Blogger "Jarm" blogged the following: "First, you state with absolute certainty that justice in North Carolina is race-based, but have difficulty understanding why the DNA evidence in the LAX case was probative of anything."
Yes, I believe that justice in North Carolina is not only race-based, but class-based, as well. The phrase I prefer to use is that "North Carolina practices selective justice based on Class and Color." This is evidenced by the fact that Mike Nifong was selectively singled out by the attorney general and the NC State Bar for the harshest disciplinary action possible, disbarment. No other prosecutor has been disbarred by the NC State Bar since its inception. Mr. Nifong's LAX defendants were selectively proclaimed "innocent" by Attorney General Cooper (he has never done this for other defendants). Furthermore, Mr. Nifong was selectively prosecuted by the state, including being sentenced to serve time in jail (no other prosecutor was sentenced to jail for "prosecutorial misconduct" or any other offense). Attorney General Roy Cooper was selective in asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate a prosecutor for depriving defendants of their civil rights (he never asked the federal justice department to investigate any other prosecutor).
I believe in DNA evidence, as it has cleared many innocent defendants (the majority of which are disenfranchised, poor, and of color) from crimes for which they were wrongly convicted (many instances due to the prosecutor withholding exculpatory evidence). In the Duke Lacrosse Case, the DNA, again, had exculpatory value for the three defendants forensically. This exculpatory evidence was shared with the defense attorneys in a timely manner by Mr. Nifong's team.
However, the fact that unidentified DNA from other male sources was found in the rape kit exam of the accuser/victim has no benefit or value to the defense in clearing their clients. It is totally extraneous and irrelavent information with no probative value. The foundation for the case for disbarring Mr. Nifong is based on the accusation that he withheld this trivial bit of information. On the other hand, prosecutors who withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense in order to win a conviction (such as what occurred in the Alan Gell and Charles Munsey cases, to name but two), received no significant disciplinary action. Why the disparity by the State Bar and the Attorney General? Plain and simply because the three defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case came from families of wealth, status, and privilege, whereas defendants such as Mr. Gell are from disenfranchised families, and Mr. Munsey was an African American, and poor, also.
I would be willing to hear from Blogger Jarm, or anyone else, about why there is any value of the extraneous DNA findings for the defense.