Showing posts with label Mike Easley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Easley. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Hudson Does The Right Thing, Finally
After reconsidering the implications of allowing disgraced Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong to delay his long overdue resignation until next month, Durham County Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson has decided to suspend Mr. Nifong immediately pending a hearing on Durham resident Beth Brewer’s 7A-66 petition to remove the rogue prosecutor from office.
In closing this post, there are two final notes we'd like to add.
First, a reminder that the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law will host a continuing legal education program on Wednesday, June 27 entitled "Prosecutorial Misconduct in Light of the Duke Lacrosse Case." Betty Tenn Lawrence, attorney for Beth Brewer in the filing of the petition to remove Mike Nifong from office, has been added to the panel of speakers alongside Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, and Duke University Professors of Law, James Coleman and Michael Tigar. Ms. Lawrence will discuss the process for removing a rogue District Attorney from office.
Lastly, it must be noted that the Bill for removal of unqualified District Attorneys and Judges received much attention yesterday due to the urgency created by Mike Nifong's attempt to extend his stay in office despite his disbarment and promise to resign. At his press conference yesterday, Governor Easley endorsed the measure and members of the NC House, where the Bill is to be voted on today after passing the Senate unanimously, indicated that the Bill would be pushed through quickly.
The county's top judge plans to suspend Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong from office Tuesday and appoint a special prosecutor to push ahead with a case against Nifong, who is soon to be stripped of his license. N&OEarly media reports yesterday indicated that Judge Hudson, oddly citing “paperwork” concerns, indicated that he would not move forward with any action on the petition he had, contrary to North Carolina law which required him to act within thirty days of the February filing, held in abeyance for several months.
Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson said Monday night that he had signed an order removing District Attorney Mike Nifong from office, effective Tuesday morning, and named a Wake County attorney to handle a case against Nifong. WRAL
“Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson in Durham has a petition pending before him asking that he remove Nifong from office. Hudson said today that he does not plan to act on the petition. He said Nifong would be gone from office before he had all the necessary paperwork to remove him.” N&OLater, Judge Hudson appeared to modify his reasoning and was quoted by The Herald-Sun as "being taken out of it" by Nifong's strategic resignation date.
Hudson said Nifong's disbarment will become effective 30 days after being served with a written disbarment order, which probably won't be until late this week.Finally, Judge Hudson wisely decided to comply with State law and issued an order to suspend the DA effective today, asked Durham County Sheriff Worth Hill to ensure that Nifong comply with his order, and appointed a special prosecutor to present the case for removal of Mr. Nifong from office at a hearing which must take place within ten to thirty days.
Since the disbarment date will fall after Nifong's final work day of July 13, Hudson said there no longer is a need for him to hold a removal hearing.
"This takes me out of it," Hudson said. "I'm not seeing a need for a hearing unless he doesn't resign when he said he will." H/S
Hudson, who has been overseeing a case demanding Nifong's removal from office, said he would file a notice with Durham County Sheriff Worth Hill to enforce his suspension order.
Hudson also said he will appoint Wake County attorney Robert Zaytoun as a special prosecutor for the Nifong removal case.
While Hudson said he and the sheriff cannot keep Nifong from entering the DA's office, the sheriff has the power to limit Nifong's access by -- for example -- banning Nifong from his parking space near the Durham County courthouse and suspending the key card he would need to enter that building during non-office hours. H/S
"I have thought about the situation, and this is the way I wish to proceed," said Hudson, who initially agreed to allow Nifong to work until next month.
As part of the suspension, Hudson said he would order the sheriff on Tuesday to prevent Nifong from carrying out any duties of the district attorney.
A hearing on the removal request must then be held within 30 days. AP
Hudson’s amended decision followed widespread uproar from elected officials and the public in response to Mr. Nifong’s decision to delay his promised resignation.Hudson defended his power to suspend Nifong as clearly justified by Nifong's disbarment Saturday by the State Bar.
"All you need to suspend him is probable cause," Hudson said. "You have much more than probable cause with a clear and cogent finding by the State Bar."
Hudson explained his appointment of a special prosecutor by noting that he, Hudson, has the power to suspend Nifong temporarily without a court hearing, but can make the suspension permanent only with a hearing, in which Zaytoun would be needed. H/S
Nifong surprised many today when his resignation letter to Easley stated that Nifong would stay in office until July 13.Durham City Councilman Eugene Brown said Nifong cannot stay in office.
"Our former district attorney needs to go quickly and quietly in to the night," Brown said. N&O
"What is he trying to prove?" Durham City Councilman Eugene Brown said. "This is like rubbing salt into the community's wound. He has resigned and been disbarred. Does he not get it?"
Brown said Gov. Mike Easley and other officials have to press Nifong to leave office "in a couple of days."
