The legal sphere is said to be self-governed in the sense that its regulation is driven by the lawyers and the judges within itself rather than by an external government. The rules adopted within the profession are outlined by the American Bar Association which is the most significant organisation or attorneys. Traditionally, court cases would proceed in line with the outlined guidelines as set by ABA to enhance impartiality, fairness, and most importantly, justice. However, in some cases, there emerge issues that are regarded as ethical misconduct. Attorneys’ misconduct can be defined as unethical conduct in contrast to the established guidelines that regulate professional expectations . This essay reviews the extent of ethical misconduct by Michael Byron Nifong, the former District Attorney for Durham County, North Carolina who was the prosecuting attorney in the Duke Lacrosse case in 2006.
Background of the Duke Lacrosse case
The Duke Lacrosse case is a 2006 lawsuit that received considerable media coverage as it entailed issues, for instance, sexual violence and racial prejudice. In March 2006, Crystal Gail Mangum, an African American student at North Carolina Central University was raped. Crystal Gail Mangum was also working as a stripper in North Carolina (Mosteller, 2007). She accused three white students of raping her during a party that was organized and hosted by the Duke University Blue Devils men's lacrosse team (CIP, 2017). The names of the three students who were also members of the Blue Devils men's lacrosse team were David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The then District Attorney Michael Byron Nifong’s position about the allegations was that it amount to what he termed as a hate crime. In his investigation, the attorney and his team unearthed emails from one of the players who mentioned “ killing strippers and skinning them”. In response to the information gathered during the investigation, the University suspended the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team from the rest of the matches, and later forced the team’s Lacrosse coach Mike Pressler to resign. These initiatives were directed by the Duke University Athletics director Joe Alleva (ABA, 2018). Before long, the then Duke University president Richard Brodhead called off the lacrosse team from the rest of that season’s games.
However, April 11, 2007, Roy Cooper, the then Attorney General for North Carolina State dropped all the charges against the three suspects after comprehensive review and professional considerations. Cooper declared that David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann were innocent and that they were innocent. Cooper further claimed that the suspects were victims of Mike Nifong’s tragic rush to prosecute.
The ultimate outcome of Mike Nifong’s ethical misconduct is that on June 16, 2007, the North Carolina State Bar disbarred him from working as the District Attorney, and a practicing attorney. The three members of the North Carolina State Bar disciplinary committee unanimously established that he was guilty of gross misconduct, especially fraud, dishonesty, deceit before judges of the Supreme Court of North Carolina (Parish, 2009). Besides, he was found guilty of fabricating material facts before the Bars investigation representatives. He was further found guilty of colluding with the DNA laboratory director to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence. The outcome the case sparked severe public conversation on the topics of ethnic prejudice and sexual violence. Other conversations were aligned to media bias as well as the due process in campus administrations. (Cohan, 2014)
Nifong ’s Critic
Mike Nifong’s prosecution of the three suspects, however, received significant critic from defense lawyers as well as media outlets (Mosteller, 2007). In reply to the critics, however, Mike Nifong repeatedly mentioned that much of the critic emerged from the defense lawyers’ strategy to stop the rape victim from receiving justice. One of the key claims that critics built from that Nifong published series of accusations against the three suspects that were later established through investigation as false (Cohan, 2014). The case emerged at a time when Nifong was in the middle of his campaigns to serve as the district prosecutor for Durham. As a result, Nifong was accused of intensifying racial tensions by exaggerating facts surrounding the case to win the votes of the African Americans (Cohan, 2014). Mike Nifong was also accused of unduly influencing the investigation procedures carried out by the Durham police (Parish, 2009). In this case, the news source alleged that he had tried to manipulate the outcome of their investigation to match his false claims.
