Nifong went through bankruptcy and divorce after his screw up.
wiki——snip
Defense lawyers and media outlets were strongly critical of Nifong’s handling of the Duke rape case. Nifong said that the criticisms were the product of a defense strategy to malign the prosecution and intimidate the alleged rape victim.
As the details of the case emerged, Nifong was attacked not only from advocates of the indicted students but by news sources....who claimed he went public with a series of accusations that later turned out to be untrue; that he exaggerated and intensified racial tensions; that he unduly influenced the Durham police investigation; that he tried to manipulate potential witnesses; that he refused to hear exculpatory evidence before indictment; that regulations on the conduct of an identification exercise were breached by failure to include “dummy” photographs of anyone who was not at the party; that he had never spoken directly to the alleged victim about the accusations; and that he made misleadingly incomplete presentations of various aspects of the evidence in the case (including DNA results).[citation needed]
snip
Nifong gave more than 50 interviews, many with the national media, according to his own account...... Nifong repeatedly said that he was “confident that a rape occurred”, calling the players “a bunch of hooligans” whose “daddies could buy them expensive lawyers.” From early April 2006, however, Nifong generally refused to talk to the media.
On July 18, 2006, defense lawyers charged that Nifong made “unprofessional and discourteous” remarks. During a preliminary hearing, Nifong said, “[Defense] attorneys were almost disappointed that their clients didn’t get indicted so they could be a part of this spectacle here in Durham.”
One lawyer asserted that “Nifong’s statement is an insult to the legal profession as a whole and is certainly unwarranted by any facts in this case.” Others saw it as a personal insult.
On October 27, 2006, Nifong said in court that neither he nor his assistants had yet discussed the alleged assault with the accuser, saying they had so far left that aspect of the investigation to the police.
Critics of the district attorney requested that Nifong be investigated, punished and disbarred for his actions in this case.
On December 12, 2006, Republican Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina’s 3rd district was reported to have sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for an investigation into whether Nifong committed “prosecutorial misconduct” and violated the civil rights of the three suspects in the case; Gonzales stated that his office might investigate how Nifong had handled the case.
Critics noted that police were instructed to “Go through Mr. Nifong for any directions as to how to conduct matters in this case.” This was an unusual move for a prosecutor to order.
On December 16, 2006, it was revealed that Nifong and DNA lab director Brian Meehan conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the final report submitted to the defense team.[43][44]
The prosecution of the case was criticized by the legal analyst for the National Journal, Stuart Taylor,[45] as well as New York Times columnists David Brooks[46] and Nicholas Kristof.
An investigation by CBS’ 60 Minutes “reveal[ed] disturbing facts about the conduct of the police and the district attorney, and raise[d] serious concerns.”[24] (This 60 Minutes segment was honored with a Peabody Award on April 4, 2007.)
Several writers at Slate criticized the prosecution’s actions and especially criticized the mainstream media for accepting prosecution claims at face value in spite of countervailing evidence.
In light of the fact that Nifong failed to turn over exculpatory evidence to defense lawyers on December 22, 2006, The News & Observer wrote that “to press forward in the [...] case, District Attorney Mike Nifong must rely on scanty evidence while deflecting serious questions about whether he broke the law or violated the ethics rules governing prosecutors.”[50]
Thomas Sowell accused Nifong of using the case to improve his chances in the next election by gaining large support from the African American community. Nifong ultimately won the primary and general election in the midst of the case, despite the fact that allegations of ethical improprieties had already come to light. A federal judge in 2011 ruled that the civil lawsuit could proceed against Nifong, including claims of “malicious prosecution” and “fabrication of false evidence”.
Ethics charges
On December 28, 2006, the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against Nifong over his conduct in the case, accusing him of making public statements that were “prejudicial to the administration of justice” and of engaging in “conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”[54] The seventeen-page document accuses Nifong of violating four rules of professional conduct, listing more than fifty examples of statements he made to the media.
The State Bar filed a second round of ethics charges on January 24, 2007.[56] In this document, it accused Nifong of a “systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion ... prejudicial to the administration of justice” when he withheld DNA evidence to mislead the court.
According to the lawsuit, Nifong’s sole motive in falsely charging the Duke lacrossse players of rape was to win support for his reelection bid; the suit alleges that Nifong told his campaign manager that the case would provide “’millions of dollars’ in free advertising.”
This allegation is confirmed by The New York Times, and by an interview with Nifong’s campaign manager.
Nifong asked the state attorney general’s office and the Administrative Office of the Courts to pay his legal fees and help defend him, but both offices refused on the grounds that Nifong’s actions involved “fraud, corruption (and) malice.”
Bankruptcy filing
On January 15, 2008, Nifong filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.[93] He listed assets of almost $244,000 and liabilities of over $180.3 million, virtually all of which derived from six $30 million “unsecured nonpriority claims”, one for each of the six members of the 2005–06 Duke lacrosse team suing Nifong, among others.
While the bankruptcy filing automatically delayed the civil suit against him, it may not protect Nifong from civil liability for his actions in the case. Unsecured creditors can still pursue claims against someone filing for bankruptcy if the debt was incurred through “willful and malicious injury” to them. Seligmann’s attorney, noted Triangle lawyer David Rudolf, said that the players intend to pursue such a claim.
According to at least one bankruptcy law expert, Nifong’s bankruptcy filing is a tacit admission that he does not have the resources to defend himself against the players’ civil suit, and is trying to protect what assets he is allowed to protect under the law.
On March 11, 2008, the Bankruptcy Administrator recommended that Nifong’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case be dismissed or converted to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case because Nifong earned income above the requirement set forth in the Means Test to be eligible to file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case.[97] However, the Bankruptcy Court ultimately held that Nifong was eligible to be a debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and granted him a bankruptcy discharge on June 4, 2008. Later that same year, Judge William L. Stocks lifted the automatic stay imposed by Nifong’s bankruptcy filing, and announced that the plaintiffs can pursue their lawsuit.[98]
In July 2014 there was a call for all the cases Nifong had prosecuted to be reviewed on the basis of his having been shown to ignore due process in some cases including the murder trial against Darryl Howard, who had been convicted in 1995 of a 1991 murder of a woman and her daughter.[99]
In 2014, Darryl Howard, who at that time had been imprisoned for murder for 20 years, was granted a new trial because Nifong had withheld evidence in the trial that led to his convictions.[100] Two years later, following a hearing where the state was asked why the convictions should stand, the murder conviction was vacated and Howard released from prison, noting that DNA evidence not presented to the jury would likely have exonerated him.
snip