Nifong is Wrong — Again!
December 27th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |“The Duke rape case prosecutor must be stopped” or so says Slate Magazine’s Emily Bazelon. She detects an error in a recent statement by the embattled prosecutor that is so fundamental as to call into question his qualifications to even hold the job, never mind his possible misconduct in the case.
The suspect statement occurred as Nifong tried to explain why, even though he was dropping the rape charges against the three Lacrosse team members, he was continuing to press the kidnap and sexual assault charges. According to Nifong:
“If she says, yes, it’s them, or one or two of them, I have an obligation to put that to a jury.”
Or not. According to Ms. Bazelon:
Prosecutors don’t have an obligation to take a professed victim’s accusations to a jury. They have an obligation to listen to her story, test it against the other evidence, and then decide whether to move ahead. This is the root of prosecutorial discretion. Victims don’t decide when to press charges in criminal cases. District attorneys do. And much of the time, that means a victim’s accusation doesn’t get anywhere near a courtroom.
The entire article is worth your time.
The rape, which the prosecutor can no longer charge because there is no evidence of rape and because the woman now says she’s not sure she was penetrated, is no longer the story. The story is the prosecutor who seems to be wrong in virtually everything he has done so far in this case. The question no longer seems to be whether Nifong can make the other charges stick but whether Nifong can come away from this case and retain his job.
Sad.