Additionally, advocates from different levels of practice accused Mike Nifong of attempting to manipulate the potential witnesses in the case so that their delivery would align to his opinion of the case (Taylor & Johnson, 2007). Mike Nifong was also accused of failing to listen to exculpatory evidence prior to conducting indictment since that evident would inform the actual facts about the case (Cohan, 2014). Besides, Nifong’s critiques were based on the argument that the identification procedures carried out during the investigation seemed to have breached the mere aspect of missing the photographs of individuals that were potentially absent from the party at the time that rape took place (Mosteller, 2007). Despite his claims of hate crime ( American Bar Association, 2018). It was established that Nifong had actually not met or conversed with the alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum about the nature of her accusations. Lastly, Nifong had taken advantage of the more than fifty interviews in which he appeared to make misleading and incomplete presentations of the elements of evidence that he had gathered, including specific information that could have instead remained confidential ( American Bar Association, 2018).
Analysis of Mike Nifong’s Prosecutorial Misconduct
Prosecuting attorneys hold significant positions and power in lawsuits. They are entrusted with the responsibility of determining the specific personalities that ought to be held accountable for the occurrence of certain crimes. As a result, it is within their powers to work alongside the police to establish investigations and build strong cases based on valid and verifiable evidence against the right suspects (Taylor & Johnson, 2007). From that point, prosecuting lawyers advance cases to the court where they hold the entire responsibility of convincing the court jury that the suspects are guilty and that they deserve to be punished in accordance to specific provisions of the law (Mosteller, 2007). It is therefore in order to conclude that the prosecutor is importantly positioned in the pursuit for justice as they present the jury with facts and arguments that adhere to the legal standards so as to establish conviction of the guilty defendants.
Ethical misconduct such as the series of events in which Mike Nifong becomes part constitutes a major challenge to the supposed seamless duties of the prosecuting attorneys. In the benchmark case Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935), Justice Sutherland breaks down the concept of prosecutorial misconduct to mean the act of “overstepping the bounds of that propriety and fairness which should characterize the conduct of such an officer in the prosecution of a criminal offense.” (California Innocent Project, 2017). Justice Sutherland suggests that it is the sole responsibility of the prosecuting attorneys to present truthful information to the jury, even if such truths might torpedo the quality of evidence that they have against the defendants (California Innocent Project. 2017).
There are four outstanding ways in which prosecutorial misconduct manifests. They include delivering inadmissible evidence against the defendants in court, suppressing evidence from the defense or not recognizing truthful evidence that they provide, manipulating witnesses to give deceitful evidence, as well as prosecutorial bluffing (American Bar Association, 2018). Prosecutorial bluffing entails the use of threats or intimidations against defendants so as to stop or discourage them from fighting for justice. In some cases, however, prosecuting attorneys might use vindictive prosecution in which they charge defendants with a more serious violation so as to serve specific interests of themselves or external elements within the judicial system. An analysis of Nifong’s misconduct reveals that he had involved in all four forms of prosecutorial misconduct (Cohan, 2014).
In an overview, Nifong crosses the line to ethical practice in prosecution the moment he communicates that his intention is to bring the suspects down regardless of whether they had committed a crime or not. In this case, it must be mentioned that the innocence of the three rape suspects is separate from the fact that a crime was committed (Mosteller, 2007). Even if it turns out that the alleged victim, Crystal Gail Mangum was truly raped, the fact that she suspected the three Lacrosse tea members of raping does not remain if sufficient evidence is not gathered and presented against them. During his prosecution, Nifong told that the jury that both him and his assistant had not established the nature of the alleged assault with. This was a key aspect of misconduct as they could not ascertain the level of damage caused by the actual assault if he had not established a relationship with the alleged victim to discuss her view of the case (Taylor & Johnson, 2007).
Prosecuting attorneys are subjected to similar ethical standards as the defense side, which includes barring them from delivering fabricated or inadmissible information that would anchor the evidence provided. Neither are they allowed to present implicated evidence since such is considered inadmissible by the court (Parish, 2009). The media and advocates accused Nifong of providing accusations that were later established by the court as untrue. Initially, Nifong lied before the courts that he had assessed the extent of damage caused by the alleged sexual assault (Cohan, 2014). It later turned out that both Nifong and his assistant had not met or established any conversation with Miss Mangum (Mosteller, 2007). Nifong committed further contempt by lying to the court that he had shared the outcome of the DNA tests. As it later turned out, the laboratory director said that there was a major misunderstanding, which Nifong tied to a weak memory.
