of DNA Security, Inc. – the private lab that conducted the analysis – recently disclosed that Nifong decided not to release this exculpatory evidence to defense counsel.
Moreover, though police had assured the players that DNA testing would be conclusive and, indeed, dispositive, Nifong nonetheless insisted on a lineup in order for the victim to identify her purported assailants. Eschewing typical protocol, the lineup grid the accuser used to identify the three defendants included no “filler” photos (control pictures of individuals not connected with the case).
Also prior to the indictments, Nifong gave several public interviews announcing unequivocally that certain members of the team were guilty of rape. During an interview on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Nifong stated that “[t]here’s no doubt in my mind that [the victim] was raped and assaulted at [the house].” More perniciously, Nifong described the lacrosse players as “a bunch of hooligans” whose “daddies could buy them expensive lawyers.” Notably, to date, Nifong has had little to no contact with the defendants, has refused to meet with defense counsel and has yet to interview the accuser.In addition to the abject defamatory implications of Nifong’s aspersions, his handling of the case – particularly, preemptive announcements of guilt and disregard for exculpatory evidence – demonstrates a clear cut case of presumed guilt.
Nifong described the lacrosse players as “a bunch of hooligans” whose “daddies could buy them expensive lawyers.”Whether motivated by political aspirations (some argue that Nifong’s misguided zealotry was an attempt to gain the support of the Durham County black community during a campaign for re-election in which he ultimately prevailed) or simply by the desire to try an especially newsworthy case in the limelight, there can be little doubt that proceeding upon the premise of presumed guilt is legally, ethically and morally objectionable.
But, again, it would be far too simple and, indeed, counterproductive to implicate Nifong as the sole culprit. In order to fully appreciate the detriment of presumed guilt, we must consider the speed and efficiency with which Nifong’s unsubstantiated claims blanketed the headlines and, concomitantly, informed our opinions of the defendants.
Of course, the media would be negligent in failing to report a D.A.’s public proclamation of a defendant’s guilt in a high-profile rape case, and the public would be foolish to simply disregard the same. So the problem begins in the courthouse. But, if anything, the Duke rape case should serve as a message to the media and the general public that otherwise credible sources (both newspapers and prosecutors) should henceforth be regarded with measured patience and greater scrutiny. Ultimately, moving beyond the post-O.J. sensationalism of the high profile criminal proceeding and, instead, towards the presumption of innocence, has more than just abstract democratic implications.In a hyper-connected information society, our collective eagerness to reach swift conclusions and move on to the next issue of the hour must be decelerated in the spirit of being better informed and, fundamentally, upholding the presumption of innocence that underlies our system of justice.
Ultimately, moving beyond the post-O.J. sensationalism of the high profile criminal proceeding and, instead, towards the presumption of innocence, has more than just abstract democratic implications. In holding ourselves and our champions of justice to higher standards of scrutiny, we will serve society in a most human manner.
It is worth recognizing that during the course of the Duke rape case, the accused were suspended from the university (they are unlikely to return) and have been privy to constant death threats, hate speech and all manner of vitriol. It is no hyperbole to suggest that their lives – and the lives of their families – will never be the same.
In understanding and learning the lessons from this tragedy – the latest iteration of the all-too-common phenomenon of presumed guilt – we will not simply strengthen our society, we will be doing our duty to ensure that the sad ramifications resulting from indiscretions like Nifong’s are held at bay.
[Images - Wikipedia, NCDistrictAttorney.org]
Senior Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
|
Conclusions 
