Legal "Experts" on Obama

This morning’s Amsterdam News—last heard from on the case, somewhat appropriately, through an op-ed from the disbarred Alton Maddox, one of Tawana Brawley’s former attorneys— features an article citing legal “experts” attacking Illinois senator Barack Obama for urging a Justice Department inquiry into Mike Nifong’s misconduct.

Who are these legal “experts”? None other than the Duke case’s Dynamic Duo—NAACP case monitor Irving Joyner and adjunct Wendy Murphy.

Joyner dismisses Obama’s move, commenting, “I don’t think that it means much within the scope of things other than his stating a position without a valid examination.”

The article contains no additional quotes from the NCCU law professor, leaving the reader to guess just how Joyner determined that Obama had not conducted a “valid examination” of affairs. Does the NAACP’s designated case monitor believe that only those who agree with his bland pro-prosecution perspective have conducted a “valid examination”?

Murphy, meanwhile, suggests that the accuser’s “civil rights” have been violated, though, as with Joyner’s critique of Obama, she supplies no details to sustain her assertion. She also expresses her concern about the North Carolina Bar, noting that “this case is being described as a ‘fraud,’ etc. by lawyers—officers of the court who are ethically obligated not to lie or mislead the public.”

Could it be that it’s because the State Bar—an organization composed of “officers of the court who are ethically obligated not to lie or mislead the public”—has cited Mike Nifong for “misrepresentation” and “fraud” that Obama, a lawyer himself, felt compelled to act? Murphy doesn’t say. Instead, she implies that by faulting Nifong for issuing misleading, inflammatory public statements and withholding exculpatory DNA evidence in violation of three North Carolina laws, the Bar acted improperly.

The adjunct instructor also argues that “Obama should call for a full disclosure of all the facts before anyone passes judgment n this case.” Coming from a person who has fantasized about the “broomstick DNA” solving the case amidst a parade of no fewer than 18 errors of fact in her public commentary on the case, this demand is particularly ironic.

Obtaining criticism from the likes of Joyner and Murphy is further confirmation that Obama did the right thing.

---------

For those who wanted a comprehensive review of the issue, they could have turned to the Chronicle, which interviewed two Duke law profs.

Jim Coleman: "I think Rep. Jones called for a national investigation independently of any ethical violation."

Thomas Metzloff: "That's their job, and I don't think it's inappropriate for politicians to ask these kinds of questions at all."