I do think people should try to avoid making ultimate judgments about the case. ... I think we owe it to our system of justice to let these questions be decided by appropriate tribunals in formal legal proceedings. ... However, the alternative, which is equivalent to lynching, is worse than accepting the sometimes flawed outcomes of formal legal proceedings. I don't have any problem with anyone saying anything they want about these ultimate questions when the proceedings have been completed. ... But once an indictment has been approved by a grand jury, we should give the justice system a chance to work (or fail, as the case may be).No, this is not how our justice system works. The NC DA Nifong did everything to try this case in the press, and the American system
is that the defendants can defend themselves in the court of public opinion.
I have come to the conclusion that the Duke lacrosse players are innocent of the charges, and that Nifong set out to frame the players for his own personal political gain. Our justice system is a public process for good reasons, including letting the public form opinions about the process while it is ongoing. Apparently there are prosecutors who think that we must be silent while good men are framed.
The NC paper says:
In the New York Times story, Nifong acknowledged that he should have turned that favorable evidence over to the defense. And he said withholding that information was an oversight -- he thought he had already turned it over.Here is a summary of the exculpatory evidence.
That was Nifong's third explanation why he did not turn over the evidence. ...
But Nifong has bigger problems than his conflicting statements to reporters.
Since May, Nifong has repeatedly misrepresented his actions in filings and in face-to-face dealings with judges. Nifong has repeatedly said that he disclosed everything about the DNA evidence.