I’ve been following the disintegration of the case filed against the Duke LaCrosse players. The prosecutor is apparently not turning over all the documents according to defense counsel.
Nifong also refused to look at the exculpatory evidence held by defense counsel:
Evans said that for weeks he has been trying to contact District Attorney Mike Nifong, who is prosecuting the case. Defense lawyers have complained that Nifong was not accepting evidence that may prove their clients innocent.“All of my attempts have been denied. I’ve tried to provide him with exculpatory evidence to show him this could not have happened,” Evans said, adding, “apparently, there’s a lack of interest in my story — the true story.”
Take a look at the difference between Nifong and this prosecutor who did bother to look at exculpatory evidence in a case involving a false allegation of rape:
Assistant State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor said he agreed that Ontuba-Payne’s case should be thrown out.“It’s as much a part of our job to clear people who have been wrongly accused as it is to aggressively prosecute people,” he said.
The North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct say the following about a prosecutor’s duty to make disclosures and to consider exculpatory evidence:
With respect to evidence and witnesses, the prosecutor has responsibilities different from those of a lawyer in private practice; the prosecutor should make timely disclosure to the defense of available evidence known to him or her that tends to negate the guilt of the accused, mitigate the degree of the offense, or reduce the punishment. Further, a prosecutor should not intentionally avoid pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case or aid the accused.
Interesting, huh?