Easley said he would immediately remove Nifong if he could.
"You are given a lot of power and you can destroy a reputation in moments with just a few words," said Easley, himself a former prosecutor. "This was much more than a mistake." H/S
"I think he should have left and not gone back, except to clean out the office," he [Easley] said. "I don't think he ought to be in the district attorney's office, having been disbarred. WRALDespite the early indications that Judge Hudson had initially declined to comply with the statutory directives of NCGS 7A-66 in contradiction not only to the law but also to his own statements and previous order, later media reports presented Hudson's decision as if it was not based on the pressure of the outcry but rather based on Nifong's attempt to delay his resignation and fears of the legal repercussions of that decision.
"Given what's transpired, it probably would be cleaner for [Nifong] to be using the next few days to clean out his desk," Durham County Commissioners Chairwoman Ellen Reckhow said. "I just don't want to pile on, but preferably a shorter time would be better."
"The sooner Mike moves on with his life, personally and professionally, and the sooner the governor gets an interim appointment in there, the better for all of us," City Councilman Mike Woodard added.
City Councilman Thomas Stith also indicated he would like Nifong to leave office this week.
"It's a disservice to the community for him to continue to hold onto office," said Stith, who added that Nifong should have made his resignation effective immediately. "I don't understand why he'd want to continue to drag this out for another 30 days. It is again making us all suffer for his decisions." H/S
Jackie Brown, Nifong's former campaign manager who parted ways with him over his handling of the lacrosse case, said Monday that Nifong's decision to remain in office four more weeks made those words seem disingenuous."To me, he is thumbing his nose at his own statements that he made before the bar," said Brown, a Durham resident who spent the past week in Raleigh attending the bar proceedings. "He's going out on his own terms, on his own time. Last week, I believed he was sincere in what he was saying about resigning to let Durham heal, to let his family heal and just to get this all behind him. ... Then he comes out this morning and it's business at usual." N&O
"That man should not spend one more minute in office," [Beth] Brewer said Monday. N&O
Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, chief resident superior court judge in Durham County, came to his decision late today after learning of Nifong's plans to remain in office until July 13. N&OHudson initially said he would have preferred that Nifong step down immediately. Criminal defendants and defense lawyers might challenge the district attorney's authority over the next month, creating potential problems, he said.
"There is some concern that a resignation effective at a later date could cause complications as far as legal proceedings go," Hudson said earlier Monday. WRAL
Nifong, who was disbarred Saturday for breaking more than two dozen rules of professional conduct in his handling of the case, said in a letter released Monday that he would leave office July 13. His departure date wasn't soon enough for Hudson, who decided to suspend Nifong from office. AP
“I watched the proceedings just like everybody else did,” Judge Hudson said last night. “I felt that he should resign immediately.” NYT
While Judge Hudson deserves due credit for finally acting on the filed by Beth Brewer in February, it must be noted that, were it not for the foresight, courage, and tenacity of Ms. Brewer, Hudson would not have the power to suspend the disgraced Minister of Injustice without having a 7A-66 petition before him.
Hudson has the power to suspend Nifong because in February, Beth Brewer, a Durham resident, filed a motion seeking to have the career prosecutor removed because of his actions in the Duke University lacrosse case. Brewer worked against Nifong in his November campaign for district attorney. Brewer ran a campaign for County Commissioner Lewis Cheek, who said he was running, but wouldn't accept the job. N&OAdmittedly and in the interests of full disclosure, we are biased in our appreciation for Beth's efforts, having had the opportunity to work with her as part of the LieStoppers team while witnessing the transformation from concerned observer to active citizen working fearlessly against the power of the unethical District Attorney starting with her decision to start the Recall Nifong effort in response to Lewis Cheek's decision to not campaign, continuing with her filing of the petition to remove Nifong from office, and culminating with the persistent pursuit of action on her 7A-66 affidavit. Among the many heroes the Hoax has produced, Brewer deserves to be counted. (Now, if we can only convince her to run against Nifong supporter Diane Cattoti for a seat on the city council...)In February, Durham resident Elizabeth Brewer had filed a civil complaint asking Hudson to remove Nifong under a section of state law. She claimed Nifong had exhibited willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute.
Hudson put off action on Brewer's motion then pending the outcome of the Bar action against Nifong, and he did the same against in April when she renewed her request. WRAL
In closing this post, there are two final notes we'd like to add.
First, a reminder that the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law will host a continuing legal education program on Wednesday, June 27 entitled "Prosecutorial Misconduct in Light of the Duke Lacrosse Case." Betty Tenn Lawrence, attorney for Beth Brewer in the filing of the petition to remove Mike Nifong from office, has been added to the panel of speakers alongside Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, and Duke University Professors of Law, James Coleman and Michael Tigar. Ms. Lawrence will discuss the process for removing a rogue District Attorney from office.
