Duke Rape Case
From 60 Minutes:
The forensic expert hired by the prosecutor in the Duke rape case says he made a “big error” in judgment by not stating in his report that the only DNA he found on the accuser was from several men who were not on the Duke lacrosse team.
Dr. Brian Meehan speaks with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in his first interview about the controversial case this Sunday, Jan. 14, at 8 p.m. ET/PT.
Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. “We haven’t done that before,” he tells Stahl. “In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information.”
Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.
Meehan says writing an incomplete report violates his own firm’s standards. “It was an error in judgment on my part. … It certainly was a big error,” says Meehan. He says his firm wasn’t trying to hide the information and that it released it when it was asked. But his client’s behavior irks him, he says.
Nifong took six months to tell the players’ defense attorneys about the other DNA, as required by law — and during that time, Nifong filed a court motion that stated he was not aware of any potentially exculpatory evidence.
A “big error”… I would like to call it extremely unprofessional behavior. As such I agree with Dr. Steven Taylor:
Yes, I would say that that was a “big error.� Indeed, it strikes me a unconscionably negligent. The job of prosecutors is to find the guilty and punish them.
This case continues to amaze (and not in a good way).
[T]he malfeasance here is stunning
Indeed.
Eugene Volokh has, as usual, great commentary.
I believe this disturbing phenomenon is distinct from “normal” prosecutorial overreaching in ordinary cases. This sort of misconduct is fueled by publicity and politics, whereas normal prosecutions take place in almost complete obscurity. On the one hand, fewer people–in particular the press–are looking over the prosecutor’s shoulder. On the other hand, the lack of publicity reduces the incentive to dig in and go for broke, which makes it all the more mysterious to me when prosecutors have done so. In large offices, prosecutors must get supervisors to sign off on reducing or dropping charges precisely to prevent them from getting out of trying cases that are not dead-bang winners. But like the psychology of defense, the psychology of prosecution is far more complex than this.
[...]
But the scandal of Duke case does not about the incompetence of either line prosecutors or ordinary criminal defense attorneys, but the politically-motivated misconduct of an elected District Attorney. And it is also about how one’s life can be ruined, or at minimum forever altered, not to mention bankrupted, by a false accusation from which one is eventually vindicated.
Lawhawk at A Blog for All:
While those who have been following the case have known this for the better part of a month, that the story is getting wider play can only increase the focus on Nifong’s actions and push this sad chapter in prosecutorial misconduct to a close. KC Johnson calls Meehan hapless. I’d call him a weasel, because he chose not to do the right thing from the outset and instead let Nifong lead him down this sad road.
One sad state of affairs.
16 Responses to “Duke Rape Case”
Michael:
Excellent roundup. About the only thing that I would add is that the reason this instance of prosecutorial misconduct has gotten so much attention and, pardon the term, justice may eventually be served, is that the defendants were nice boys from good homes.
People without the socio-economic benefits that enable them to hire capable defense lawyers are not so lucky and a goodly number of them get screwed in courtrooms every day of the week.
The American criminal justice system is truly messed up. The Duke lacrosse team case is a rare window into it.
That’s one of the things that crossed my mind as well. That being said… better in this case now, than never. Also; it might make more people aware of the danger of a too aggressive prosecutor.
Really, one of the most scary things in the world is such a prosecutor: a prosecutor who decides that the suspect is guilty… even when there is evidence saying the contrary and thus, who simply ignores that kind of evidence / tries to sweep it under the rug.
A prosecutor should believe in what he’s doing, but he should also always keep an open mind and question himself / his own views.
Nice to see this finally picked up by TMV.
There is a huge problem out there, but the criminal justice system is not the whole of it, and possibly only a small part of the larger problem. Shaun, an equally serious problem is the one-sided, ideologically driven element of so much of what happens on college and university campuses. This case is a textbook example, but there have been others. The blogger behind Durham-in-Wonderland is a prime example of what’s wrong in academe. He was very nearly denied tenure at Brooklyn College for not being sufficiently left of center and ideologically impure. Dr. Johnson is a moderate Democrat. I would strongly recommend that folks look at Durham-in-Wonderland, and think about what you’ve seen. It loos as if much of the drive to railroad these three young men came from the left of center polical activists on the faculty of Duke University, joined with the activists of an ethnic identity group strongly supporting the railroad job. The DA is alleged to have been pandering to a racial voting block in his prosecution of the case with the hope that it would help get him elected. The nice people in the MSM have studiously avoided comment on this aspect of this whole sordid business. The ACLU and various other groups like Project Innocence have sat on their hands. Some cybnics are suggesting, and perhaps with good reason, that the reason for this lack of interest from many ususally concerned liberal groups is because the defendants are white, middle or upper class male atheletes.
