News-Record.com

Nifong has become infamous as the prosecutor in the hopelessly mishandled Duke lacrosse rape case. Take a survey anywhere in America and chances are most people know about Nifong and the allegations that he made prejudicial statements about the defendants, withheld evidence and ordered a rigged photo lineup.

Any governor would be embarrassed, and lately Easley has tried to explain how it happened that he gave Nifong the job. His efforts have just raised more questions.

"He was appointed acting DA by me," the governor said in a PBS interview with Charlie Rose last week. "The district attorney, a very good district attorney, I appointed judge, and I wanted someone who wasn't going to run, that was a long-term prosecutor, just to hold the office together until somebody was elected."

Easley expressed annoyance that Nifong did run for election last year, breaking an agreement that he wouldn't.

Which is odd, because normally governors fill vacancies with people they hope will run for and keep the seat. But there was his 2005 press release noting Nifong's "interim" appointment.

In contrast, later that year he named Doug Henderson as "district attorney" in Guilford County -- not interim. Henderson also ran for and was elected to a full term in 2006.

Strictly speaking, however, there is no such office as "interim district attorney." The N.C. Constitution says that when the office is vacant, the governor appoints a new DA. Period. Constitutionally, Nifong's appointment was no different than Henderson's. (See Article IV, Sec. 19.)

All appointments are "interim" in the sense that they're good only until the next election. But in Nifong's case, that was more than 18 months away -- long enough that Easley should have been more serious about it.

The governor made it clear he wanted a "placeholder" so that potential DA candidates would enter the 2006 campaign "from a level playing field," spokesman Seth Effron said Tuesday. But why wasn't Nifong supposed to be one of those candidates? Here's what Easley told Rose:

"There's a totally different standard you set for somebody who is going to be the elected district attorney and get into politics, and then there's somebody who you want just to run the office. Because when you get out there and start making political comments, it requires a whole lot of different talent, a whole lot of different skills that obviously he (Nifong) didn't have."

That just doesn't add up. Nifong didn't botch the Duke case for lack of political skills. He made legal mistakes. His political skills were fine. After all, he was elected. So if Eas­ley thought he was getting a good DA but a poor politician, he crossed his wires. Nifong turned out to be a better politician than prosecutor.

Worse, though, is this notion of a "totally different standard." There ought to be one standard for appointing people to important judicial offices. The DA in a large, urban county like Durham is responsible for handling tens of thousands of cases a year ranging from traffic violations to first-degree murder. A strong set of skills is required to do a tough job like that well. Political talent is helpful in winning elections but should not be valued more highly than professional competence. Let's hope Easley isn't suggesting otherwise or making other appointments strictly for political reasons.

Maybe the governor did want to stay out of Durham politics with a supposedly safe appointment. Nifong seemed to fit the bill. Easley never could have guessed how badly mistaken he was.

Now he knows. Even in the "interim," putting the wrong man in a big job can have serious consequences.

Doug Clark can be contacted at dgclark@news-record.com and 373-7039.