Moving along nicely. Justice always takes its time, but there's no question now that the bar association, his fellow prosecutors, and local politicians with any influence have washed their hands of him. No one is going to help him cover up. It's too big an embarrassment to all of them.
I don't see how he can fail to be disbarred, lose his job, and become virtually unemployable. Whether he will be jailed or sued is still in question, but he has definitely wrecked his career. He did all this to make a name forhimself and get re-elected, and that has sure backfired on him.
I think he may even be forced to resign before these charges are resolved, or at least to relinquish his other cases until he is cleared, which is now extremely unlikely.
Small consolation for the lacrosse players, but I hope all those stupid Duke professors are feeling really bad, and that that one visiting professor who flunked one of the lacrosse players is never again rehired. They don't need to fire her; she's a visiting professor, which normally means a yearly contract, with no promises of further employment.
I think you're right, he's seriously damaged his career.
Nifong does have one thing in his favor in the bar proceeding: that the law and rules of evidence unfairly favor those who accuse others of sexual assault.
I believe Nifong will take the following tack in respect of the withholding evidence charge: that the DNA matches to other men were not materially relevant to the case, and that only the evidence that there were no DNA matches to the lacrosse players was material.
This is an unreasonable position in my opinion, but it is consistent with the prevailing school of thought among legal theorists that evidence of promiscuity on the part of the alleged victim is not a legitimate issue for the defense to raise. Feminists have long complained that male rape defendants had in the past gotten a pass from juries in making reference to a victim's sexual history, and have succeeded in changing the rules of evidence on this point.
It is unreasonable in this case not only because the feminist position goes too far, but in this particular case, the alleged victim had claimed she had not had sex for a week (or two, was it?) prior to the alleged rape, so the evidence of DNA matches with other men impeaches her credibility (Nifong will have to respond that DNA can in theory be found on a person after a longer period of time than that).
So I think Nifong's achievable goal in the bar proceeding is not to demonstrate that he acted reasonably, but rather that he acted in what he saw as good faith.
If he successfully convinces the bar committee that he acted in good faith, even though unreasonably, I can see him getting by with a suspension and not permanent disbarment.
If he is suspended, he may even be able to continue as DA, since he has no boss to fire him. He would have to restrict himself to purely administrative duties and require his staff to handle all cases.