Bar's Closing Statements, Continued

Brocker: Nifong repeatedly trampled on constitutional rights with his public statements. These rights and requirements "must have been known" to Nifong, as a career prosecutor.

"Unprecedented local, state, and national media barrage" critical to determining Nifong's intent.

"Most egregious example" was Nifong's rumination that the players would only need attorneys if they were guilty.

"Another good reason to hire an attorney is if you're afraid of being unjustly charged."

Important to remember that Nifong's own court order identified that the players were suspects--"disingenuous" to then say they weren't suspects regarding his improper judicial statements.

Nifong argument: seeking information. This claim is absurd--how would making disparaging statements about the lacrosse players do anything to get more information?

Nifong's expressing opinion that a crime occurred improper because it never mentioned the presumption of innocence.

One thing that is insightful into Nifong's motives in making these statements is that not once in any of his statements does he ever use the word "alleged."

Brocker quotes from late March article with Brodhead, two students, and even state NAACP said saying that accusations aren't proven, but Nifong making no such qualifications.

Nifong, in testimony, admitted that in part goal was to increase public condemnation, in hopes of getting people to come forward.

"You could not have a worse example of heightening public condemnation of the accused" than Reade Seligmann receiving a death threat at the court--in same hearing that Nifong openly laughed at Seligmann's alibi.

Extrajudicial statements effectively nullified defendants' right to silence and presumption of innocence.