Nifong's lawyers say DNA evidence shared

Charlotte Observer ^ | 3/20/07

[3niner]

Yet even the prosecutor in the case was okay with Feldman accusing innocent people.

I won't argue that it's right, but defense attorneys are allowed far more latitude, than prosecutors.

One reason is that it is a defense attorney's job to get the best result for their client, while the prosecutor is employed by the people, and is supposed to seek the truth and a just verdict.

Another reason is that the prosecutor has the force of government available to ruin people's lives (as Nifong has so aptly demonstrated).

[Jane Austen]

Except in this case, Feldman KNOWINGLY falsely accused innocent people, KNOWINGLY presented false "evidence."

[ladyjane]

The fact that Nifong didn't just drop the case when the DNA shows that no crime occurred is enough reason to disbar him.

Actually a rape could have occurred but not by the lacrosse players.

Only half the DNA analysis has been made public. Bill O'Reilly said that there was evidence of seven different men in her. Maybe when the full analysis is public there will be evidence of more than ten men. Maybe she was gang raped - but not by those who are accused.

[Constitutions Grandchild]

"The former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case didn't violate the constitutional rights of the three charged players,..."

But it sure wasn't for lack of trying. That, Mr. Nifong, is the rub.