Do Miami, FL.

This guy deserves to lose his license. What a sorry excuse for a lawyer.

C'mon, contrarians. Someone come to Nifong's defense! It's too easy to bash the guy.

I'll come to his defense!!!

Duke sucks!!!

Okay. That's pretty much all I got.

Who cares about Nifong; we all knew this was coming.
Someone get the DC bar on the case of Pearson and his crazy suit against the dry cleaners.

Mangum. Not Magnum. Close phonetic coincidence, but no cigar ... so to speak.

Nifong is a hot silverback! Mmmm mmm fine!

This guy did nothing wrong. All he did was aggressively prosecute. That is his job. It is the job of the defense lawyers to aggressively defend. Just because he turned out to be wrong in the end does not mean that he did anything wrong, much less that he should be disbarred. If that is the case, all prosecutors are in big trouble.

Can't come to this schmuck's defense, but "manifest lack of evidence"? There was a woman who claimed she had been raped...at first, it appeared to be a legit case

4:45,

The issue, at least in my mind, is less what Nifong did "at first", and much more what he did (or, more accurately, did not do) long after he realized or should have realized that there were profound problems with this prosecution.

Did you all forget that he withheld evidence? He withheld exculpatory evidence for months, while continuing to prosecute and berate those poor boys in the media!

Does anyone really think that his prosecution was anything but a ploy to get re-elected. Thank the karmic gods that he'll get his.

He should be disbarred. A prosecutor is not only charged with prosecuting cases but with also making the decision to prosecute. When everything tells you your witness is lying (including the fact that one of her alleged rapists was actually at an ATM while the alleged rape occurred), an ethical prosecutor would have reconsidered charges at the very least again the guy at the ATM.

Come now, people. The point is not that Nifong aggressively pursued prosecution for horrific alleged acts--of course reasonable people can agree that prosecutors should aggressively prosecute on behalf of the public's interests.

No, the point is twofold. First, Nifong made dozens of documented, highly-prejudicial statements to the media, and primarily for personal gain in an upcoming local election. Second, he continued to aggressively prosecute the case after his reasonable attempts to garner proof had failed (and after his alleged victim had essentially recanted her allegations through dozens of internal inconsistencies in her highly-varied story).

It is these two things for which his law license is on the line, and rightly so.

The accuser never told the same story twice, and the physical evidence as well as witness testimony contradicted her many variations. It never appeared to be a "legit case" but was prosecuted because of its political benefit to Nilfong's candidacy for the DA position in which he was acting.

I agree with 4:54.

The point is not that Nifong aggressively pursued prosecution for horrific alleged acts--of course reasonable people can agree that prosecutors should aggressively prosecute on behalf of the public's interests.

No, the point is twofold. First, Nifong made dozens of documented, highly-prejudicial statements to the media, and primarily for personal gain in an upcoming local election. Second, he continued to aggressively prosecute the case after his reasonable attempts to garner proof had failed (and after his alleged victim had essentially recanted her allegations through dozens of internal inconsistencies in her highly-varied story).

It is these two things for which his law license is on the line, and rightly so.

"Manifest lack of credible evidence." That's better.

One thing we have to watch for is that this schmuck's political prosecution doesn't make it even harder to prosecute rape cases. There are so many cases where the only real evidence is a victim's statement.

Apparently a supporter of Nifong was removed. Sounds saucy but does anyone know what actually happened?

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/1494418/

"Spectator Removed From Nifong Ethics Proceedings

Posted: Today at 4:05 p.m.
Updated: Today at 4:08 p.m.

Raleigh — Proceedings were delayed briefly Tuesday afternoon in the ethics trial of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong when security officers had to remove a woman from the court.

Victoria Peterson, who says she is a political activist in Durham, has loudly supported Nifong over the past year, having publicly said the district attorney has been treated unfairly because he tried to help a black woman.

According to sources in the courtroom, Maryellen Finnerty, the mother of Collin Finnerty, one of three men indicted and charged in the Duke lacrosse case, felt threatened when Peterson started speaking loudly.

Hearing commission chair F. Lane Williamson, who did not cite Peterson by name, said only that a "security issue" led officials to remove one person who won't be allowed back."

Disbar him! Notwithstanding the fact that he forever damaged the reputation and lives of 3 promising young men, he bugs the living sh*t out of me.

Promising young men?! One of them pled guilty for battering a guy in DC because he though he was gay.

That said, no matter what the character of the accused parties, Nifong debased the profession for personal gain and notoriety. Given the public trust placed in him, his sins were even worse.

Jesus, I just flashed on Nifong's resemblance to Al Gore...

he should be jailed. Those who abuse government power are worse than murderers in my opinion.

What is the big news here? Nifong merely got caught hiding evidence and pursuing litigation not based upon fact or law. Since when is the standard behavior of civil lawyers now unethical? Just kidding. Seriously, it is not enouch that Nifong is facing ethics charges, there should be criminal charges as well. Would you like read a complaint which IMHO shows many more instances of more blantant misconduct? Look at the CA Bar complaint at bankruptcymisconduct dot com.

5:09 (second)

Yeah. Because heaven forbid we require evidence beyond accusation to convict someone of a violent felony and ruin their life. I mean, the current standard worked out so well in this case!

Because sexual assault doesn't ruin your life or anything. And you're right, let's set free all the sexual predators convicted based on a victim's report. Hope you know where your wife/mother/sister is.

5:13:

Huh?