ILNews

Prosecutors talk about Nifong disbarment

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana prosecutors worry about heightened suspicion of charging decisions they make as a result of the high-profile disbarment of a North Carolina prosecutor over the weekend.

Talk started months ago as the situation escalated, but banter took a new surge this morning following Michael Nifong's nationally televised disciplinary proceeding Saturday. He was disbarred for violating professional conduct rules in his prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape.

"Around the country and here, prosecutors are talking about the Nifong effect," said Stephen Johnson, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. "This is a black mark against all prosecutors."

The North Carolina bar charged Nifong with breaking several rules of professional conduct, including lying to both the court and bar investigators and withholding critical DNA test results from the players' defense attorneys. The commission unanimously agreed that Nifong's actions involved "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation."

The 29-year prosecutor said he would waive any right to appeal the punishment in an attempt to help restore faith in the criminal justice system and the role prosecutors serve throughout the country.

"I can't even express my disgust for this guy," said Cass County deputy prosecutor Randall Head. "Nifong's behavior defies belief, but it's an aberration. Most prosecutors I know make a concentrated effort to avoid problems Nifong created, and I have never known a prosecutor who engaged in the systematic cover up of exculpatory evidence the way he did."

Head said he believes this case will help educate the public about the Rules of Professional Conduct and what prosecutors are not allowed to do, as well as have an impact on how juries view DNA results.

Johnson found a bit of irony in this case, as North Carolina's system is similar to that in Indiana and Hoosier lawmakers spent time this past legislative session talking about the Nifong situation and comparing it to this state's system.

"They missed the point," he said. "What's different is that here, we're more often talking about charges not being filed. That says a lot. Justice is often served by not filing charges."
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT