I'm hardly the first person to suggest it. I do think, though, that the prosecution of Mike Nifong for his criminal malfeasance against the students would do much more to re-establish their reputations than anything that could happen in a criminal trial of the students.
Unless the students' lawyers are reckless, they'll whittle the prosecutor's case down to nothing with pre-trial motions. While this may be the responsible thing for them to do (as their first duty is to secure acquittals) it would leave some people claiming the students got off on "technicalities". By contrast, in going after Nifong, all such evidence could be readily admitted. If it's proven that Nifong deliberately framed the students, that would trumpet their innocense far more loudly than a mere "not guilty" in their own trials.
Exactly. That's what I've been saying to those who think the there needs to be a trial of the boys to prove their innocence. The better course is to expose the evidence, all of it, and the lack thereof, in a venue where your clients are not at risk. Putting Nifong on trial, either criminally or civilly, is the way to go. Besides that, in Nifong's case they'd be doing the public a service.