|
North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper agreed to accept the
prosecution of the sexual assault case against three Duke
lacrosse players for sexually assaulting a 28-year-old stripper
in March 2006 after Durham County District Attorney Michael B.
Nifong removed himself from the case. According to the
Washington Post, Cooper promised a “careful and deliberate
review” of the case and noted that “anything can happen,” even
new charges, as his office reviews the evidence with a fresh set
of eyes.
In December the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys
called for Nifong to relinquish the case after widely publicized
charges of missteps in his handling of it. Nifong still faces
serious ethics charges from the North Carolina Bar for making
inflammatory remarks about the team to the news media and for
allegations that he misled the public about evidence. One of
Nifong’s original witnesses, Brian Meehan, head of DNA Security
in Burlington, admitted that he and Nifong agreed to leave
exculpatory information out of a report summarizing test
results, causing the defense to claim Meehan as their own
expert, according to the News Observer.
The excluded lab data found genetic material from unknown men on
the accuser's body and underwear. According to the News
Observer, none of the DNA recovered from the accuser belongs
to any Duke University lacrosse player. Meehan has also
testified that the source of one DNA sample most likely belongs
to Meehan himself, an admission that raises the possibility of
contamination in the laboratory where the tests were performed.
Wendy Murphy, a former sex crimes prosecutor and adjunct law
professor at the New England School of Law, puts the case in
perspective in this
Opinion piece.
Sources:
“Prosecutor in Duke Case Faces Ethics Complaint,” New York
Times, December 29, 2006.
“Defense Claims Nifong’s Witness; Testimony Would Center on
DNA,” The News Observer, December 30, 2006.
“Lacrosse Pair in Duke’s Good Graces,” The News Observer,
January 4, 2007.
“At State Level, Official Promises Careful Review of Duke Case,”
Washington Post, January 14, 2007. |
|
