Williamson: “There’s not discipline short of disbarment that would be appropriate in this case.”
“This matter has been a fiasco,” for the defendants and for the justice system. “We have to ask ourselves why?”
“It seems at the root of it is self-deception rising out of self-interest.” Quote Mark Twain: If you can’t deceive yourself you can’t deceive other people.
Nifong’s self-interests “collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class, a situation that, if applied to a John Grisham novel would be considered to be too contrived.”
Despite the AG’s findings, the defendant still believes something happened. “And the world knows that not to be the case.”
Character is dependent upon the situation. His was found wanting in this situation. Disbarment is the most severe sanction we can enter.
Victims: The three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the N.C. justice system and elsewhere, and prosecutors, honest, ethical prosecutors across the nation.
Aggravating factors: Dishonest and selfish motives, wrongful conduct, vulnerability of the victims, the three young men charged.
Mitigating factors: Absence of a prior record and reputation of character. But aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.
This matter appears to be an aberration in the life and career of Michael Nifong and in the way justice is handled in N.C.
“And in particular the justice system is a victim” the way it was taken out of the courtroom and “into a media frenzy unprecedented in anyone’s experience.”
These four days show us “you can’t do justice in the media, you can’t do justice in soundbites.” Only determining the facts can be justice.
“That was not going to happen, apparently, in the Duke lacrosse case.” “The justice system righted itself, somehow.” “It was done with backups systems that were never designed to be how the justice system should work.”
It might have started on Dec. 28 when the bar brought its action. Unprecedented for the bar to do this during a case when the presiding judge had jurisdiction. “I’m sure that was a matter of serious debate to do that, because that, in itself, took the justice system off track.”
The AG’s office also helped it get back on track with a declaration of innocence, which wouldn’t have been accomplished had it prodeded, because the case would probably have been dismissed with no declaration of innocence. Cites Marsha Goodenow’s testimony, “whom we found to be a very persuasive witness.”
“But the fact that if these extraordinary circumstances had not come to pass, leading to a declaration of innocence,” we are left with the fact that the most powerful person in the system is not the judge or the jury but the prosecutor who makes the charging decision to start with. A prosecutor, “merely by asserting a charge against defendant has a leg up.”
Mr. Nifong, it must be said, for whatever reason, it does appear to us to be out of self-interest and self-deception, not necessarilly out of an evil motive,” he lost sight of that and wandered off the path of justice, and it had to be put back on track by extraordinary means.
Because of his statements, “there was a deception perpetrated on the public” and many of them were made to look foolish. Thinks back to the early days of the case and how public opinion was overwhelmingly against the players, and then you look at how the truth came out “slowly and in small increments,” and you look now at public opinion and it’s a 180-degree change.
It is very difficult to find anything good about this. One is that there are very few deterrents for a prosecutor other than disciplinary sanctions. “And here, the most severe sanction is warranted.”
Discusses Nifong saying that the Bar was out to get him because of two other cases where lawyers did not get disbarred, even though the harm, it could be argued, was greater. But these cases were different. There was no contention of any any misconduct or proof of intentional wrongdoing. The maximum discipline allowable in those cases that was imposed. But we applied the rules.
We applied the rules here too and we think we did it correctly. This was intentional prosecutorial misconduct.
“This should be a message to everyone that it’s the facts that matter, not the allegation,” he said with regard to this being a deterrent to other prosecutors.
Another thing that may be good about this is it’s an opportunity to acknowledge that other than the testimony of Brian Meehan on Dec. 15 no one had given any testimony in this case until this week.
“We acknowledge the actual innocence of these defendants [the three players] and there is nothing here that doesn’t support that assertion.”
When this is reported, it should be noted not that the State Bar disciplined Mike Nifong, but that the DHC, particularly this panel, disciplined Mike Nifong. This was a process. The State Bar felt they had evidence sufficient to an independent tribunal that Nifong’s license should be taken. “And that’s due process, and that’s what was nearly hijacked in the case of the Duke lacrosse defendants.”
“This has been truly a fiasco.” We heard anecdotal evidence of the harm this caused. “The actual harm is very difficult to get one’s arms around. But I hope this process will help assuage the harm.”
Says they’ll issue a written order soon, a final order, of disbarment. “Unless there’s anything further to address, this proceeding is concluded.”