Lastly, it must be noted that the Bill for removal of unqualified District Attorneys and Judges received much attention yesterday due to the urgency created by Mike Nifong's attempt to extend his stay in office despite his disbarment and promise to resign. At his press conference yesterday, Governor Easley endorsed the measure and members of the NC House, where the Bill is to be voted on today after passing the Senate unanimously, indicated that the Bill would be pushed through quickly.
Governor Easley says he would remove Durham DA Mike Nifong from office immediately if he could.
Easley says he plans to sign a bill moving through the General Assembly that would give the governor power to remove a district attorney from office.
He says if the bill is signed into law before July 13th -- the day Nifong plans to leave office -- then Easley would use his new power. AP
Easley endorsed a bill in the state legislature that would allow him to replace district attorneys and judges as soon as they are disbarred. The bill is slated for a vote in the House tomorrow, but it will have to be voted on again by the Senate, where it has already passed.
Rep. Deborah Ross said the bill should not take long.
"The governor could get it by the end of the week," said Rep. Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat who is shepherding the bill through the House.
Easley said if he had the power he would replace Nifong immediately.
"I'd do it today if I could," he said. N&O
While the stated motivation for the Bill, the deceptive title, and the equally misleading statements of Governor Easley give the impression that the proposed law would have allowed Easley to remove Nifong from office and protect the citizens of North Carolina from the burden of having disbarred District Attorneys and Judges from staying in office, the poorly constructed Bill does exactly the opposite.
As the Bill, in its third edition, reads now it would have served to disallow Easley from removing Nifong from office immediately, as the Governor falsely suggested, or anytime prior to Nifong's official disbarment which will not take effect until thirty days after the Disciplinary Hearing Committee submits a formal written Order of Disbarment. Officially, Nifong will not be disbarred until well after his intended date of resignation and the Bill would prevent Easley from taking action against him until that time. Further, if Nifong had not waived his right to appeal, the dangerous legislation would have prevented action to remove him likely until his term in office was completed as the Bill allows a disbarred DA (or Judge) to remain in office until all appeals are exhausted. As such, the Bill offers no protection for anyone except a disbarred judicial official contrary to the hype that accompanies its impending enactment.
If time allows this morning, please send an email to all members of the NC House asking that they vote against the Bill and send it back to committee for revision so that it accomplishes what it intends. The third reading (final vote) of the Bill is the first item on the House calendar for today.
Click here to send an email to all members of the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Text of Cornacchia Letter to Easley and Cooper
Dear Governor Easley and General Cooper:
I represent Collin Finnerty and write you on his behalf with several requests in connection with the so-called "Duke Lacrosse Case" wherein General Cooper, after an extensive investigation, found that he and his two former teammates were "innocent" of the charges filed in Superior Court in Durham County and, furthermore, that no crimes ever occurred in the first place.
My first request is that you both publicly call on Michael B. Nifong. the sitting Durham County District Attorney, to resign immediately from office. Governor Easley, you have publicly stated, when you were in New York recently, that selecting Mr. Nifong was "the worst appointment of [your] career." Furthermore, you also publicly stated at that time that Mr. Nifong apparently lied when he represented to you that he would not seek permanent office as District Attorney which was a condition of your interim appointment. Finally, General Cooper branded Mr. Nifong as a "rogue" and "unchecked" prosecutor because he had three innocent, young men, arrested, indicted and prosecuted for crimes that General Cooper found did not occur. Finally, and incredibly, Mr. Nifong continues in office as the chief law enforcement officer in Durham County, making life-altering decisions about who should be the subject of prosecution and handling the most sensitive and important cases. Mr. Nifong has not done the honorable thing and tendered his resignation. He may do so if you both publicly and unequivocally call for that resignation.
My second request is that, if Mr. Nifong refuses to take the honorable and responsible step of voluntarily tendering his resignation, you both join in the application for his removal pursuant to North Carolina General Statute ("NCGS") Section 7A-66, now pending in Durham County Superior Court before the Honorable Orlando Hudson. Your moral suasion and the prestige of your offices, as well as the resources that you can bring to bear, will assist the private litigant who has brought this petition and ensure the appropriate effort and resources are dedicated to this serious matter.
