Via CBS News: Expert Admits “Big Error” In Duke Case, Parents Of Accused Also Speak Out About Case
The forensic expert hired by the prosecutor in the Duke rape case says he made a “big error” in judgment by not stating in his report that the only DNA he found on the accuser was from several men who were not on the Duke lacrosse team.
Yes, I would say that that was a “big error.” Indeed, it strikes me as unconscionably negligent. The job of prosecutors is to find the guilty and punish them.
This case continues to amaze (and not in a good way).
Indeed, the malfeasance here is stunning:
Meehan acknowledged that he has never omitted potentially exculpatory evidence before. “We haven’t done that before,” he tells Stahl. “In retrospect, I should have done a better job of conveying that information.”Meehan has stated that he told the prosecutor, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, about the other DNA for the first time in mid-April. Later that same month, Nifong indicted three Duke lacrosse players. Meehan has also said in court proceedings that he and Nifong agreed before the evidence tests were completed that his report should be limited to positive matches between the accuser and the players at the team party where she says she was sexually assaulted last March.
[...]
Nifong took six months to tell the players’ defense attorneys about the other DNA, as required by law — and during that time, Nifong filed a court motion that stated he was not aware of any potentially exculpatory evidence.
For the attorneys in the audience: what is the penalty for a prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence? Are their criminal sanctions that can be applied? What are the potential civil liabilities?
This type of situation is a clear abuse of governmental power. Further, it damages future claims of real rape/sexual abuse.
Sphere: Related Content
January 15th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
He can lose his license to practice law for such an ethical breach. There may also be criminal and civil judgments against him by the criminal defendants.