NIFONG'S VERSION OF THE "ORPHAN" DEFENSE
Man kills his mother and father, then asks the court for Mercy because he's an orphan.
Nifong has filed papers that create the civil version of that cheeky defense.
Loosely translated, his first position is that the complaint must be dismissed because he can't possibly have deprived the defendants of due process in that the process isn't over yet and it might be cured by the good efforts of others. To say the same thing another way, even accepting that he has done everything of which he is accused, he didn't screw up the trial of the defendants because the trial hasn't taken place yet.
I have tried to make evident that I have no dog in this fight. I don't know Mike Nifong from page nine. I have no affiliation with Duke University and haven't been in North Carolina in about 20 years. Out of interest, I have tried to explain the pleadings to folks who are interested in the case. I have read the advocacy blogs about this. I read how "arrogant" and "overreaching" Nifong is. That is for others to decide. I have a little expertise in legal ethics and I know how to read pleadings. So now I'm going to express a legal opinion, not a personal one. Interposing this lame, "No harm, no foul" defense is a poorly thought out gambit. It is evidence of the Nifong being heedless about his standalone legal responsibilities. It shows a cavalier view of the solemnity of every stage of the process of a criminal trial. It is an attempt to sidestep the issue of honesty and proper conduct by starting at the back end and looking at the outcome. Rather the "ends justifying the means" it is the "absence of an an end justifying the mean and banal behavior."
And there is much, much more in "The 'fong's" newest pleading. It's a tedious read and I have a day job. I'll get back to you.