The third request is that a special prosecutor be appointed, either an attorney in private practice of the highest caliber and integrity, or members of General Cooper's Special Prosecution Unit who demonstrated their professionalism so well in their recent investigation, Once appointed, a special prosecutor can seek court approval for the convening of an "investigative grand jury" pursuant to NCGS Section 15-623, There is ample predicate for this. After all, General Cooper has found that Mr. Nifong and the Durham Police Department arrested and prosecuted three innocent, young men for crimes that did not occur. With the impaneling of such a grand jury, a special prosecutor can subpoena witnesses and documents and conduct an investigation under grand jury secrecy to determine whether there have violations of criminal statues including, but not limited to, possible violations of North Carolina's official "misbehavior in office" statutes (NCGS Sections 14-230 and 23 i) and false reports to law enforcement agencies ( NCGS Section 14-225). Those whose roles must be examined include Mr. Nifong, the Chief investigator for his office, Lindell Wilson, Sergeant Mark Gottlieb, Investigators Benjamin Himan and Michele Soucci, their Durham Police Department commanding officers and Brian Meehan of the DNA Security Lab who admitted, under oath, that he agreed with Mr. Nifong to withhold what Mr. Meehan knew to be exculpatory evidence and submit a false DNA report.
Let me be very clear, I do not, in any way, suggest by naming these individuals that they committed crimes or engaged in misconduct of any type. That determination, if made, would be up to a special prosecutor, a judge and jury. These individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence and should not be prejudged. We do not do so by this request but only ask for a full and impartial inquiry.
It has been said that the institution of ethics charges against Mr. Nifong is sufficient to address the situation. This is not so. This forum only will determine if the codes governing the conduct of attorneys, generally, and district attorneys, specifically, have been broken by only Mr. Nifong. It will not, and cannot, address the conduct of the members of Mr. Nifong's office, the officers of the Durham Police Department and others such as Mr. Meehan. Others say to wait to see what the Ethics Commission determines but their action is limited and will not address the conduct of the participants in what, based on General Cooper's investigation arid public statements, can only be characterized as a "frame-up" of three young men whose parents had sent them to your state for an education. The view that the institution of a criminal investigation will somehow prejudice the Ethics Commission in its inquiry is absurd and an insult to the three members of the body hearing this matter.
My final request is that an investigation be commenced into the continued licensing of Mr. Meehan to operate a DNA laboratory in North Carolina . Once again, we do not prejudge the result of such an inquiry but there certainly exists ample predicate for such an investigation, given Mr. Meehan's statements under oath in Durham County Superior Court concerning his complicity in the withholding of DNA evidence.
We respectfully submit that it is necessary for you to put these steps into action lest it be known, or even suspected, that a person in North Carolina is immune from proper scrutiny of their actions because of their official position. The efforts of North Carolina to respond to the tragedy and injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case have been demonstrated by the institution of the ethics inquiry of Mr. Nifong and the courageous finding of innocence of my client and his former teammates by General Cooper. The actions outlined in this letter are necessary and appropriate to continue these efforts.
My client, his family and I stand ready to assist you in any way to implement these requests.
My first request is that you both publicly call on Michael B. Nifong. the sitting Durham County District Attorney, to resign immediately from office. Governor Easley, you have publicly stated, when you were in New York recently, that selecting Mr. Nifong was "the worst appointment of [your] career." Furthermore, you also publicly stated at that time that Mr. Nifong apparently lied when he represented to you that he would not seek permanent office as District Attorney which was a condition of your interim appointment. Finally, General Cooper branded Mr. Nifong as a "rogue" and "unchecked" prosecutor because he had three innocent, young men, arrested, indicted and prosecuted for crimes that General Cooper found did not occur. Finally, and incredibly, Mr. Nifong continues in office as the chief law enforcement officer in Durham County, making life-altering decisions about who should be the subject of prosecution and handling the most sensitive and important cases. Mr. Nifong has not done the honorable thing and tendered his resignation. He may do so if you both publicly and unequivocally call for that resignation.
My second request is that, if Mr. Nifong refuses to take the honorable and responsible step of voluntarily tendering his resignation, you both join in the application for his removal pursuant to North Carolina General Statute ("NCGS") Section 7A-66, now pending in Durham County Superior Court before the Honorable Orlando Hudson. Your moral suasion and the prestige of your offices, as well as the resources that you can bring to bear, will assist the private litigant who has brought this petition and ensure the appropriate effort and resources are dedicated to this serious matter.
The third request is that a special prosecutor be appointed, either an attorney in private practice of the highest caliber and integrity, or members of General Cooper's Special Prosecution Unit who demonstrated their professionalism so well in their recent investigation, Once appointed, a special prosecutor can seek court approval for the convening of an "investigative grand jury" pursuant to NCGS Section 15-623, There is ample predicate for this. After all, General Cooper has found that Mr. Nifong and the Durham Police Department arrested and prosecuted three innocent, young men for crimes that did not occur. With the impaneling of such a grand jury, a special prosecutor can subpoena witnesses and documents and conduct an investigation under grand jury secrecy to determine whether there have violations of criminal statues including, but not limited to, possible violations of North Carolina's official "misbehavior in office" statutes (NCGS Sections 14-230 and 23 i) and false reports to law enforcement agencies ( NCGS Section 14-225). Those whose roles must be examined include Mr. Nifong, the Chief investigator for his office, Lindell Wilson, Sergeant Mark Gottlieb, Investigators Benjamin Himan and Michele Soucci, their Durham Police Department commanding officers and Brian Meehan of the DNA Security Lab who admitted, under oath, that he agreed with Mr. Nifong to withhold what Mr. Meehan knew to be exculpatory evidence and submit a false DNA report.
