“It’s been a long four days.” You said it. He begins his closing.
Says Nifong’s duty was to seek justice, not just to convict. And in a court of law, not in the media. And to disclose all discovery to the defense. Proscess demands honesty in all representations made to the court and defense counsel. Evidence shows that Nifong engaged in a systematic pattern of abuse that began with the case and continued to this hearing.
“Mr. Nifong did not act as a minister of justice, but a minister of injustice.”
From his first involvement, NIfong began to “weave a web of deception that has continued up to this hearing.” Says State Bar has proved his violations. Bar doesn’t have to prove he did these things knowingly. Many of his statements weren’t only improper, but were false or misleading.
These rules are there to preserve the right to a fair trial. Quotes Oliver Wendell Holmes saying justice comes in a court, not in outside statements or extra-judicial speech.
Williamson: A legal issue raised in Nifong’s response. Reads from rule against making statements that heighten condemnation when, as Nifong said, there had been no indictments.
Brocker: There weren’t indictments yet but his comments clearly heightened the condemnation of those who were eventually indicted.
Williamson: His interpretation is “consistent with what you have said.” Says it’s problematic when you have a class of people (a lacrosse team) instead of individuals. So he agrees this rule applies. [Whew!]
Brocker gives examples of improper extra-judicial statements. Says Nifong “repeatedly trampled on these constitutional rights” during this case. Says Nifong, as a 28-year prosecutor, had to know this and therefore he did it intentionally. Says his immediate launching of a state and national “media barrage” shows his intent.
The most egregious of these were the ones attacking the accused’s 6th Amendment rights. [Boy, Dave Evans has sure slimmed down since last spring!]
Brocker says the NTO indentified the players as suspects, so Nifong’s excuse that they weren’t suspects and so his comments pre-indictment were proper is specious. He also expressed certainty that a crime occurred, which violates all prosecutor rules.
Williamson: Has a question about that. Can’t a prosecutor say in public “I believe a crime occurred”?
Brocker: His statements even made Brad Bannon, a defense attorney, think they were guilty. Says that’s chilling.
Williamson: Doesn’t buy that argument. He’s making Brocker go through his paces here. Asks if Brocker can show him any authority that shows this is wrong.
Brocker: Didn’t go find authority for things that fell under the comments.
Puts a document on the big screen. Williamson: “Not even if I had two good eyes could I see that.”
Brocker: Not once did Nifong ever use the word “alleged.” The document is an article, “a striking example,” showing statements from other people about the case (Brodhead, NAACP head, some Duke students) and they all used the word “alleged” or acknowledged that this was not proven yet. But Nifong did not. He called it “the rape,” not “the alleged rape.” They are obviously inappropriate and inflammatory,” says Brocker, and were spread widely in the media, thus heightening condemnation of the accused. Brocker says this was intentional “to put pressure on the players.”
The most compelling evidence that Nifong had heightened public condemnation is Seligmann’s first court appearance when death threats were made, and on top of that Nifong snickered at that proceeding where death threats were made. These actions “essentially nullified” the accused’s 6th Amendment rights.
