The Cline Files

As a follow-up to its series explicating ethical breaches by Durham DA Tracey Cline (which I analyzed here), the N&O has released a treasure-trove of primary sources—e-mail exchanges, an extended audio clip—between its journalists and Cline. As in the lacrosse case, the N&O deserves kudos for its willingness to place copious source material (in the case of this series, court reports, legal briefings and arguments, and police reports) on-line, so readers can test the series' accuracy.

For those who have followed the lacrosse case, by far the most significant item from the 59 pages of e-mails is the following:

Although she would have served as second chair to Mike Nifong had the lacrosse case ever made it to trial, Cline has never made a public statement about the evidence in the case. This audio excerpt, therefore, has the potential to be a bombshell. Cline ignored two requests from the N&O regarding discussing the clip. And she has failed to respond to three e-mails from me asking if she planned to authorize the clip’s release, and, if not, what she told N&O reporter Michael Biesecker in 2007.

For residents of Durham County, the entire e-mail thread is significant. The e-mails reinforce—rather than undercut—the N&O’s portrayal of a prosecutor who, at best, places winning above factual accuracy to such an extent that she (1, below) repeatedly, and publicly, misrepresents key pieces of evidence. The e-mails also show a chief prosecutor who has (2, below) difficulty with basic spelling and grammatical rules; and who seems (3, below) unable to engage with data that contradicts her pre-conceived viewpoints.

In the e-mails, Cline repeatedly told the N&O that she had an attorney—but she just as repeatedly refused to divulge the attorney’s name. If, in fact, this unnamed attorney counseled her to release these e-mails, she should sue for malpractice.