Sunday, December 26, 2010

Quote for the Day

Early on, Easley’s attorneys had asked Kenerly for a chance to speak with him before he made any final decision on how to proceed in the case.

Kenerly agreed to make himself available, mainly because he didn’t want to miss something that could be crucial.

“I didn’t want to make a Mike Nifong mistake,” Kenerly says, referring to the former Durham County DA’s handling of the Duke University lacrosse case.

--from a Salisbury Post profile about retiring DA Bill Kenerly's handling of the Mike Easley case

Of all of the disgraced Mike Nifong's ethical misdeeds (lying to the court, withholding exculpatory DNA evidence, making improper public statements, ordering the police to violate their own procedures and instead run a suspects-only lineup), perhaps the most inexplicable was his refusal (on three separate occasions) to meet with defense attorneys who said they possessed evidence of their clients' innocence. It's hard to come up with an innocent explanation for that Nifong maneuver--because, of course, there isn't one.

So it's good to see that, at the very least, Nifong is remembered as an example of grossly unethical conduct for all high-profile prosecutors to avoid.


Anonymous said...

keep up the good works professor..the citi never sleeps..but without accountability no government will ever succeed

Anonymous said...

IMHO Nifong was preparing a "Gell" defense for himself--since he never 'saw' evidence of the defendants' innocence, he was justified in continuing his prosecution. (This was in fact what he later claimed before the bar.)

And, IMHO, Brodhead was following the same line--by refusing at least three times to even look at evidence of innocence. (What university president wouldn't be eager to find out that his students and his university were not involved in a heinous crime?)

By not "seeing" the evidence, Brodhead could continue to refuse to support them and keep up his pretense of ignorance.

But if this is correct, then it demonstrates that both Nifong and Brodhead knew the accused were innocent.

And it is hard to read it any other way...

RichteousThug said...

“I didn’t want to make a Mike Nifong mistake,”

Good find, KC, thank you.

'Mistake', says Kenerly.

It was no mistake, it was deliberate.

That's why I don't think your 'inexplicable' applies either, KC. Once the frame was afoot, Nifong dared not meet with the defence attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Yep, that's how it's supposed to be done.

skwilli said...

"keep up his pretense of ignorance."

What we all want the leader of our University to aspire to!

Anonymous said...

Is Kenerly a radical feminist anti-capitalist who opposes white supremacy and imperialism, with a central commitment to creating a sustainable human presence on the planet?

Anonymous said...

K.C. Please give an update on the civil case and discovery.

RighteousThug said...

Anon @ 7:14PM - Is Kenerly a radical feminist anti-capitalist who opposes white supremacy and imperialism...

Worse; he's a North Carolina prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

"K.C. Please give an update on the civil case and discovery."

Take your time. Since the judge
still can't decide after three years even whether or not Nifong was guilty of injuring the original defendants (and breaching his immunity) by appearing on TV to demonstrate a choke hold,
he's clearly in no hurry to see justice emerge. (MOO)

Anonymous said...

Judge Beatty, still hasn't acted on some 149 dismissal motions; this coupled with CGM, and her innocense, of late, is there a JUSTICE system in the State of North Carolina?

Anonymous said...

As a prosecutor myself, I find Nifong's conduct in this regard pretty telling.

I would never turn down a defense attorney's offer to hear their evidence.

There are two possibilities. The defense proffer might lead to compelling evidence of innocence -- in which case I can happily dismiss the case, thus saving an innocent person from trial (and, incidentally, saving our agency the costs of a needless prosecution). Or the defense proffer might turn out to be BS -- in which case I've now had a preview of the defense case and can figure out how to counter that case at trial. Either way, the right answer is to at least hear the defense attorney out as to the evidence, then figure out which category it falls into.