Attorney General Roy Cooper, in his re-election television ad, cites "The Duke Lacrosse Decision" prominently, then talks about how the law enforcement lab uses its findings to prove innocence as well as guilt. Instead of promoting the Duke Lacrosse Case, a more accurate ad would have featured the "Erick Daniels Decision," "Floyd Brown Decision," "Charles Munsey Decision," "Alan Gell Decision," "James Arthur Johnson Decision," or other decisions under Attorney General Cooper's watch where the innocent North Carolinians (who were disenfranchised, poor, and mostly of color) were convicted due to severe acts of prosecutorial misconduct. Unlike the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse Decision who did not spend one day in jail, these innocent citizens spent years in custody (some on death row) for crimes they did not commit. Unlike the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse Decision who were proclaimed "innocent" by the attorney general, these victims (who truly suffered) have received no such proclamation.
Unlike the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse Decision who was disbarred, fired, forced to serve time in jail, and an unsuccessful attempt was made by Roy Cooper to have the federal government investigate the prosecutor for violating the civil rights of the lacrosse defendants, the prosecutors of the other cases received no disciplinary action or a slap on the wrist at best.
When it comes to social justice and the concept "equal justice for all," Attorney General Cooper does not have an admirable record. If I were his campaign manager I would try to suppress it by not even bringing up the "Duke Lacrosse Decision." But then again, maybe he feels that a tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color" is what the North Carolinian voting public wants.