The Duke Rape Case

"Guilty!"


Being a retired law enforcement agent, the Duke Lacrosse rape case troubled me a great deal as it unfolded. In my entire 25 year career with US Customs and DEA, I had been involved in the arrest and prosecution of my fair share of drug traffickers. As part of that job, I necessarily had to deal with prosecutors, usually at the federal level, but occasionally on the state and local level as well. I can say with total honesty that I never participated in the prosecution of an innocent person. Moreover, I never encountered a prosecutor who was willing to prosecute a defendant whom he had any doubt as to his guilt. That is why the Duke case is so troubling. It is obvious at this point that Durham DA Mike Nifong pushed a prosecution that was screaming doubt. Now we know that not only was the case weak, but that the three young accused men were, in fact, innocent.

Without going into detail into the facts of the case (which are known all too well), it was seen right from the start that this was a doubtful case. The contradictory statements of the supposed victim, the contradictory statements of her stripper friend, plus the documented time line of one of the accused, which seemed to exculpate him, called out for a more prolonged investigation prior to indictments.

When I was working as a Customs/DEA agent, and we wanted to obtain indictments, it was necessary to coordinate with the appropriate Assistant US Attorney. Any current or retired agent can tell you that (at least on the Federal level) the last thing a prosecutor wants to do is lose a case in court. Therefore, it was normal for a prosecutor to review the evidence we brought forth, and, if he/she wasn't sure of a conviction, we would be instructed to gather more evidence. This represents another layer of protection against innocent people being prosecuted.

We often hear the phrase "rush to judgement", which is often abused by defense attorneys even when they know their client is guilty. In this case, the phrase applies. Nifong indicted the three boys, made public statements against them, ignored exculpatory evidence, allowed racial tensions in Durham to simmer, and pushed the case as far as he could until he could push no more. In the interim, the Lacrosse coach was forced to resign, the three defendants forced to leave the school while 88 Duke professors, who should have known more about "innocent until proven guilty", issued a public statement condemning the three young men. Jesse Jackson, as usual, jumped into the fray as did the "New Black Panther Party", which, led by the young racist, Malik Shabazz, held rallies in Durham, futher inflaming the situation. Talk about a rush to judgement.

For me personally, this was a setback in my faith in the fairness of our criminal justice system. Yet, ultimately, justice did prevail, but only after the defendants' families had to spend millions to exonerate their sons. Nifong has received his punishment, and may yet receive more. But what about the others who publically condemned the innocent? What about Jesse Jackson? Where is his public apology? Duke has now agreed to pay a large settlement to the young men. However, what about the 88 Duke professors who signed a statement condemning them before trial? Have they apologized? Have they been reprimanded by Duke for their actions? (I posed that question in an email to Duke president Broadhead. Of course, I never received a reply.)

This past week, I was in North Carolina to attend the funeral of my aunt. As I was leaving from Greensboro Airport to return to California, I bought a Duke Lacrosse T-shirt for my son. A real conversation piece, and I guess he will wear it in that spirit. I hope, however, that eventually, he will consider it as an important statement in support of justice.