FanHouse Dukelacrosse

Sports columnist Selena Roberts is a gifted writer who usually sounds just the right notes in writing about the way sports intersects with issues like race, class, politics and the law. But she was dead wrong about the Duke lacrosse case. Roberts wrote a terrible column on March 31, 2006 that centered around this 20-word paragraph:

But why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?

Roberts' thesis was that the Duke lacrosse players were banding together to protect the rapists in their midst. Of course, as we now know, it wasn't so hard to gather the facts in the Duke lacrosse case -- the facts were right there, out in the open, but a corrupt prosecutor named Mike Nifong (the only person who went to jail for the Duke lacrosse case) was so eager to twist the facts to his own political advantage that he would have sent three innocent men to prison had the attorney general not taken the case out of his hands.

But while Roberts got the story wrong in March of 2006, that can be understood -- it was a complex story, one that most members of the media got wrong. What is harder to understand is Roberts' continuing refusal to admit she was wrong, nearly two years after the fact.

In March of 2006, when a stripper falsely claimed that she had been raped by Duke lacrosse players, no media outlet spilled more ink detailing the since-disproved allegations than the New York Times.

Nearly two years after the fact, the Times' coverage of the Duke lacrosse case is still often held up as an example of the way the media can run amok and damage the lives of innocent people as a result. So it's not surprising that when Times sports editor Tom Jolly did a Q&A with readers this week, one reader asked this question:

Q. When the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case first erupted, the New York Times sports section was one of the leading cheerleaders for the conviction and slandering of the Duke team as a whole and the three charged players. When the charges imploded, the players exonerated, and Michael Nifong disbarred, the sports section and "pundits" remained steadfastly silent. Since you are the chief editor, one must assume that you led and approved of all the reporting (and non-reporting) and the commentary (however incorrect and one-sided). Question: As the editor of the sports section how do you justify your behavior in toto?

Jolly's answer expressed regret.

The president of Duke University, Richard Brodhead, today offered an utterly meaningless apology to the three Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape.

The full text of the apology is here, and the key portion is this:

First and foremost, I regret our failure to reach out to the lacrosse players and their families in this time of extraordinary peril. Given the complexities of the case, getting this communication right would never have been easy. But the fact is that we did not get it right, causing the families to feel abandoned when they most needed support. This was a mistake. I take responsibility for it, and I apologize.

Absurd. Broadhead didn't just fail to reach out, he actively worked to perpetuate the notion that these three innocent men were guilty. By canceling the lacrosse team's season and pressuring the coach to resign, he gave credence to the idea that the lacrosse team had done something warranting punishment.

If Brodhead wants to take responsibility, he should resign. Otherwise, this apology is meaningless.

The photo depicts a sign posted on the Duke campus on April 11, 2006. Some people realized early on that this case was a miscarriage of justice. It's a shame that Brodhead wasn't one of them.

Mike Nifong, the disgraced and disbarred prosecutor who pursued charges against three Duke lacrosse incidents long after it was obvious that they were innocent, has resigned effective immediately.

The resignation is a mere formality, as Nifong had already lost his law license and been suspended from his office, but the blog LieStoppers notes that Nifong is getting off easy in one respect: He gets to resign, rather than being removed from office.

Nifong's actions were so disgraceful that seeing him formally removed from office would be an appropriate step toward assuring the people that prosecutors don't have free rein to trample on the rights of criminal defendants.
It's a shame that won't happen.

Prosecutor Mike Nifong has been disbarred by a state disciplinary committee for the horrendous way he conducted the prosecution on rape charges of three innocent Duke lacrosse players.

"This matter has been a fiasco. There's no doubt about it," said committee chairman F. Lane Williamson.

Nifong has given up his right to appeal, meaning this verdict is final. However, Nifong could still face criminal charges.

The photo, taken April 11, 2006, shows a sign posted in Durham, North Carolina, reading, "Nifong Admit how wrong you were! How stupid -- stop while you can save face and apologize. Lacrosse deserves it!"

Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who moved forward with charges against three Duke lacrosse players accused of rape long after it was obvious they were innocent -- and who repeatedly made false statements about the case -- is facing a hearing before the North Carolina bar. And in today's session, Nifong's lawyer gave an unusual excuse for Nifong's actions.

