Introduction<\/p>\n
This is a famous scandal of the rape accusations made against the three white students by a female counterpart, believed to have worked as a stripper. Later, these accusations were nullified and the accused were found innocent by the court. These false accusations are believed to be due to racial discrimination since the team at the party expected white dancers. This was contrary to their expectations when the two girls delivered were black. The three were charged in court where evidence did not match the accusations as proved by the doctors. They also consistently denied the accusations; the stripper also contradicted herself in her court testimonies. The Attorney taking the case however was able to prove misconduct among the parties accused leading to their suspension by the university\u2019s administration (Lott, 2007). It was quite difficult for the defendants to secure places in other learning institutions following what was referred to as a spoilt reputation for their school and themselves. Later, the attorney, Nifong, dropped the charges and this time round, the case was against him by the North Carolina State Bar for misconduct (Lott, 2007). His motives towards the rape accusations and representation were questionable. This was an advantage for the accused students as they were allowed to enroll in the institution. This paper is aimed at discussing how Nifong, the attorney was able to frame the students for rape. Similarly, the different methods used by the attorney to trap the students in the case are discussed.<\/p>\n
Nifong has been believed to use the case against the three students to build his career rather than his described role of an attorney which should be to guide the court to make the right judgment. According to Pollock, (2010), \u201cDespite the highly politicized disbursement of Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case, there are few controls on the behavior of prosecutors in the court room\u201d (Pg 348). These requirements according to the author were not met by the attorney. He took advantage of the fact that the case was very popular, took advantage of the situation as well in order to make a name for himself. This compromised the chances to receive justice by the accused parties due to his selfish interests. This is very unethical according to the work and professional ethics of law. Further, the attorney went ahead to frame the victims using different ways so as to get the trust of the public. As would be expected, cases regarding rape raise a huge amount of concern among the society today, since it appears as a promotion of gender discrimination. The attorney realized the public did would be at the mercy of his client considering the background of the case. Similarly, racial discrimination would be of much favor to him since the dancers were of the black and Asian decent, yet the accused demanded a white stripper. Mosteller, (2007) argued\/stated that, \u201c\u2026 described Nifong as a rogue prosecutor who pushed forward unchecked and called the case the tragic result of a rush accuse and failure to verify serious allegations.\u201d This proves the arguments by various scholars of the credibility of the lawyer to take up a serious offense and the baseless argument against the defendants. It is also agreeable that using knowledge on law to confuse and falsely incriminate accused parties was discovered in Nifong\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n
As discussed earlier, the paper explores the ways in which the attorney, Nifong framed the defendants to popularize his career in order to run for office. They include:<\/p>\n
Use of Previous Occurrences<\/p>\n
The attorney was very much aware that even in an event that the plaintiff was raped, it did not occur at the night of the party. This was probably done by the boyfriend as there were possibilities of disagreements between the two (Andreadis, and Francescani, 2010). The two were presumed to have many controversial issues which led to threats and illegal acts against him by Mangum, some of these include attempted murder and arson which risked the lives of children and many who were present. Anderson, (2006) commented on the issue that, \u201c\u2026 the evidence demonstrates conclusively that Mangum was not raped that night. First, despite Nifong\u2019s dishonest statements, Mangum had engaged in sexual relations with a number of men\u2026\u201d as told, the attorney was willing to lie to frame the accused in order to win the case. To successfully do this, he used the previous occurrence of sexual assault to the plaintiff where he was guaranteed injuries would be found relating to the case, thus proving rape of the victim. The injuries were found but the lawyer did not disclose their period as the doctor described (Johnson, 2008). Here the accused appeared to be guilty. This concept is not very clear when reading the text. However, detailed analysis proves that this was a strategy to frame the defendants since it would clearly convict them if not well ascertained. However, the court managed to demand the full results which reduced his winning chances. <\/p>\n
Failure to Publicize the DNA Results<\/p>\n
In the questioning of Nifong regarding the accusations he was making against the three Duke University students (McElroy, 2008), he openly admitted to having concealed the DNA results to cover up for his clients and prove the accused guilty. It is worth noting that the lawyer of the accuser was framing the defendants to ensure he wins the case. This as earlier discussed, as an agenda to win the case, popularize his name and run for office as a hero. According to Johnson, (2008), \u201cCounty district attorney Mike Nifong had filed his initial response to the North Carolina State Bar grievance committee\u2019s complaint that he had unethically withheld exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case.\u201d Without the DNA results, the judge would not be able to establish that the injuries obtained were not due to rape. Similarly, they would not be able to establish the time the injuries were obtained. Therefore, the withholding of this information would be of great help towards winning the case and solidifying their argument. Therefore, this was a sure strategy of framing and falsely accusing the accused team of a rime they did not commit. Again, outward study of the case does not reveal this as a deliberate way to frame the accused, but rather, an attempt to win the case. However, a detailed analysis gives an eye opener of the ill motives of the accuser and her state appointed lawyer to frame the three and build his career.<\/p>\n
Racial, Gender Frame<\/p>\n
From a detailed perspective of the Duke University students\u2019 case against Mangum regarding rape, the lawyer Nifong used the difference in race among the arties in the case to make frame the accused as guilty. It is clear that cases of racism are disapproved and any discrimination based on this concept is severely dealt with by the court (Johnson, 2010). Similarly, discrimination based on gender is not allowed according to the United States law which promotes gender equality and fair treatment and opportunities to all. Though there were abuses of racism in the case, which were evident, the lawyer was not justified to claim that this was the reason for the rape. According to, Entman, and Gross, (2010), \u201c\u2026 the news and observer used racial frame somewhat less.\u201d Though not much publicized, it was still a strategy and part of the plan to ensure his win. Secondly, he brought this forth to the judge as a reason as to why the accused could have sexually assaulted the dancer at the party. With a much detailed analysis, it is possible to unveil this concept as used by the attorney and also in his confession before his resignation and surrender of his license. As an ethical lawyer, using of unnecessary circumstances to lead the judge into declaring the accused as guilty is not acceptable. This also goes as far to describe the changes in periods where he would use other techniques following the constant changes in testimonies by Mangum. This was probably due to lack of any solid evidence.<\/p>\n
Victim in the Case<\/p>\n
In the case, the attorney manipulated the courtroom into thinking the accuser was the victim. This however was not the case as the accusations were made falsely, evidently from the contradicting statements. Mosteller, (2007) argued\/stated that, \u201cThe accusing witness\u2019s testimony regarding the alleged assault and the events leading up to and following the allegations would have been contradicted by significantly different versions of events she told over the past year.\u201d He victim act was a form of payback over the sex insults by the people of the party. It was however not physical or assault. Secondly, the victim\u2019s colleague did not consent to be party of the accusation and maintained that she was perfectly okay when they were together (Pressler, and Yaeger, 2007). This is a clear indication of malice where the two partied to appear innocent and gain the court\u2019s sympathy so that the three accused would be pronounced guilty. It was evidently very wrong to manipulate the courtroom into convicting the innocent people for the sake of one person\u2019s career.<\/p>\n
Turnage et.al, (2009), argue\/state that, \u201c\u2026 rhetorical framing of social hierarchical issues, left unchecked, led to tensions between members of a community and its institutions.\u201d This further illustrates the way the attorney framed the defendants in order to win his case. It is quite rhetorical that the case commenced by the accusations against the students of Duke University by the dancer Crystal. However, it ended with the charging of the plaintiff\u2019s attorney over his credibility and ethical standards as prescribed by the professions\u2019 Act. This was due to the risk he put the accused to and probability that they would be charged wrongly. However, as Turnage et.al, (2009) describes the situation, the frame ended up in a more different way than was expected which was ironical. The author further argues that there are chances of this kind of situation are likely to cause disagreements among the members of the community. Conversely, this kind of situation may lead to a better relationship with the community and among the members of the community. The argument also describes that, Turnage, (2009), \u201c\u2026 the case employed a tragic frame to purify themselves of guilt in the resulting social drama and suggests how Burke\u2019s notion of the comic frame can explain how conflicts such as this can be transcended to make for better relations in the future.\u201d Therefore, the irony in this case is that more caution was exercised where the attorney wished to provide evidence against defendants to ensure the ethics are upheld and law serves its course. The victims ended up the winners while the accuser\u2019s attorney became the villain.<\/p>\n
From the discussion, it is evident that use of public knowledge and acquired skills to make false accusations is a clear violation of rights. The case by Nifong proved the misuse of knowledge and victimization of wrong parties for own benefit. However, there are specific measures and relevant bodies set up to handle such cases. Mosteller, (2007) argued that, \u201c\u2026 and the reasons for which he dismissed all charges and declared the players, Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans, innocent.\u201d The author clearly demonstrates the forceful declaration of the victims as innocent following the argument and law which states, \u2018Innocent Until Proven Guilty,\u2019 which the attorney was not able to prove. Disciplinary actions against him were however mandatory regarding the gambling with people\u2019s future and the tarnishing of the name of the career. The accusation advanced against him regarded, violation of the profession\u2019s ethical standards. Being found guilty of this, the punishment against him was disbarment from the body and denial of further rights to practice (Mosteller, 2007). Secondly, he was accused with withholding of the DNA results which as earlier discussed, would prove the accused innocent against his wishes which were followed by misleading statements in his defense to the accusations against him, thus convicting himself the more. This also led to more reason and evidence by the body to disbar him from the practice.<\/p>\n
Conclusion<\/p>\n
From the text above, there is a clear indication of the use of baseless arguments by the District Attorney in proving the guilt of innocent students of Duke University. The case is based on false accusations of a female student working as a stripper following an invitation to a campus party. It is against the ethical standards of an attorney to use malice in winning a case. Besides, the role of a lawyer besides representation of the client should be to enable the judge reach a fair conclusion\/judgment depending on the argument brought forward. Nifong\u2019s resignation was justifiable since it was just before his dismissal and withdrawal of practicing license. This should be an indication to other attorneys of the seriousness associated with unjust treatment of clients. Swearing of an oath before the commencement of a case is always mandatory for the accuser and accused. Therefore, the attorney should have guided his client in the issue of her statements which should have been in accordance with the actual happenings. The allegations made should be fully supported by the accuser without use of false evidence. Concealing of any evidence is also a sign of malice which should be charged since it may send an innocent person to jail. Therefore, the most important concept picked from this cue should be the importance of honesty in practice, acquisition and revelation f all necessary evidence in a courtroom regarding the complaint.<\/p>\n
References:<\/p>\n
Andreadis, C., & Francescani, C. (2010). Duke Lacrosse Rape Accuser Charged With Attempted Murder. Duke Rape Accuser: Abc News. Retrieved from http:\/\/abcnews.go.com\/TheLaw\/duke-lacrosse-rape-accuser-charged-attempted-murder\/story?id=9873093<\/p>\n
Anderson, W. (2006). Criminal Prosecution: How Michael Nifong Intends To Frame the Duke\u00a0Defendants. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.lewrockwell.com\/anderson\/anderson135.html<\/p>\n
Brown, C. B. (2009). Blind justice. Timberlake, N.C: Righter Books.<\/p>\n
Dowdall, G. W. (2009). College drinking: Reframing a social problem. Westport, Conn: Praeger.<\/p>\n
Entman, R., & Gross, K. (2007). Race To Judgment: Stereotyping Media And Criminal Defendant. Law and Contemporary Problems. Retrieved from http:\/\/articulateness\/shell\/citadel?71+Law+&+Contemp.+Probs.+93+%28autumn+2008%29<\/p>\n
Fortunato, J. (2008). Restoring A Reputation: The Duke University Lacrosse Scandal. Public Relations and Sport, 34(2). pp 116-123.References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must HYPERLINK “http:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5W-4SD1KJY-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=full&_orig=search&_cdi=6581&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1423509445&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6d5c1895d84e59f3b4aaebfe743de4c0″purchase this article.<\/p>\n
Haggerty, J. F. (2009). In the court of public opinion: Winning strategies for litigation communications. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.<\/p>\n
Jet. (2006). The Weekly Source Of African American Political And Entertainment News, 109(18). pp 64.<\/p>\n
Johnson, K. (2010). Linwood. Retreived from http:\/\/durhamwonderland.blogspot.com\/2010\/07\/linwood-fights-law.html<\/p>\n
Johnson, K. (2008). The Duke Lacrosse Case and the Blogsphere. Retreived from http:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals\/lcp71&div=57&id=&page<\/p>\n
Johnson, K. C., & Taylor, S. (2008). Until proven innocent: Political correctness and the shameful injustices of the Duke lacrosse rape case. New York: Thomas Dunne Books\/St. Martin’s Griffin.<\/p>\n
Lott, J. R. (2007). Freedomnomics: Why the free market works and other half-baked theories don’t. Washington, DC: Regnery Pub.<\/p>\n
Mcelroy, W. (2008). Prosecutorial Indiscretion. Retreived From Http:\/\/Www.Fee.Org\/Pdf\/The-freeman\/0801McElroy.pdf<\/p>\n
MyiLibrary, & Adubato, S. (2008). What were they thinking? Crisis communication–the good, Pressler, M., & Yaeger, D. (2007). It’s Not About The Truth: The Untold Story Of The Duke Lacrosse Case And The Lives It Shattered. Simon and Schuster. The Bad, And The Totally Clueless. New Brunswick, Nj: Rutgers University Press.<\/p>\n
Mosteller, R. (2007). The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, And False Identifications: A Fundamental Failure To \u201cDo Justice\u201d. Retreived from http:\/\/scholarship.law.duke.edu\/cgi\/viewcontent.cgi?article=2345&context=faculty_scholarship,<\/p>\n
Pollock, J. M. (2010). Ethical dilemmas and decisions in criminal justice. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.<\/p>\n
Turnage, A. (2009). Scene, Act, and the Tragic Frame in the Duke Rape Case. Southern Communication Journal, 74(2). pp 141<\/p>\n
Kosse, S. (2007). An Analysis of the Duke Lacrosse Case. Race, Riches & (and) Reporters – Do Race and Class Impact Media Rape Narratives. Retrieved from HYPERLINK “http:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals\/siulj31&div=17&id=&page”http:\/\/heinonline.org\/HOL\/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals\/siulj31&div=17&id=&page=<\/p>\n
Tigar, M. (2007). Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates: What Lawyers, What Edge? Retrieved from HYPERLINK “https:\/\/litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com\/webcd\/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&crawlid=1″https:\/\/litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com\/webcd\/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&crawlid=1 &doctype=cite&docid=36+Hofstra+L.+Rev.+521&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=0b601c57fa64f090cbe23c830b93eb95<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction This is a famous scandal of the rape accusations made against the three white students by a female counterpart,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n