Durham — A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor said Monday he also believes there should be an investigation of Mike Nifong's management of the Duke lacrosse rape investigation.
"I think the best course of action, at this moment, is for Mike Nifong to remove himself from this case or for him to be removed," said University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor Joe Kennedy.
"According to Garry Frank, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys, however, other district attorneys have also expressed concerns about Nifong's conduct.
'It's premature to comment while the court is still contemplating," Frank said. "I think the conference will adress this at some point.'"
This what I've been hoping for - a drumbeat started by the legal community in the region.
Although not in my excerpt, the article was more about what UNC Chapel Hill law prof Kennedy said about the whole Meehan lab thing, and he doesn't have his facts right. He thinks Meehan and Nifong tried to hide the results of the DNA testing as to the three boys, but that wasn't it. It was the finding of DNA of other, unidentified, men that they withheld. Jeanine Pirro made the same mistake on Greta last night. Vann corrected her.
People, especially lawyers, should really get their facts straight before they comment publicly. Doing otherwise simply gives ammunition to the other side to undermine the argument for an investigation into Nifong's conduct. If someone takes position "A" that Nifong should be investigated and prosecuted, and that position is supported by Fact A, and Fact A is erroneous, then position "A" is undermined, even if the fact is corrected because it lessens the impact of the corrected fact.