This is ugly. Exceedingly ugly. But it is one reason why I feel so strongly that the high volume screaming that passes for reasoned debate in much of the media and the blogisphere is so detremental to good governance. There have been serious, reasonable problems with the way this case has been handled from virtually week one, and that is nine months ago. Laying them all at the hands of the DA is convenient. But the problem is, he could not have done it without a lot of assistance, much of it in the form of good people looking the other way and doing nothing. Why? Perhaps because they didn’t want to appear to be racists or sexists by questioning the claims of the accuser. But early on it became clear that evidence strongly supported the claims of the accused athletes, that they had done nothing illegal, just something rather unsavory in partying like college boys.
As several folks suggest on Durham-in-Wonderland, it is unlikely that the Democratic congress is going to push for a Department of Justice investigation of this case, since Mrs. Pelosi doesn’t want to offend her supporters. So much for cleaning up the scandals and corruption in government. The Republicans may have been corrupt and unethical, but the Democrats are proving to be no different. It is, indeed, a case of ‘meet the new boss, same as the old boss.’
Yes, that’s very true. My view on the ‘why’ is that they are most likely afraid or intimidated.
I wonder if the outrage of the Right and Hannity would have been the same if the accuser was white and the defendants were from say Howard University. The judge and Grandjury were also to blame for allowing the case to proceed. What if this happened in Missisippi in 1950, the outcome would have been completely different.
It is true that “white and wealthy” has in the past and still to a lesser extent leads to privilege in the court system.
But the particulars of this case reveal a new flip side to the coin. Like the Tawany Brawley case, this is a case where racial politics was deployed to assume guilt and attempt to run roughshod over any meaningful system of justice.
The Duke lacrosse players may have been able to beat it back because they were white and privileged, but that tends to conceal the fact that they were only targeted in the first place because they were white and privileged.
So what is worse, the fact that they were able to use privilege to defend themselves against a lynch mob or the fact that the lynch mob formed in the first place?
This is a lenghty article. Yet about 90% of the space is used for quotes. but if you state “I would like to call it extremely unprofessional behavior, Imho you should care for explaning it. What’s your problem with this prosecutor who did his job by following up on this case?
“It is true that “white and wealthyâ€? has in the past and still to a lesser extent leads to privilege in the court system.”
Indeed, indeed.
“But the particulars of this case reveal a new flip side to the coin. Like the Tawany Brawley case, this is a case where racial politics was deployed to assume guilt and attempt to run roughshod over any meaningful system of justice.”
Huh? Where did you get this idea? All the hype aboput this case simply comes from the fact that it centers around sex. That’s the reason for all the media coverage, not the race issue. Damn US bigots never can resist when a juicy story comes around.
Gray, maybe you should read up on the specifics of the case and the context of its prosecution before you comment about it. The accuser never told a consistent story and told many verified lies over the course of her many versions. In the most blatant one, she identified an attacker who was in fact ON AN ATM CAMERA over two miles away at the time. The prosecutor nonetheless pressed forward with the case, including holding a series of highly unethical public news conferences wherein he tainted the potential jury pool and told many falsehoods of his own about evidence. He also actively concealed exculpatory DNA evidence.
Of course, that could just be that he was unethical right? But you need the context he was operating in: He was running for reelection at the time and a series of racial “community groups” (including national race-baiters like Al Sharpton) were demanding prosecutions of the Duke players regardless of the problems with evidence as the price for their support.
“The prosecutor nonetheless pressed forward with the case”
So what? Prosecutors always do that! Isn’t that part of the job? But don’t worry, the expensive attorneys of the accused will assure they will be acquitted in trial. At last, this isn’t like one of those cases where a poor black guy with an assigned council is fighting against a prosecutor spending some ten thousand dollars on expert witnesses. No, I really think we can be sure the accused will have the best possible defense and won’t go into prison for an offense they haven’t commited. Or not go into prison for a crime they committed. Whatever.
I just wish the media would spend as much attention to cases where no sex is involved and the suspect isn’t a rich guy.
No misunderestimation, pls. What I wanted to say is that this whole lot of media attention for a case where nobody got sincerely harmed or even died is ridiculous, ok?
“sincerely harmed”
Only speaking about lasting physical harm, of course. Don’t want to downplay the consequences of rape.
Btw, Michael, did I miss your expert opinion on the Sean Bean case? This guy died, you now…
Uh, I mean Sean Bell, of course. Damn, Alzheimer sucks…
Hey guys!
Sorry to just drop in. I just found this site but I’ve been following this case with great personal interest since its creation.
Nifong started down this road by at first, not creating this lie, he just fostered it to what’s it’s become, then charging innocent boys, refusing to hear exculpatory evidence, not even interviewing the “prostituteâ€? until eight months after he charged these boys, destroying the three victims reputations, conspiring with the second stripper to coo berate “hisâ€? case, conspiring with the DNA lab to hide evidence, to now where Nifong actually does speak with the “prostituteâ€? for the latest version of “herâ€? story which seems to now fit some of Nifong’s spin on the evidence; however, it contradicts other witnesses. Talk about a tangled web of lies!
Nifong started down this slippery slope months ago, temped by personal gains that he sacrificed his ethics, to “possibly� committing criminal misconduct with the photo line-up to the hiding of evidence, to now “possibly� creating a new version of the “lie� that explains huge gaping holes in his rape case.