Yes it's true that withholding what is called "Brady" material is commonplace, and yes it is true that prosecutors have heretofore received attention from the disciplinary authorities for this and other forms of misconduct.

But that is not a law of nature. The whole profession took a huge black eye here, and the public will be looking for evidence that we learned something.

Lawyers should should insist on reporting prosecutor misconduct, and they should report judges who refuse to take a stand. The Nifong result can be an outlier, but moral courage could make it the beginning of something important.

"It is true that withholding 'Brady' material is commonplace"!!?? What a baseless, unsupported statement! As a state prosecutor myself, I (and my coworkers) view withholding evidence as something akin to comitting a crime ourselves. It is truly the worse possible ethical infraction a criminal prosecutor can commit - and the penalties IN ANY STATE, if proven intentional, are rightfully harsh. I would suggest (and here at least I admit that this is conjecture - albeit conjecture based much more on experience than the above quoted hogwash) that 99.9% of prosecutors feel likewise. I would love to hear your intellectual basis for your comment, aside from anecdotal anomalies and the kind of rationale we hear on talk radio all the time "I really believe its true, so it must be." (or, as said in the article - "I know there are Nifongs everywhere, they just hide all the empirical evidence! It's part of their conspiracy!")

While this article is right on the money in condemning Nifong, whose actions in this case were unjustifiable - it goes on to point fingers at prosecutors everywhere using laughably one sided "statistics" (e.g. the number of appellate challenges based on prosecutorial misconduct, which is a boiler-plate issue raised by defendants serving long prison sentences that almost always pans out to be comically baseless once investigated). The "data" utilized in this article makes no mention of the fact that we are constantly dismissing charges we believe should not be pursued in the interest of justice (not to mention the countless charges that are diverted to more rehabilitive programs like drug treatment, mental health court and counseling). Take this office alone - which last month, of about 1,000 warrants disposed of - dimissed or nol. pros.'d approximately 650.

As to sexual assault cases, they almost always boil down to two conflicting stories, the defendant's and the victim's - and despite our "CSI" misconceptions, the recovery of biological evidence is not as commonplace as we all would like. This is why they are the most commonly dismissed offenses in criminal law (when thorough investigations reveal that they cannot be proven, even if the allegations may be true). The author here seems to suggest that if the defendant denies a sexual assault, it would be in the interest of justice for us to outright dimiss the charge. Why don't you all think about that for a second? If I am wrong, and it is Mr. Fiege's point that defendants' version of events should be considered and investigated - I assure you they most certainly are (Mr. Nifong's negligence aside)

. . . and while we're painting professions with a lazy broad brush here - has anyone considered the roll the blood thirsty, sensationalistic media played in the Duke injustice? Its so easy to judge the justice system from afar - but the media pressure to jump on this case and run with it was sickening (and tragically common in any case that "bleeds") [not that this in any way justifies Mr. Nifong's actions. Psychologically, I believe Mr. Nifong's first mistake was listening too intently to the pitchfork wielding, chanting citizenry with press passes hanging from their necks, calling for quick "justice". Coincidentally, the same group now horrified that Nifong gave them what they wanted.]

I could continue this response for pages, but allow me to sum up my point. Prosecutorial misconduct not something to take lightly. We are entrusted with great authority and expected to exercise that authority, not to "boost our conviction numbers," but to serve the people and, most importantly, justice. Allegations of misconduct should be pursued to the upmost, but this article's silly conclusions seek not to purge the justice system of an endemic problem - but to incite a witchhunt against honorable, hard working people (most of whom have taken substantial pay cuts to pursue a job they are passionate about and protect communities they love). Be careful which windmills you chase, Mr.Fiege. I generally love Slate because of articles that are insightful, well researched, and intellectually honest (even when you don't necessarilly agree with their conclusions) - this will remain one glaring exception to an otherwise great resource.

Mr. Fiege speaks the truth. I have seen it myself. I had a close relative involved in a criminal matter where the prosecutors lied to the grand jury, suborned perjury, and presented false evidence to a trial juries. I have proof of these misconducts and no defense lawyer will touch it.

So coccougs, if you're so confident and willing to stand up for the high morals and ethics of your prosecutor friends around the country, how would you like to actually do something about one of the misconduct cases. Let me know if you want to see one for real. I bet $1,000 you won't do anything about it.