Posted on 01/19/2007 8:38:22 PM PST by freespirited
Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong is already facing complaints from the North Carolina State Bar that he made misleading, deceitful and fraudulent statements to the media about the Duke lacrosse case.
Additional complaints that the DA intentionally hid DNA evidence favorable to the defendants could be added to that State Bar complaint.
Nifong will defend himself before the State Bar in May.
But Nifong could also be forced to defend himself before a jury in a civil trial down the road.
In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," the parents of the three indicted players vowed to hold Nifong accountable for how he's handled the Duke case. One parent said: "You will pay every day for the rest of your life."
Exactly how could the families of Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann go after Nifong?
Don Beskind, an attorney in Raleigh, says it might not be easy.
"District attorneys have an enormous protection against being sued," Beskind said.
Under state law, district attorneys have what's called absolute immunity from civil suits, meaning they can't be sued.
"Even if you've done something for a bad reason, even if your corrupt no matter what as long as your being a DA, you have an absolute immunity." Beskind said.
But according to Beskind, if lawyers can prove Niflong acted outside the scope of his duties as DA, he could lose his immunity.
For example, under state law the families could sue Nifong for defamation, saying he made false statements, either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, and those statements harmed the reputations of the accused players.
But in this case lawyers would have to show Nifong not only made such statements but that he was acting outside his role as DA when he made them.
Meanwhile under federal law, district attorneys have what's called "qualified immunity." This means they can't be sued unless lawyers can prove they should have known their actions violated the law.
In federal court, the players' families could accuse Nifong of violating their sons' civil rights.
They could accuse Nifong of denying their sons a fair trial, or even of producing false evidence. Defense attorneys have already laid out that argument by contending that Nifong withheld certain DNA findings favorable to the defense from a final report presented to the court.
Civil lawyers could also argue Nifong denied their sons a fair jury. Defense lawyers have laid out that argument by accusing Nifong of making misleading or fraudulent statements to the media that may influence potential jurors.
In this case lawyers would have to prove Nifong not only did these things but also knew he was violating the law.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Judges have it even better, they can make up Law on the spot and are for the most part unaccountable
TT
Citing the same sentence, being a reporter means never having to say, "My grammar sucks."
"the county who employs said DA can be sued for serious $$$ because of the DA's breathtaking incompetence or misconduct."
He was elected. Sue the voters?
One set of rules for the peasants, another set of rules for the Lords.
Ok, I'll bite. What duty does a DA have to hold press conferences and lie to the general public during them? Where is this duty specifically spelled out in law or in Constitution?
He was acting as a candidate.
I'm no lawyer but I'd be stunned to learn that the defendants couldn't sue if it's determined that the DA engaged in willful misconduct that caused them to spend time in jail that they shouldn't have....or if they incurred lawyers fees that they shouldn't have incurred.
And they'd be suing the taxpayers,not the voters.
It's an interesting conundrum. If DAs weren't solidly protected against frivolous lawsuits, they couldn't accomplish anything. But Nifong's behavior was so egregious, maybe they can find some grounds. For instance, maybe they could make the argument that he was not acting within his capacity as a DA, but was turning the case into a campaign issue to get himself re-elected.
It might be hard to prove, though. Intentions are difficult unless there is some written statement or solid evidence for them.
In any case, I think Nifong is washed up and will be eased out of office, because he has caused so much trouble for the politicians and DAs throughout the whole state. It makes them look bad, and I doubt they'll put up with it.
"In this case lawyers would have to prove Nifong not only did these things but also knew he was violating the law."
Prove it or not... Nifong's actions in this case have so tainted him that -- for all practical purposes -- his career may be over anyway.
Problem is, he'd most likely face either criminal or civil in courts of the Banana Republic of Durham. Not a hotbed of justice these days.
Read John Grisham's An Innocent Man.
The laws may have changed in the last 2-4 years, but I doubt it...
Sounds good to me. They elected him.
Fine, tar and feather the bastard.
bump
I'm not a lawyer, but if I have this right, that's one of the actions he took outside the scope of his protected duties. IOW, he is vulnerable to a defamation lawsuit for his comments at news conferences and the like, since those were not necessary to prosecute the case.
I doubt the newspapers will make her name public. But it's all over the internet. She even has her own entry in Wikipedia!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.