Let me be very clear, I do not, in any way, suggest by naming these individuals that they committed crimes or engaged in misconduct of any type. That determination, if made, would be up to a special prosecutor, a judge and jury. These individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence and should not be prejudged. We do not do so by this request but only ask for a full and impartial inquiry.
It has been said that the institution of ethics charges against Mr. Nifong is sufficient to address the situation. This is not so. This forum only will determine if the codes governing the conduct of attorneys, generally, and district attorneys, specifically, have been broken by only Mr. Nifong. It will not, and cannot, address the conduct of the members of Mr. Nifong's office, the officers of the Durham Police Department and others such as Mr. Meehan. Others say to wait to see what the Ethics Commission determines but their action is limited and will not address the conduct of the participants in what, based on General Cooper's investigation arid public statements, can only be characterized as a "frame-up" of three young men whose parents had sent them to your state for an education. The view that the institution of a criminal investigation will somehow prejudice the Ethics Commission in its inquiry is absurd and an insult to the three members of the body hearing this matter.
My final request is that an investigation be commenced into the continued licensing of Mr. Meehan to operate a DNA laboratory in North Carolina . Once again, we do not prejudge the result of such an inquiry but there certainly exists ample predicate for such an investigation, given Mr. Meehan's statements under oath in Durham County Superior Court concerning his complicity in the withholding of DNA evidence.
We respectfully submit that it is necessary for you to put these steps into action lest it be known, or even suspected, that a person in North Carolina is immune from proper scrutiny of their actions because of their official position. The efforts of North Carolina to respond to the tragedy and injustice of the Duke Lacrosse Case have been demonstrated by the institution of the ethics inquiry of Mr. Nifong and the courageous finding of innocence of my client and his former teammates by General Cooper. The actions outlined in this letter are necessary and appropriate to continue these efforts.
My client, his family and I stand ready to assist you in any way to implement these requests.
Respectfully yours,
Michael Cornacchia
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Happy Anniversary Governor
 | |||||
| State of North Carolina Office of the Governor | |||||
| Michael F. Easley | | ||||
| Governor | | ||||
| Release: IMMEDIATE | Contact: Jill Warren Lucas | ||||
| Date: 4/18/2005 | Phone: (919) 733-5612 | ||||
| GOV. EASLEY APPOINTS NIFONG AS INTERIM D.A | |||||
| Veteran Prosecutor to lead Durham County Office | |||||
| Raleigh - Gov. Mike Easley today appointed Michael B. Nifong as Interim District Attorney for the 14th Prosecutorial District (Durham County). Nifong replaces Durham District Attorney Jim Hardin, who was appointed as a Special Superior Court Judge. | |||||
| “For over 26 years, Mike Nifong has worked in the Office of the District Attorney in Durham. His service as an Assistant District Attorney and currently as Chief Assistant District Attorney has prepared him take over the day-to-day operations of the office,” Easley said. “ I am certain that his commitment to the office and the people of Durham will continue in his role as Interim District Attorney.” | |||||
| Nifong has worked in the Office of the District Attorney since 1978, initially as an unpaid volunteer attorney. In 1979 he became Assistant District Attorney. He currently serves as the Chief Assistant District Attorney handling office management, staff supervision, and policy development. | |||||
| Nifong received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1971 and 1978, respectively. | |||||
| | |||||
| Office of the Governor | |||||
| 116 W. Jones Street, Suite 202, Raleigh , NC 27603-8001 | |||||
| Phone: (919) 733-5612 | |||||
| Fax: (919) 733-5166 | |||||
| An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer | |||||
Friday, April 13, 2007
Easley Doesn't Regret his "Poorest Appointment"
Flashback: January 22, 2007 - News & Observer:
"Gov. Mike Easley said last month that picking Mike Nifong to be Durham's district attorney was the worst appointment of his career, and he said Nifong broke his promise not to run for the office."Easley told law students in New York that Nifong's decision to seek office in last fall's election almost prompted him to consider yanking Nifong from office."I almost un-appointed him when he decided to run," Easley said. "I rate that as probably the poorest appointment that I've," the governor trailed off before adding "I've made some good ones."
