Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

"Nifong will probably get a serious reprimand from the state bar, with perhaps even a suspension of his license to practice for some period of time."

Although it's hard to say, I think you're right on that one.

"I still think a private lawsuit by the defendants against Nifong or the City of Durham has little chance of succeeding, although the agreement by Nifong with the DNA lab not to share the exculpatory portions of the DNA report makes it a much closer call on a motion to dismiss a Section 1983 claim. I think in order to succeed, the defendants would need a smoking gun as to improper motive by Nifong (e.g., a statement by Nifong to a police detective or someone that he wants to 'get' these boys in order to win re-election)."

I must disagree. First, the results of the disciplinary proceedings would be fully admissible in such a lawsuit, and could be devastating. Second, the DNA suppression alone would be more than enough evidence of an intentional act to deprive the defendants of their constitutional rights to defeat a motion for dismissal, and could, in and of itself, be sufficient to support a plaintiff's verdict. Third, such a lawsuit could very well succeed even without "smoking gun"-type evidence of improper motive, because I've seen plaintiffs win cases on the basis of circumstantial evidence much weaker than that present here.


336 posted on 01/14/2007 6:49:59 PM PST by Bitter Bierce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies ]


To: Bitter Bierce; jeddavis

Time will tell as to whether Nifong or the City or County of Durham will be found liable to damages or agree to pay a settlement, that is, assuming the defendants even decide to sue.

As to the photo identification, I don't believe the mere fact that a photo line-up included only lacrosse players or that it did not conform to state guidelines would necessarily make it unconstitutional (although we may learn other facts about the way it was conducted that would render it unconstitutional).

I do concede that the effort by Nifong to delay revealing materially relevant DNA evidence makes a 1983 claim a much closer case.

And I am not defending the current state of the law, or hoping that the defendants do not succeed in a civil claim, I'm simply trying to evaluate the potential claims as dispassionately as possible.


355 posted on 01/14/2007 7:02:07 PM PST by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson