Posted on 01/19/2007 8:38:22 PM PST by freespirited
PS,
Nifong, in his book, will blame the Durham cops.
In general immunity is to protect public servants from frivolous lawsuits while doing their job.
When there has been egregious conduct, including lawbreaking, I do not believe that an immunity clause will protect the malefactor.
That's my take on it, too. He's made too many waves, embarrassed and inconvenienced too many people. If he had pulled it off, he would have been OK, but he screwed up. They'll ease him out, and as you say, he will be pretty much unemployable. That's not as satisfying as suing him and throwing him in jail, but his life is not going to be very pleasant for a man with his evident ambitions.
Prosecutors are elected, but they are also reliant on their fellow prosecutors, staff, government, and party leaders.
If the party leaders decide that Nifong is radioactive, they will find ways to dispose of him before the next election. If nothing else, they can lean on the lawyers to disbar him, which I believe would force him to resign.
Lawyers and politicians essentially belong to clubs. They protect each other and scratch each others' backs, but they can also expel anyone who breaks the club's rules and embarrasses them.
I believe that is exactly what happened, i.e. Nifong took over as if he was chief of police. Among other things he directed the police to violate their lineup procedures so as to produce an outcome that essentially guaranteed that the accuser would pick three lacrosse players.
That would clearly be a fed crime. Why is there no mention of that. The fed crime is not within the scope of his official duties. Only something he overlooked, forgot, ect... Like what happens in IL repeatedly. That kind of thing is within the scope of their duty. Why didn't the judge cite him for contempt?
That has been where I believe Nifong's legal jeopardy is greatest. There was clearly a conspiracy to deny these men their due process. A federal offense. Now we will have to see if the Justice Department has the balls to prosecute or if they will continue to be primarily a political prosecutorial tool (i.e. The 'PlameGate' case and the NeTeller execs arrest)
You said -- "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."
In addition to that, a committee or organization needs to be formed to hound him for the rest of his life (if he can't be sued for this egregious misconduct) -- so that he can't get a job above washing dishes in a restaurant....
Regards,
Star Traveler
Nifong has no authority to take over as chief of an investigative services except his own. That would be of the type "Investigators of the office of the DA". Lineup procedures are established by case law, have a rational basis and were instituted to elimate bias. If he violated the procedures in a way that introduces bias, then he was unethical. It would also show that the police agency was unethical by allowing it and furthering a miscarriage of justice. IOWs they were fabricating evidence, rather than obtaining it.
Who exposed the fact that the exculpatory DNA evidence was withheld?
The details of the line-up are laid out in a motion to suppress by the defense. It will mean a lot more to you than me. Here it is--the lineup details start on page 15.
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/news/story_graphics/20061214_motion.pdf
(This is a big file--46 pages).
The defense forced the director of the DNA lab to admit it at a hearing last month. It's all explained in this blog post by K.C. Johnson:
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2006/12/meehan-transcript.html
From the CBS News web site:
At a hearing last month, Meehan testified that he and Nifong agreed to limit the report to "just the stuff that matched" the lacrosse players or three of the accuser's friends. After Meehan found there was DNA evidence from other unidentified men, he says he spelled out that information to D.A. Nifong in person and on the phone – before he completed his report.
He does some moonwalking after this statement, but the fact that these guys agreed to exlude the exculpatory DNA evidence in violation of the law seems very clear.
This is contradictory. ie. 2st he has an agreement, then he doesn't? I assume Meehan is the lab guy. The lab guy can not agree to limit anything. He must report all that he finds. It was unethical for them to discuss what would be presented, other than for both to make sure everything was. It appears Nifong attempted to influence Meehan, but Meehan didn't go along, so there's no conspiracy.
"2st" should be 1st.
Don't pontificate unless you have been following the case.
A false report was generated and presented to the court and the defense. There absolutely was a conspiracy, and its fruit was the false report.
Then the lab director realized he could not keep this covered up forever, and testified to the conspiracy under oath.
"A false report was generated and presented to the court and the defense. "
I see, so the he refers to Meehan... So, Meehan's first report to the judge and defese, did not contain the complete findings. However Nifong did have knowledge of additional results that were withheld. That's evidence that a conspiracy was committed to deprive the defendants of due process under the color of law, 18USC242. The feds should go after Nifong, but might not. The defendants can sue if they don't.
" Then the lab director realized he could not keep this covered up forever, and testified to the conspiracy under oath."
If the lab director decided that he wanted out on his own and came forward, he is out of the conspiracy and it's unlikely the defendants can sue him successfully. He'd just be part of their due process then.
If I'm not mistaken, he was testifying under oath when the defense lawyers questioned him about the DNA report. He appears to have decided that committing perjury wasn't worth the risk.
I think Nifong is washed up and will be eased out of office...
________________________________________________________
They said the same thing about Nagin.
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.