Gov. Easley appointed Nifong as district attorney in 2005. He says he doesn't regret that decision and wouldn't comment on whether Nifong should step down.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Easley’s Comments Questioned
Recently, the News & Observer reported on comments made by NC Governor Mike Easley at New York University Law School. In those comments, the governor was critical of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, referring to him as his “worst appointment” and adding that DA Nifong had broken his promise that he would not run for office after being appointed on an interim basis only.
"Gov. Mike Easley said last month that picking Mike Nifong to be Durham's district attorney was the worst appointment of his career, and he said Nifong broke his promise not to run for the office."Easley told law students in New York that Nifong's decision to seek office in last fall's election almost prompted him to consider yanking Nifong from office."I almost un-appointed him when he decided to run," Easley said. "I rate that as probably the poorest appointment that I've," the governor trailed off before adding "I've made some good ones.""Easley, a former prosecutor, was speaking at New York University on Jan. 22 about public service. After the speech, someone in the audience asked him to rate Nifong's performance in the controversial sexual assault investigation against three former Duke University lacrosse players."The governor said Nifong had done a poor job."You don't need me to tell you that," he said.
The N&O report confirmed details of Easley’s speech that were first noted on January 22 by a commentator at KC Johnson’s Durham in Wonderland blog.
“Governor Easley spoke at NYU Law School today and criticized the conduct of Mike Nifong in the Duke case and said it was a bad appointment and that he appointed Nifong in part as a replacement because he said he would not run again.“He said he did not know what the evidence would demonstrate in the case but as a former prosecutor he could say that Nifong's public comments about the accused were wrong.“He did mention the racist remarks made that night by some lacrosse players. I am not sure how that relates to the accused as none of them were accused of making these remarks but I believe he wanted to criticize Nifong but not go as far as to say that this was a miscarriage of justice. This could be for political reasons.“This is interesting as it is the first time that I am aware of, the governor openly criticizing Nifong's conduct.”
Easley’s comments have been met in recent days by criticism and skepticism by Nifong apologists and critics alike. Nifong’s supporters wonder why Nifong, unlike other Easley appointees, would have been made to promise not to seek to keep his office. The apologists have also expressed doubts about the explanation issued by the governor’s spokesperson, Renee Hoffman, who claims the vow was asked for in order to not influence the subsequent election.
The Herald Sun reveals Hoffman’s clarification:
“Gov. Mike Easley did not want an "heir apparent" in the Durham district attorney's chair, and that is why he extracted a promise from Mike Nifong not to run for the office when he was appointed to it in 2005, a state spokeswoman said Monday.“In appointing Nifong to succeed former District Attorney Jim Hardin Jr. -- who became a judge -- Easley merely wanted a "placeholder or non-candidate" to fill the job until last year's election, said Easley spokeswoman Renee Hoffman.“That way, those who wanted to compete at the ballot box "would be able to start from a level playing field," Hoffman added.“She said Nifong was "explicit" with the governor's legal counsel, Reuben Young, that "he had no intention of running for the office. The governor would have looked at the acting appointment very differently if he had known Nifong planned to run."“But Nifong broke his promise and ran anyway, winning a May 2006 Democratic primary and then gaining a four-year term in November's general election, Easley told students at New York University last month.” HeraldSun
Duke University Law Professor, Robinson Everett, who endorsed Nifong in both the primary and general elections, wrote the News & Observer to air his reservations about Easley's claims and motives.
“I was surprised by your Feb. 3 front-age headline "Easley: Nifong broke his word" and the accompanying article. The summary line with that article asserted that Gov. Mike Easley said "Nifong promised not to run for a full term." Referring to recent remarks by Easley to an audience at New York University, the article stated that in appointing Nifong the governor had relied on recommendation by two former Durham district attorneys and "was also comfortable with the appointment because Nifong said he would not run for office."
“If Easley believed he was appointing a competent district attorney, I cannot understand why he wanted a promise from Nifong that he would not run for this position in the next election.
“Indeed, it would seem that if Nifong lived up to the high recommendation he had received, Easley would have wanted him to run for a regular term as district attorney at the next election and continue to render good public service. “Of course, I understand why Easley now wants to distance himself from Nifong; but I cannot understand why he would have requested or welcomed a promise by Nifong that he would not run in 2006 for election as Durham district attorney.”
The Herald Sun offered similar sentiments from local defense attorneys Mark “He really believes in the case and that's the bottom line for me" Edwards, who appeared in a campaign ad for Nifong, and John “DNA evidence would give more credence to the prosecution’s theory that something happened” Fitzpatrick, a Nifong campaign contributor.
