Beth Brewer—again showing the courage of her convictions—has just filed a civil affidavit seeking Mike Nifong’s removal from office. “Recent revelations,” she noted, “show further, much more serious misconduct including statements made by Mr. Nifong in Court in knowing contradiction of the truth. There can be no faith in our justice system with a district attorney who, in a very public case, conspires to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense and repeatedly makes misrepresentations and false statements to the Court and opposing counsel about the matter.”
The former spokesperson for the Recall Nifong effort utilized NC General Statute §7A-66, in which any resident can file an affidavit with the clerk of superior court of the county where the district attorney resides a sworn affidavit charging the district attorney with one or more grounds for removal. Brewer claimed that Nifong has violated:
- §7A-66(2) Willful misconduct in office;
- §7A-66(6) Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brings the office into disrepute.
Brewer lays out five areas of misconduct by Nifong:
1.) Nifong conspired to withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense and repeatedly misrepresented and made false statements to the Court about the matter.
2.) Nifong instructed Durham Police investigators to conduct a photographic identification session that violated their own procedures as well as the recommendations of the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission.
3.) Nifong failed to pursue and secure exculpatory evidence.
4.) Nifong’s conduct violated the North Carolina State Bar Revised Rules of Professional Conduct and has been generally unprofessional.
5.) Nifong brought his office into disrepute and raised public concern about the whole of
The affidavit goes to Orlando Hudson. Within 30 days, he must: dismiss the charges; act upon them by suspending or removing Nifong from office; or refer them to another judge. If he takes the third option, the referring judge gets another 30 days to review the case, at which point the judge can suspend or remove Nifong.
If either Hudson or the referring judge entertains Brewer’s affidavit, Nifong would be entitled to a hearing between 10 and 30 days later. The hearing would be open to the public. All testimony shall be recorded. The judge would hear all evidence and make all findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Maybe in the course of his proceedings,
[Update, 6.17pm: Nifong declined comment on the filing, but did say to WRAL, ""I'm looking forward to having the [ethics] case heard and having the opportunity to have my side told publicly." Of course, the way in which he told his side publicly is one of the allegations against him from the bar.]