Nifong's mishandling of the case began on March 27, 2006, when he took control of the prosecution, and placed himself firmly in the public eye, agreeing to over 50 interviews. Nifong played into the hands of the media and acknowledged the racial implications of the case that were making headlines on CNN. The North Carolina State Bar Association later cited Nifong's public statements throughout the case as a major ethics violation that contributed to his disbarment.
The Duke story continued to dominate headlines as DNA tests were administered. In April, a DNA report from the state crime lab failed to connect any of the players with the DNA found on the alleged rape victim. As a result, Nifong sought a private DNA lab to do additional testing.
It was later revealed that Nifong conspired with the director of this DNA lab to withhold information from the final report, saying that the DNA from one male was found on the victim, when in fact the DNA of several men was found. This information became public during Nifong's disbarment trial where he was found guilty of withholding exculpatory evidence.
Nifong has since found himself thrust into the media's eye in the same way the Duke players were just over a year ago and perhaps deservedly so.
It is widely believed that Nifong continued on with the prosecution, despite the evidence that led to an acquittal, largely in a bid to gain reelection to his District Attorney post in the community of Durham, which is 43 percent African-American.
The biggest storyline from the case, propagated by Nifong himself, was the disparity between the alleged attackers -- white upper-class athletes at a prestigious university -- and the victim -- a young black single mother -- and its relation to the social division of the community of Durham.
Durham is a primarily blue-collar city, with a median annual household income that is more than five thousand dollars less than the yearly cost of attending Duke University. Nifong's support of the alleged victim in the case highlighted the socioeconomic and racial tensions between the university and the surrounding city of a half-million people.
Nifong was eventually reelected, winning a plurality with 49 percent of the vote with the closest opponent coming in at 40 percent.
There are certainly precedents for elected officials acting irrationally or criminally in bids to win reelection. The most obvious is Richard Nixon, who, like Nifong, won reelection before resigning from office in disgrace. Nixon was of course saved from any criminal charges by a pardon, but Nifong may not be granted the same outcome.
The players involved in the case are pushing for charges of criminal contempt of court for Nifong's false statements during the rape trial. Additionally he could face civil penalties if the players bring suit against him.
The racial tensions in the case are also reminiscent of the O.J. Simpson trial of the early 1990s. In that case the alleged racism of the police investigating the case is believed by some to have played a major role in Simpson's acquittal. The Los Angeles Police Department was also prepared to face riots similar to those after the Rodney King trial in 1992 if Simpson had been found guilty. But in 2007, there were no riots in Durham after the Duke rape case was dismissed or after Nifong was disbarred.
The media created the Duke Lacrosse rape scandal, and Nifong ran with it. But it is important not to forget about Duke University's actions. Duke bought into the case hook, line and sinker. Duke cancelled the lacrosse team's 2006 season and kicked the accused out of school before the trial even began.
In light of these major cases in the past two decades, it seems that "innocent until proven guilty" is replaced by immediate stereotypes. Perhaps Nifong's punishment will set a precedent for future cases to be heard before verdicts are determined.
