So the Duke lacrosse case is over, with the state AG having cleared the lacrosse players of all charges. I thought this was especially interesting:
"In the criminal case, the process played out with the appropriate result," [Durham D.A. Michael] Nifong's attorney, David Freedman, said Wednesday. "I'd ask people to let the state bar process play out as well."
Ordinarily, I'd agree, though there are some important differences. Nifong's not facing criminal charges (yet), and while the possible loss of his law license is pretty significant, it's not the same as prison. Therefore, there might not be the same degree of benefit of doubt given to him as there should be for criminal defendants.
This, however, is not an ordinary case. If Freedman is conceding that the appropriate result was dismissal of all charges, a statement that the players were completely innocent, and that no assault occurred, then one wonders why it is that Nifong didn't reach that result himself. And the answer is Nifong perverted and corrupted the process. It's therefore a bit ironic for his lawyer to be pleading for the very thing that Nifong denied his victims.
