With the nature of this case, I have to wonder if these complaints would have been filed if the Nifong's comments had been directed at men considered low-class thugs. If a prosecutor should be held to a high ethical standard, why aren't defense attorneys who make similar types of comments about alleged rape victims held to this same high standard?
A 17-page complaint to the bar's Disciplinary Hearing Commission accuses Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong of telling reporters that the Duke players were refusing to cooperate with the investigation and that the players were refusing to make statements to local law enforcement authorities. It also says he improperly commented on tests involved in the investigation.
It further accuses him of improperly commenting on evidence and testimony he expected would be presented in trial; improperly giving his opinion about the guilt of the players; improperly trying to explain the absence of incriminating evidence; and improperly commenting on the character, credibility and reputation of the accused. Nifong's comments risked prejudicing any criminal trial, the complaint said.
Don't the defense attorneys and other attorneys who have spoken publicly against this alleged victim risk prejudicing any criminal trial? Or is it okay as long as the prejudice only smears the character, credibility and reputation of alleged victims?
This AP headline provides an opinion, but does it also provide a motive:
Ethics Charges Against Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Could Force Him Off Case, Legal Experts Say
Frankly, the more determined people are to shut down a case by any and all means, the more suspicious I am of their motives and their ethics.
Technorati tags: rape crime politics sexual violence sexual assault feminism