Pace Paw Print

Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion

Media Credit: blogs.kansascity.com A graduate of duke university wears the numbers 13 and 45 on his mortar board to support the accused lacrosse players, this was a common practice at last years graduation

A little over a year ago, nothing short of a nightmare began for Reade Seligmann, David Evans, and Collin Finnerty, the three Duke Lacrosse players falsely accused of raping an exotic dancer. The most disturbing parts of this case are the actions of Durum District Attorney, Michael Nifong. In this case, Nifong clearly jumped to conclusions, skipped massive steps, and was an overzealous prosecutor out to get a conviction in a national case as opposed to being a fair and unbiased prosecutor, one who is supposed to make decisions based on the facts of a case.

From the beginning, this case was troubled. The misconduct started with one of the most egregious blunders: the prosecutor not formally interviewing the victim until months later. Almost anyone can tell you that human memories fade and confuse with time. Under this logic it makes sense that any prosecutor who is trying a rape case would interview the victim at the first feasible moment, in order to reduce any possible counterargument by the defense as to the quality of the victim's information. However, this was not the strategy of Nifong. He waited many months to interview the accuser. Further confusing this case is the accuser's inability to get her story straight. According to the attorney general, her story changed in serious ways each time she told it. Also, her stories did not line up completely with the other physical evidence at the location. The attorney general has chosen not to pursue charges against the accuser because his investigators believe that she actually believes all of her stories, further calling into question her reliability as a source. Beyond the problems of the accuser is the lack of DNA evidence linking the players to the victim.

To any reasonable individual, the case against these lacrosse players is obviously based on very little evidence and a large amount of hype. What was lost in this is the district attorney's responsibility to represent the people and to not just simply listen to the political will of the crowd or to rush to judgment because it is easier to convict a contentious case rather than investigate or to protect the rights of the accused. The district attorney has the unique position of representing the people, meaning he has just as much as a duty to the accused to investigate his or her innocence as he does to the victim to investigate the guilt of such person.

Continued...

Page 1 of 2 next >

Article Tools