(Ex-)Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Faces Trial for Misconduct

In the words of one of the defense attorneys on the Duke rape case, Nifong "created a conflict between his professional duties and the search for truth, and his personal vested interest in getting elected." "In his zeal to make national headlines and win a hotly contested primary, the DA Nifong intentionally ignored other evidence which was inconsistent with rape at the expense of [Seligmann] and all other Duke lacrosse players."

Now he faces trial for the same misconduct alleged throughout defense motions to have him removed, before the charges were dropped a couple of months back.

At the center of the controversy and the defense challenge to the evidence was the police lineup consisting of 46 Duke lacrosse players, all suspects in the case, which violates the most basic rules of lineup construction for a collection of reasons and offers little hope for an accurate ID. According to defense attorneys, Mike Nifong was behind the lineup as well. In their words, "He ignored the actual facts and improperly injected himself in the photographic lineup proceedings, which violates police policy."

Nifong is now heading to trial on charges of withholding evidence, lying to the court and bar investigators, and making misleading statements to the media about defendants in an active case.

Read more :: Permalink

Faulty ID Procedures Condemned in Dismissal of Duke Rape Case

The dismissal of the Duke rape case is all over the news, but it's particularly interesting that in almost every report, the attorney general is on record blasting the unreliable eyewitness procedures as a primary cause of the unfounded charges against the Duke athletes.

As was reported some months ago, the ID procedures in the case involved a photo lineup comprised only of Duke lacrosse players -- in other words, an all-suspect lineup. As leading psychologists like Gary Wells have been saying for years, including only one suspect in a lineup is crucial to a reliable ID procedure. In fact, in his 2005 article titled "Eyewitness Identification: Systemic Reforms" (PDF), Wells listed the inclusion of only one suspect per lineup as number one in his list of six recommended reforms to increase the reliability of police lineups:

A lineup that contains only suspects (no fillers) is like a multiple-choice test with no "wrong" answer. In an all-suspect lineup, charges may be brought against anyone whom the suspect identifies. If there are fillers, however, an eyewitness who is prone to simply pick someone is likely to pick a filler. Because it is known that the identification of a filler is a mistake, charges will not be brought against a filler and the unreliability of the witness is revealed.

A properly conducted eyewitness identification procedure should serve as an objective test of the witness's memory of the identity of the perpetrator or perpetrators. When there are no fillers, as in the Duke case, the procedure gives no insight into what should be the essential question -- namely, does the witness recall the identity of the person who committed the crime?

Read more :: Permalink