News 14's Kenneth Moton reported that Governor Easley offered the following expansion of spokesperson Hoffman's clarification while also explaining, quite oddly, why he didn't follow through with his thought of un-appointing Nifong.“Some were not satisfied with Easley's explanation when informed of it Monday evening.“They said they weren't aware of the governor extracting promises from other appointees not to run for office, including Orange-Chatham District Attorney Jim Woodall.“Like Nifong, Woodall was appointed chief prosecutor for his jurisdiction after his predecessor became a judge. Woodall then ran unopposed in last year's election."Is there something special about Mike [Nifong]?" veteran lawyer Mark Edwards wondered aloud Monday. "Is there something special about Durham?"I think this raises more questions than it answers," Edwards said of the governor's explanation. "Out of all the appointments the governor makes, why was this one different?"“John Fitzpatrick, president of the Durham Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, also was scratching his head over the governor's statement."An answer like that is more confusing than it is clarifying," he said. "It's an answer without substance. It begs the question of consistency. Does this same standard apply just to Mike Nifong or to other appointees as well? That's what people are asking. The public clearly voiced their position that they wanted Mike Nifong to be DA. He just answered the call of the people."
"Easley says Nifong told his legal counsel he would not seek office in 2006 but he broke his promise.
“When you're appointing somebody who's going to run, you look at them totally differently because you want to know what their skills are dealing with the press and running the office long-term,” said Governor Easley.
"He also says he thought about un-appointing Nifong.
“Once the election occurred and after the primary was uncontested, we didn't want to do anything that would upset the office,” the governor continued."
It should be noted that, despite the Governor's assertion, neither the primary nor the general election saw Nifong run uncontested. It's difficult, as well, to believe that either explanation will sit well with supporters of Nifong, the "worst appointment," who Easley once hailed as follows:
“For over 26 years, Mike Nifong has worked in the Office of the District Attorney in Durham. His service as an Assistant District Attorney and currently as Chief Assistant District Attorney has prepared him take over the day-to-day operations of the office,” Easley said. “I am certain that his commitment to the office and the people of Durham will continue in his role as Interim District Attorney.”
Commentators unwilling to accept, rationalize, and/or apologize for Nifong’s misconduct have also questioned the governor’s comments, citing the timing (well after they could have been relevant) and venue (far outside earshot of local media) of Easley’s remarks.
John Hood, President and Chairman of the John Locke Foundation:
John Hood, President and Chairman of the John Locke Foundation:
“But this is why the disclosure of Easley’s comments are so damaging. As far as we know, the governor didn’t attempt to rein Nifong in. A former prosecutor himself, Easley seems never to have intervened to encourage the Durham office to do its job properly. When the case took a turn for the outrageous, he didn’t ask for Nifong’s resignation.“What’s worse, when Nifong filed to run for DA last year and drew a strong challenge from Freda Black, Easley didn’t bother to mention that Nifong had lied to him about his political intentions. Democratic primary voters might well have valued that piece of information. By the fall, when Nifong’s malfeasance was clearly evident, Easley made no move to set the record straight. He did nothing.“In the past, the governor has avoided political traps by staying put. In this case, however, inaction was indefensible. And then, rather than explaining all this to North Carolinians through, say, a press interview or statement, Easley journeyed to New York, weighed in way too late on one of the most potent controversies his state has seen in years, and then refused invitations to comment when North Carolina journalists eventually got their hands on a recording.“Not Easley’s finest moment. Not by a long shot. The citizens of Durham and the state as a whole deserve a full explanation – and, frankly, an apology.”
Brooklyn University Professor KC Johnson, whose Durham in Wonderland is the Hoax blog of record:
“Doesn't it seem odd that, in making an important critique about the highest-profile case in years in his state, the governor delivers his remarks in New York?”
Defendant Nifong and his defense attorney, David Freedman, have both declined to refute the charges made by Governor Easley. Nifong’s silence and willingness to take the public admonishment given him by Easley is understandable, considering the tentative grasp he has on both his license to practice law and the office he sold his soul to keep. Defendant Nifong’s refusal to defend himself against the Easley's accusations appears to mirror his recent decision to hire Assistant Attorney General Brian Wilks for a key managerial position in his office. Both decisions give the impression that Nifong knows his days as Durham County District Attorney are coming to a close.
While there has been no indication from any credible source that AGA Wilks is being brought into the Durham District Attorney’s office as an “heir apparent,” speculation has been rampant both on the internet, and locally, that Wilks has been tapped as the “District Attorney in waiting.”
Brian Wilks - Durham County's next DA?
In part, it would appear that this speculation is feuled by Mr. Wilks' reputation for ethics and integrity, a sorely needed commodity at the helm of the DA’s office, and also by the ambition demonstrated by Wilks’ failed bid to win a seat on the Durham County District Court.
If nothing else, the latter certainly seems consistent with a pattern demonstrated by recent Easley appointments, as noted by a recent Charlotte Observer article.
“What's the easiest way to become a judge in North Carolina? Lose an election. Also, register as a Democrat.
