Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014).
(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.
(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.
(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.
21 comments:
nut just reckless but intentional.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
That means...be prepared for NO disbarrment. Although deserved, it is NOT going to happen.
I say he goes down.
Will anything else save the legal system in NC.
Good commentary on WRAL.
sorry. by "goes down", i mean dibarred.
KC Are they going to get the UBUNTU person to do interpretive dance with the with closing arguments of the defence... If not they should. Please ask them if you can.
Why did he drag his kid to court?
10:49 Because he's so selfish/narcissistic.
In some ways, this is a a tragedy in the classic sense; Nifond is the epitome of hubris.
Nifong's tears and false contrition can only be a clue of a deal (or one other thing, read on). Remove your emotion and ask yourself how can contrition and "something happened" coexist in a healthy mind? That leaves a mental disorder as the only other possibility in addition to the back room deal possibility.
10:49 -- Because (a) he has no shame and (b) he has this delusion that he can leverage his kid to reduce his punishment.
"Why did he drag his kid to court?"
To help consumate his deal.
Intentionality is the key point: if the Bar finds he acted intentionally, they will be hard pressed not to disbar him. On the other hand, if they cannot be satisfied he acted intentionally, look for a longish (3-5 year) suspension.
A finding that Nifong acted intentionally will also cook Nifong for civil suits and open him up to criminal charges.
My guess is that the Bar will not be able to bring themselves to conclude he acted intentionally.
DOES ANYONE KNOW what the avenue of appeal is from this disciplinary hearing? Does Nifong go to a normal trial-level state court or to a ct of appeals?
10:53 Likely appealing is not part of the deal the bar likely offered him.
I think punishment has already been determined. We are only seeing the formality of closure. The bar doesn't want to project an image that this was a quickie.
I must be too dumb.
This seems to be a slam dunk for disbarrment to me.
The world is watching and NC will look so bad if they give him a little slap on the hands.
I say they make an example of nifong and slap him back to civilianship.
there is a difference between "knowingly" and "intentional"??
It will be interesting to see what the panel says about Nifong's credibility - may not say until penalty phase. I don't know about NC, but in Ohio, even if it's the pettiest of violations of the rules deserving of, say, a public reprimand, if you lie to disciplinary counsel, you're toast for at least a year or two. Given that Nifong apparently lied on several occasions to the panel itself, let alone in his depositions, if they don't buy his stories, he could be gone. If they buy some of his whoppers, 5 years.
This doesn't go to a regular trial court or an appeals court because this is a Bar action, not an action of the statutory legal system per se. Hard as it may be to believe, the Bar Associations around the country are mostly independant of that system. (intentionally so) Generally, an appeal from a Bar disciplinary hearing goes to a special Bar Appeals board which rehears the evidence (and very rarely, if ever overturns the original finding)
There are generally no other appeals available except a civil suit against the Bar.
This is also why it doesn't matter whether or not they proved that Nifong violated any statutory provisions, as Williamson pointed out. As long as he violated the Bar's private rules of ethics (private = non-statutory) then they can (and should) find him guilty of the charges. Whether or not he violated a statute goes only as to how severe the punishment should be.
He will be disbarred. It isnt even close. He did the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people.
The only debatable issue is whether he will be charged criminally and serve jail time.
This Bar trial is just a dog and pony show to make the good ole boys in NC shift attention from their corrupt legal system.
Post a Comment