While it is formal for the prosecutor to request the jury to suppress specific evidence from consideration during trials, it is entirely ethically unacceptable for prosecuting attorneys to make efforts that rather aim at suppressing evidence held by the defendant’s team. Mike Nifong participated in suppressing defendant’s evidence through a couple of moves. First and foremost, Nifong fails to listen to exculpatory evidence provided by the defendants prior to his engagement in indictment. Exculpatory evidence is any nature of information that might act as evidence within the context of criminal trail to prove that the defendants are not guilty of the criminal charges against them. Such evidences offer proof that the suspect lack criminal intent of the charges held against them. By Nifong and his team failing to hear evidence gathered by the defense to prove their innocence, he also suppressed their efforts to fight for justice with equal chances that the court provides.
In the light of their public responsibilities and broad authority coupled with discretion, prosecutors are not expected to knowingly involve in activities that rather seems to manipulate the position of potential witnesses to their advantage. First, Nifong manipulates the course of investigation and influences the outcome delivered during the Durham police investigation. On December 16, 2006, the court curt established that Mike Nifong alongside Brian Meehan, who acted as the DNA laboratory director has involved in a conspiracy in which they could withhold the outcome of the exculpatory DNA, which could be used by the defendants as primary evidence in their final reports. His prosecution seemed only to rely on scanty evidence, which further showed that he acted against the ABA provisions for prosecution. In this case, the District attorney acted to impede the truth from coming out.
The ABA guidelines to effective prosecutor conduct outlies various aspect that govern their relationship with the media. A prosecuting attorney, for example, are not authorized to make statement in which they knowingly deliver utterances that would rather pose a significant likelihood of prejudicing or attracting public condemnation or media uproar. Nifong had attended more than fifty media interviews, most of which had been presented at the national television and media (ABA, 2018). The News & Observer reports during such interviews, he often used disrespectful words such as calling the suspect "…a bunch of hooligans" Later on, Nifong claimed that he was confident that the alleged rape had been by the suspected Lacrosse players, but failed. From early 2006, however, Nifong began evading the media. The defense lawyers complained at various instances that Nifong made unprofessional and discourteous remarks. As feedback to the defense attorneys, Nifong told them that “…were almost disappointed that their clients didn't get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle here in Durham" (Holston, 2007). While such comments may have been viewed as personal sentiments or personal insults, they form a major undoing in the legal practice.
Conclusion
Prosecuting attorneys have a special connection with the law which makes their conducts subject to specific standards and ethical standards that are outlined by the ABA. An analysis of the elements that define ethical misconduct in the prosecutions function reveals that Mike Nifong’s conducts during his investigation and prosecution of the case reveals that he went against the ABA guidelines. This is because Nifong deliverers inadmissible evidence against the defendants in court, attempts to suppress evidence from the defense, manipulates witnesses to give deceitful evidence. Despite his punishment through disbarment and his ethical charges waiting charge, there should be further legal actions taken against Nifong.
References
American Bar Association. (2018, Novemeber 12). Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function . Retrieved from Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/
California Innocent Project. (2017). Prosecutorial Misconduct . Retrieved from Carlifornai Innocent Project: https://californiainnocenceproject.org/issues-we-face/prosecutorial-misconduct/
Cohan, W. (2014). The price of silence: The Duke lacrosse scandal, the power of the elite, and the corruption of our great universities. New York: Scribner Publishers.
Holston, N. (2007, April 4th). 66th Annual Peabody Awards Winners Announced . Retrieved from UGA Today: https://news.uga.edu/66th-annual-peabody-awards-winners-announced/
Mosteller, R. P. (2007). The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To “Do Justice. Fordham Law Review, 76 (3), 1348–1351.
Parish, R. (2009). The Duke Lacrosse Case: A Documentary History and Analysis of the Modern Scottsboro. New York : BookSurge Publishing.
Taylor, S., & Johnson, K. (2007). Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. New York: St. Martin's Press.
