Nifong has his hand out
Could leniency hurt North Carolina taxpayers in the Mike Nifong case?
Nifong, the ousted Durham DA, is asking the state to provide his legal defense against a civil suit filed by the former Duke lacrosse players he falsely prosecuted for rape, The N&O reports.
"Because I was a constitutional officer of the state of North Carolina at the time that the subject matter of the complaint arose, ... and because the complaint arises out of the exercise of the duties of that office, I am hereby requesting that you make any necessary arrangements to secure my representation in this matter," Nifong wrote to Judge Ralph Walker, head of the Administrative Office of the Courts.
AOC is studying the request, a spokesman said.
Could Nifong have a legitimate argument for state representation? I hope not. Nifong already has put the state to a lot of unnecessary expense. The fact that he was disbarred for misconduct should negate his contention that he was just carrying out his constitutional duties.
There would be a stronger reason for denying him state representation if he were found to have committed criminal misconduct in office. How about obstruction of justice for withholding key DNA evidence from the defendants? The state's discovery laws should have required him to turn over that information months earlier than defense attorneys eventually were able to obtain it. That would have put an end to the case sooner -- probably before Nifong was elected last November.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, whose office dismissed the charges after its own investigation, has not sought to bring charges against Nifong. I hope this won't prove to be a costly mistake.
Update: I just got a callback from Dick Ellis, spokesman for the Administrative Office of the Courts. Lawyers over there are trying to decide if Nifong's conduct in the Duke case fell within the purview of his duties. Were his actions normal and prudent under the circumstances?
That doesn't sound good for Nifong, but Ellis said no decision has been made. And, if the legal experts conclude the state has to defend Nifong, the state will defend him.
Usually, the attorney general would make the call on this, but because it's already weighed in on Nifong, it's passing the buck back to AOC.
The head of AOC is Judge Ralph Walker.
Further update: Nifong has asked a Durham attorney, James B. Craven III, to represent him in the lawsuit. Last Friday, Craven wrote the following to Ralph A. Walker, director of AOC, and James J. Coman, senior deputy attorney general:
"As you know, Mike Nifong is one of the 16 defendants in this case, filed October 5. He was served today, which makes his answer or other responsive pleading due November 1. As Mike was a constitutional officer of the State during the entire period covered by the 155 page complaint, we believe it is incumbent upon the Attorney General to represent him in the case, pursuant to G.S. 114-2. We also believe the Attorney General may well have a conflict and thus is unable to represent Mike. Accordingly, Mike has asked me to represent him, and I am happy to do so, so long as I am assured of compensation by the State for my services as counsel. Please let me know as soon as possible, as time is very much of the essence."
Comments (11)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I'm not sure that government employees are "exercising their duties" when they commit crimes under color of their authority. I don't think the State has any obligation to shoulder the financial burden of his defense. Nifong's on his own.
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:10 AM
I agree, but my point is that Nifong should have been charged with a crime but wasn't. So the state might have some obligation.
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:20 AM
If you live in Durham Co. and want to see who's going to be paying the boys from Duke, go look in the mirror.
The question is can the Government turn and sue Nifong and his legal malpractice carrier? Doesn't he already have to pay a large fine? He should definitely have any future book earnings attached.
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:23 AM
Doug, I thought Nifong was just recently convicted of a criminal offense arising from this matter...?
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:47 AM
Criminal contempt of court. Maybe that counts.
Posted on October 16, 2007 10:51 AM
Skeet,
The players aren't suing Durham County. They're suing Durham City, Nifong, DNA Security and a bunch of other individuals. So should they win, only some Durham Co. taxpayers will be on the hook -- those that live in the city.
To Doug's question:
Nifong has an interesting argument here. Typically state officials sued for actions in their role in office are given legal representation by the AG's office. Just take a look at the federal docket some time. I don't know what the misconduct in office does to that practice, though.
Posted on October 16, 2007 11:46 AM
Jonathan, two months into law school and you don't have all the answers yet?
Seriously, if AOC has to study it, I'm guessing this is a tough call.
Posted on October 16, 2007 11:56 AM
You'd think two months would be enough, wouldn't ya? Maybe I would if the law school building was intact and I could study there, I would. Ha.
I'm sure it's a tough call for the AOC. It's probably a dilemma the AOC has never dealt with, or if it has, not in a long time. It doesn't usually get these kinds of requests because the AG's office just steps in. The thing here is that if Nifong does deserve state representation, how the heck could that come from a guy who called him a "rogue prosecutor?"
Posted on October 16, 2007 12:08 PM
Roy Cooper's office did provide some good material for the plaintiffs.
Posted on October 16, 2007 12:33 PM
I can't believe that Nifong feels justified in his
"rogue prosecutorial manner," that he deservers
state representation. It's like asking for a welfare check form the government, so that he can live as he pleases. I guess with all that education he got in law school, he never realized that someday, he would loose a big case, or any case for that matter. He is such a hypocrite! He nearly bankrupted the defendants families, for crying out
loud! And now he wants the taxpayers to represent him?!! What a okole puka!
The reason why I personally feel this way, is the way how he handled this "allegedly" rape case, and how smug he was during his election campaign.
He needs to beg for help from the all those people who violated the players rights. Especially, the "alleged victim." Where is she now? What, is she in rehab, and we're paying for that, too? And her kids, the one's the media played up for more sympathy for the "victim," are we paying for them, too? And the
Duke faculty and administrators. They should help Nifong. Those are the true hypocrites. Them, schmucks!
I better stop while I'm still sane. Or else, I might
be prosectued for my first amendment rights.
Posted on October 16, 2007 2:47 PM
Edward Bruce, keep a rockin, my guess is the taxpayers will pay for Nifong folley. Reason one we paid for Blacks. Reason 2 Bother Jesse Jackson has ratted out Dan Blue. In case you did not know, Dan Blue was a major player in this! Doug, I like you can not understand why Nifong has not been charged with violating these men civil rights. The state I understand (GOOD OLE BOY JUSTICE) the feds amaze me. I pray these men get the whole 30 million and some more, Durham deserves it.
Posted on October 17, 2007 6:12 AM