“In the past four weeks, Gov. Mike Easley has appointed to judgeships at least four people who were on the November ballot and lost. Judges are elected in North Carolina, but the governor appoints them when vacancies occur. And there have been extra vacancies lately because the legislature approved 17 new District Court judge positions to handle a growing workload.
“Republicans are griping about whether the will of the people means anything. They say Easley, a Democrat in his second term, is stacking the judiciary.
"That should cause people some concern," said Senate Republican leader Phil Berger, a lawyer from Eden, "particularly those who feel like we need a nonpartisan judiciary."
“One of the new judges, William "Tripp" Helms, was the Union County clerk of court before he lost. He's been appointed to the local District Court bench.
"The governor and I certainly never had a conversation about my election," said Helms, who hopes to be sworn in soon.
"I've had a lot of support from Republicans and Democrats, and I am really committed to the nonpartisan nature of this office."
“Among other defeated candidates, one has been appointed a Superior Court judge, one a judge on the state Court of Appeals and one a District Court judge in Johnston County -- until his appointment was revoked amid complaints from law enforcement.”
The additional appointees referenced appear to include two Easley appointments who failed to win their election, Court of Appeals Judge Linda Stephens (sister-in-law to Durham County Judge Ronald Stephens) and Superior Court Judge Ripley Rand, son of NC Senate Majority Leader, Tony Rand. Judge Rand’s latest appointment, following his November loss to Paul Ridgeway, marks his third judicial nod from Easley having been appointed to a “Special” Superior Court Judgeship four years ago and then to the District 10B bench last February. Judge Stephens is also a repeat Easley appointment, having first been appointed to the Court of Appeals by the Governor in early 2006 before losing in November to Donna Stroud and then being reappointed to the same court.
The final appointee referenced in the Charlotte Observer article, Judge Dale Stubbs, is also somewhat of a repeat Easley appointee having the dubious honor of being appointed twice within two weeks to the same post.
“The Governor's Office announced Friday that former Assistant District Attorney Dale Stubbs had been appointed as District Court judge, only to send a follow-up notice instructing the press to disregard the announcement.
“The press release said Gov. Mike Easley appointed Dale Stubbs to the District Court bench in Lee, Harnett and Johnston counties, the 11th Prosecutorial District.
"Dale Stubbs brings more than two decades of trial experience to the bench," Gov. Easley said in the release. "His legal knowledge and training will be a great addition to the court."
“Later that day, Renee Hoffman of the Governor's Press Office sent an e-mail to the media.
“The e-mail said, "The press release naming Dale Stubbs as a District Court judge in Johnston, Lee and Harnett counties was sent in error. Please disregard it."
“Phone calls to Mr. Stubbs were not returned by press time this morning.
“Although it is not known if it is connected, Tammy Amaon, Johnston County Sheriff's spokesperson, said today Capt. A.C. Fish of the narcotics division had been upset about cases which had either been dismissed or pleaded down. Most of these cases, Ms. Amaon said, were handled by Mr. Stubbs during last fall's campaign.
“Mr. Stubbs was defeated for district attorney in November by Susan Doyle, who said it would be inappopriate for her to comment.
"Capt. Fish was so upset he was going to resign," Ms. Amaon said. "He discussed it with the sheriff.
"They were mainly cases handled by Mr. Stubbs during the election."
Apparently, the "error" was eventually deemed the actual error as Easley, ever the political weathervane, reappointed Stubbs district judge eleven days later.
“Dale Stubbs is scheduled to be a judge -- again.
“Gov. Mike Easley announced Tuesday that Stubbs, a longtime Johnston prosecutor, would take a district judgeship serving Johnston, Lee and Harnett counties.
“Easley made the same announcement 11 days before, only to retract it two hours later.
"Dale Stubbs brings more than two decades of trial experience to the bench," Easley said Tuesday in a statement identical to one he made Jan. 19.
"His legal knowledge and training will be a great addition to the District Court."
“Easley's office said the earlier reversal was a clerical error.”
It should be noted that, while Easley appears to have “un-appointed” Stubbs, this decision clerical error occurred before the appointee took office. Easley’s assertion that he almost un-appointed Nifong would appear to have been a consideration that could not have occurred until after Nifong took office. To date, our research does not indicate a procedure by which an un-appointment could occur after a district attorney is sworn in, and Nifong did not file for his campaign bid until several months after taking office. Further, the assertion that Easley could have un-appointed Nifong appears to conflict with the claims that the governor had no procedure by which to intervene with Nifong’s false prosecution of the Hoax.
It also appears, given Gov. Easley’s penchant for appointing failed candidates, that one of our own previous assumptions was inaccurate. Had Durham County voters ousted the disgraced prosecutor in November’s election, Nifong may very well have been reappointed by Easley…as long as he promised not to run again, that is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
