Durham District Attorney, Mike Nifong is a legal and ethical punching bag. Why is he pressing on with the Duke lacrosse rape case when it looks like he has absolutely no case?
What does he know that we don't? Is he using some twisted rope-a-dope strategy on the defense attorneys? Will he come off the ropes and throw a bolo punch that knocks the defense out and silences the crowd of critics? Or is the dope really on the ropes?
The defense attorneys for the three Duke lacrosse players are rock solid in their conviction that all three young men are completely innocent. Crystal Gail Mangum is a false accuser - no exceptions. All of the information leaking out of Durham supports this position.
National TV "pundits hack his case to pieces almost nightly." Most of them are coming to the same conclusion, Nifong, "throw in the towel."
A Durhan Herald-Sun article discusses some of these questions:
The way University of Arizona law professor Jack Chin sees it, Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's recent conduct "makes no sense unless he's very confident in his case."
"One interesting thing is that it's being tried so much in the press," Chin added. "Everybody seems to be taking positions they won't be able to get out of. The defense attorneys are using words like 'innocent' and 'falsely accused.' When you get in the face of the other side and say your client is wrongfully accused, you've added a lot of prison time to the deal if the day ever comes when you have to take a plea bargain.
"But I've read that these are excellent lawyers, experienced and sophisticated," said Chin. "They're putting their reputations on the line. I'm sure they know what they're doing."
The lawyers in question are Bill Cotter and Wade Smith, representing rape suspect Collin Finnerty; Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon, representing David Evans; and Kirk Osborn and Ernest Conner, who represent Reade Seligmann.
All have said their clients are innocent and would not plead guilty to anything.
The Associated Press writes - Defense, Nifong differ in approach to Duke case:
Lawyers for all three players - not to mention attorneys representing players who do not face charges in the case - have been unanimous in publicly proclaiming the innocence of the entire team and promising a fight to the finish.
That kind of team approach is rare - and it contrasts sharply with the approach being taken by the man on the other side of the courtroom, District Attorney Mike Nifong. For nearly two months, Nifong has been almost silent about the case, which he has said he personally plans to handle. It would be the first case the veteran prosecutor has overseen in years.
The clashing styles could set up a reversal of the usual roles in a criminal trial, with the defense playing Goliath to the prosecution's David...
Lacrosse case begs question: Does Nifong know something we don't? [herald-sun.com, May 27, 2006]
Defense, Nifong differ in approach to Duke case [AP, May 28, 2006]
Duke Lacrosse Scandal: DA Mike Nifong - Fool or Fox?