The Court of Public Opinion

Unless you live in a cave, or are a law student, you have probably heard about all that is going on with a stripper who claims that three members of the Duke University lacrosse team assaulted, raped, and sodomized her.  You have also probably heard that no DNA evidence was found linking any of the white lacrosse players to the alleged crime (I say this because the one African-American member of the team was spared from having to submit a DNA sample based on the alleged victim's claim that her attackers were all white).  Click here for one of many stories on the matter.

I am not so much concerned with the media coverage as I am with the propensity of the DA jumping on every chance to make a public appearance and give the country his two cents.  Generally, rules of ethics prohibit lawyers from publicly discussing pending and on-going litigation.  I am deeply perturbed that sanctions for violations seem to always be placed on criminal defense attorneys and not on prosecutors.  Yet prosecutors, more often than not, will be the first in front of a camera discussing many details and tainting the possible jury pool.

The DA in North Carolina, Michael Nifong, is using as much of his fifteen minutes has he possibly can.  His rantings about how he is certain something has happened and why not one team member has come forward to say what happened have convicted these 40-some young men in the eyes of the public.  If any charges are brought against any member of the team, then it will be impossible for them to receive a fair trial.

The lack of DNA evidence has only bolstered my argument that Nifong should have kept his mouth shut.  He is now trying to persuade everyone that DNA evidence is not necessary.  This is near impossible given the weight our society places on scientific evidence, especially in court.  Nifong has created a terrible situation because of political ambitions.  Most of what he has said has already been blown out of proportion, to the point that he had to correct an attendant at a "town hall" meeting who asserted that the victim had positively identified her attackers (she has not).

This whole situation both angers and amuses me.  I am angered at how the DA is ruining an on-going investigation and disclosing information that will prejudice any potential jury.  Yet I am also amused by the lack of DNA evidence and how it has forced the DA to backpedal and save his own ass.

I am wondering what all you lawyers, soon-to-be lawyers, and non-lawyers think about this.