The big picture is not that there was some prosecutorial misconduct, but that Nifong did it to abuse not only the jurisprudence system but representative elections as well. Not only did he falsely accuse 3 boys but he deliberately inflamed an entire town to get re-elected.

I see no "false accusation". It was a weak case against a priviledged set of thugs with good lawyers and deep pockets. It was a long shot, but hardly a false accusation.

degsme:

I have a tendency to believe this group had better attorneys than I in the beginning? Innocent of life, not likely or why would they hire a stripper(s)?

Evans virtually threatened Nifong with reprisal. Her accusations were unsupported and Nifong made prosecutorial errors in judgement tat in turn swayed the case against him and her. In other cases without the money, this may have worked.

I see you are one step ahead of the truth once again.

Nifong admitted his malfeasance in court. He tried to minimize its significance, but he did not challenge the facts. He even cried to show how sensitive he really was.

Obviously, you don't want to talk about Nifong running for office during this little fiasco and I can understand why. Ignoring the race card Nifong played, there has never been any love lost between townies and and college kids. Of course as a prosecutor Nifong knew that the college kids wouldn't be voting against him in the election.

Weak case?

There was no DNA evidence.

The lineup was only lax players.

The alleged victim was coached.

The prosecution had to hide exculpatory evidence.

If these boys did something else, then they should have been charged with it unless it was some spurious charge like indecent exposure considering the setting. I admit the possibility that some minor infraction may have happened but Nifong tried make the case into a campaign issue. Rape cases re-elect DA's but rowdy parties don't always make the paper.

It should not require good lawyers and deep pockets should not be needed to get a district attorney to hand over evidence that the accused were innocent. The only crime committed hear was Nifong's.

Nifong was trying to show contrition so that he would keep his license - why else announce his resignation on the stand.

As for your other points

• There was no DNA evidence. - ERNNHH there was lots of DNA evidence, placing her at the scene, placing her in physical contact with the accused. But these were smartly stipulated to by the defense. Normally these would be paraded as evidence linking the accused to the crime. The part missing was vaginal evidence and that's not exculpatory because condoms can accomplish that.
• The lineup was only lax players - Not necessarily a problem. Again, the victim was acknowledged to have been at the scene. Had the prosecutor brought in townies and the usual group from the drunk tank, the accusation would have been of not presenting "real" alternatives to the accused..
• The alleged victim was coached.- allegedly coached. And all good atty's practice their witnesses' testimonies. Never ask a question on the stand you don't know the answer to. Where the line exists between coaching and practicing is ambiguous. Again no clear violation
• The prosecution had to hide exculpatory evidence. - Lack of DNA in her rape kit isn't exculpatory. It does open the door for a possible exculpatory arguement, but by itself it isn't any more exculpatory than for instance a lack of eye witnesses.

If these boys did something else, then they should have been charged with it

Nice spin there Ranger. These are young thugs with a history of violent and abusive behaviour. If they had tats and looked meztiso, you'd accuse them of being part of MS13. But they are white, priviledged and have good lawyers.

I agree it shouldn't require deep pockets. And therein lies the problem with disbarring Nifong. Nifong did nothing that most prosecutors don't do. By "making an example" of Nifong, you guarantee a continuation of "normal behaviour" with one caveat - that if you face deep pockets you now behave a bit more carefully. But other than that, you don't change anything. And THAT is wrong.

BTW, there was no evidence proving innocence. There was only a lack of evidence proving guilt instantaneously. Just as a lack of an eyewitness doesn't prove innocence, the lack of semen isn't exculpatory.

You continue to ignore Nifong's admission of wrong doing. He admits it. All your prevarication about what happened is contradicted by Nifong's own testimony.

But the alleged victim did not testify (most of the time) that there shouldn't be any evidence in the rape kit. She indicated there should be. Maybe she just lost count. Besides not liking lax players you have not presented any credible evidence. The alleged victim in this case gave so many stories, there is no credibility there. Her accounts were contradicted over and over again. At one point the cell phone records indicated that the accused was talking to his girl friend while he supposedly was raping this girl. I have heard of talking on the phone while driving but REALLY!

Unlike most guilty people, these guys never strayed from their story.

What do you want to do; convict these guys of hiring the strippers?

I must say, I'm surprised by the desire to convict these kids based on their past behavior. It seems to me that given the CW's past conduct (and record) this would be a dangerous route to take. Unless, of course one was using a double-standard. Better I think to look at the evidence and lack thereof.

I'm sorry but to what DNA evidence are you referring. As far as I know the only DNA evidence that was run was the rape kit which showed that she had sex with 4 different ment recently none of whom were the accused.

Sure make the lineup all Duke lax players; that way if she no matter which one she picks she is sure to get one. The purpose of a lineup is not to find a suspect but to IDENTIFY a suspect. There has to be numerous people who are known not to be involved. The alleged victim is not allowed to ask questions like, "Was he there that night?" and expect an answer like "yes" so she can then say, "he'll do!"

I don't think they are legally convictable. But I believe they are as innocent as OJ Simpson

She admitted to having sex before the party. So a woman who has had sex that day cannot be raped? Is that your logic?

these guys were and continue to be thugs. But its not illegal to be a thug.

No, but is your logic that because she had sex before the party she was raped. The only relevance is that by showing that there was DNA evidence in her from her previous exploits, that she could not claim that she had washed away the evidence so that is why there was no DNA evidence from the lax.

True that means she can't claim she washed it away. But that is not exculpatory.