According to K.C. Johnson, the blogger who is covering the Nifong's hearing live, Nifong's lawyer said that although Nifong made false statements about the case, he did so only because he didn't know any better. That caused Chairman Lane Williamson to give this response:

the basic argument appears to be that Nifong is "in effect clueless"--"isn't that reason enough to say this man should not be doing what he's doing?"

So that's what we've come to. Three innocent men had their lives torn apart for more than a year, and the prosecutor responsible is about as remorseful as Cher after she nearly hit a bicyclist: "Oops, my bad."

It was obvious to anyone who paid any attention to the Duke lacrosse case that one of the three defendants, Reade Seligmann, was demonstrably innocent. Seligmann had cell phone records, ATM records, campus security records and the eyewitness testimony of a cab driver to prove that he wasn't at the house rented by lacrosse team members at the time that a stripper claimed she was raped there.

But despite his obvious innocence, the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, continued to press criminal charges against him. Today, Seligmann testified at a hearing on whether Nifong violated ethics standards with his conduct in the case.

He said Mr. Nifong refused to meet with his lawyer, who had evidence that Mr. Seligmann was not at the scene when the assault supposedly occurred, saying he was not interested in "fiction." He said Mr. Nifong "smirked" on another occasion when the evidence was offered....

The North Carolina State Bar, a state agency, is presenting the case in front of a three-member panel, which today rejected a motion by Mr. Nifong's lawyer to dismiss some of the charges. A decision is expected by Saturday, and Mr. Nifong faces possible disbarment.

It's far too late for justice to be done in this case. An injustice was done to the three accused men that can never be reversed. But the closest thing we can now get to justice is an assurance that Nifong will never be able to railroad another defendant again. Let's hope that happens soon.

The three Duke lacrosse players accused of rape last year were declared innocent this week, but that doesn't end the case. Mike Nifong, the district attorney who insisted on continuing the prosecution despite the evidence that led the attorney general to declare the men innocent, is still in office, and he's now facing ethics charges with the state bar. His hearing yesterday with the Disciplinary Hearings Commission didn't go well for him.

But could he have bigger problems than just losing his law license? Joseph Kennedy writes in Slate that he could:

if Nifong indeed committed all of the acts alleged in the ethics complaint, he may also have obstructed justice in violation of state law and committed a federal civil rights crime.The strongest basis for a prosecution on either charge would probably be the allegations that Nifong tried to suppress DNA test results that suggested the innocence of the defendants

As the Duke players themselves have noted, it's horrifying to think about the implications of district attorneys suppressing DNA evidence: It's entirely possible that Nifong railroaded other defendants, and that those defendants didn't have the Duke players' resources to fight back. It's good news that the Duke players won't go to prison. It will also be good news if Nifong does go to prison.

Mike Nifong, the district attorney who brought rape charges against the three Duke lacrosse players who were declared innocent yesterday, has apologized to them and said North Carolina's attorney general was correct to drop charges.

It's an apology that rings incredibly hollow to Nifong's three victims. The picture you see here shows a sign posted in Durham, N.C., reading,

Nifong Admit how wrong you were! How Stupid - Stop while you can save face And Apologize. Lacrosse deserves it!

The photo was taken on April 11, 2006. Thanks to Nifong's gross misconduct, one full year passed before the charges were dropped.

Andrea Peyser begins her column in the New York Post today about the Duke lacrosse case like this:

REVERSE the races, change the sport, and you have the Kobe Bryant "rape" hoax all over again.

A March 21 Delores Williams column begins like this:

It is striking the similarities of the Duke Case and the Kobe Bryant case, just a reversal of the color of the alleged victim.

Both columns go on to make comparisons between the Duke lacrosse case and the Kobe Bryant rape case of 2003. No one should make that comparison. The two cases aren't similar at all.

The charges against Bryant were dropped for one reason, and one reason only: The accuser decided she did not want to testify. The charges against the lacrosse players were dropped even though the accuser did want to testify. The reason? All the evidence in the Duke case pointed to the innocence of the defendants. In the Bryant case, the evidence was ambiguous.

Also consider the public statements of the accused. From the time they were accused until they were declared innocent yesterday, the Duke lacrosse players never wavered in their claims of innocence. Bryant's statements evolved, concluding when he said this after his case was dismissed:

"Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did."

We'll never know for sure what happened between Bryant and his accuser. But we do know for sure that the Duke lacrosse players are innocent.