Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
To the editor: In her commentary “They Must Answer for What They’ve Done” (Aug. 6, Page 42), Angela J. Davis argues that it was an abuse of discretion for a Georgia prosecutor to charge 17-year-old Genarlow Wilson with aggravated child molestation for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl. I agree with her, even though the conduct was proscribed by Georgia law and there was no factual dispute that it occurred. In the case of the Duke lacrosse players, however, the prosecutor’s decision to bring charges in the face of woefully insufficient evidence was indefensible under any standard. Yet remarkably, Davis writes, “[Mike] Nifong’s initial decision to charge three Duke University students with rape was not unreasonable.” What is the support for this statement? Davis makes two arguments. First, she writes that prosecutors frequently charge rape based on the complainant’s word alone. Really? I wonder how many cases she can cite where the complaining witness is contradicted by all other available evidence. Are those cases frequently charged? Second, she writes that Nifong was “undoubtedly mindful” that the justice system has mistreated rape victims, particularly African-American women. He would have been “justifiably criticized” if he failed to “pursue the prosecution of wealthy white men accused of raping a poor black woman.” This is a truly breathtaking statement, because it means that race and economic status justify criminal charges even if the evidence is lacking in order to rectify racial injustices of the past. Would the charges have been “not unreasonable” if the defendants were poor white men? Poor black men? What if wealthy black men were accused of raping a poor black woman? God forbid if the parties were just middle class. We would never be able to figure this stuff out. Nifong’s real reason for filing these charges was that he was running for re-election, as Davis puts it, in “a jurisdiction with a sizable African-American community.” In short, he was willing to sacrifice three innocent men to appeal to racial prejudice to win re-election. It is true, as Davis points out, that because the parents of the three falsely accused students had the wherewithal to hire lawyers who thoroughly investigated the case, the prosecution fell apart. Since indigent defendants lack those resources, it is valid to argue that they do not receive the same justice. This is a function of wealth, not race � see O.J. Simpson. Nevertheless, even here Davis plays the race card. Nifong got caught, she says, because his victims were “wealthy and white”; Wilson remains incarcerated The truth is much more nuanced. The Duke defendants were wealthy and not guilty. Wilson is poor but guilty. The Georgia prosecutor’s judgment was execrable, and perhaps he had a racial motive, although Davis offers no such evidence. I have no doubt that Nifong had a racial motive. I also have no doubt that no unbiased person could say that charging the Duke students was “not unreasonable.” Hamilton P. Fox III Sutherland Asbill & Brennan Washington, D.C.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.