Nice try Nifong: The ex-district attorney should not be granted immunity

Granting former District Attorney Mike Nifong immunity from the civil claims brought against him would degrade the legitimacy of our justice system.

Nifong failed to offer the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case a fair trial by withholding DNA evidence from the defense and conducting an inappropriate number of media interviews.

Last week Nifong filed a motion in federal court claiming that his former role as district attorney grants him absolute immunity from civil claims including the ones brought against him by the three exonerated Duke lacrosse players.

But as Saint Louis University School of Law professor Howard M. Wasserman posits although the law states that Nifong has immunity as a prosecutor the former district attorney is only protected from conduct that he performs as an advocate for the state.

According to N.C. State Bar findings Nifong assumed control over the Duke lacrosse case early on taking on not only the role of a prosecutor but the role of a chief investigator too.

His withholding of DNA evidence from the players' defense team during that period can be argued to be part of the investigative process rather than the actual prosecution.

In addition Nifong inappropriately thrust himself into the spotlight. In at least 50 interviews he aggressively proclaimed that the three players were guilty before they had even been tried.

An attorney attempting to suppress evidence in criminal cases cannot be tolerated. This might be and should be the first time that a prosecutor has been charged with obstructing justice for failing to turn over materials that may have proven a defendant innocent.

According to Professor Joseph Kennedy Associate Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law federal statute states that it is a crime for any person to use the power of government including the actions of state prosecutors in criminal cases" to ""willfully deprive a person of a constitutional right.""

By withholding DNA evidence" Nifong clearly deprived the defendants of their right to due process.

If federal judges fail to hold Nifong accountable for his actions then there will be fewer deterrents against similar misconduct by overzealous prosecutors like Nifong.