Capture and Corruption: Nifong’s Cronies and Cabal
by
William L. Anderson
by William L. Anderson
DIGG THIS
The scene in
a Durham County courtroom Friday was unusual, to say the least.
There was the former Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong
(from here known as DAMN) in the dock, being found guilty of criminal
contempt and told to spend a day in jail. There were judges who
regularly sentence people to long prison sentences begging the judge
to be lenient to the man who, according to the prosecuting attorney
in the case, had taken "a jackhammer" to the roots of
justice.
Sitting in
the audience, an assistant prosecutor wept as her former boss was
given the "sentence" of spending a day in the county jail,
while others went on about the need for "justice." Yet,
one cannot understand what really happened unless one widens the
screen and looks at the larger picture. While some see this as an
"historic" moment, I think that the proper perspective
here is that it is a "Rothbardian" moment, and something
that Murray Rothbard, had he been living today, would have intimately
understood.
Before explaining
my point, however, I believe we need to place this in a larger perspective.
While judges and prosecutors begged for mercy to be given to DAMN,
an event in a Goldsboro,
North Carolina, courtroom earlier that week enlightened us to
the real state of "justice" in this country, as a man
was freed from prison after having served nearly 20 years for
a crime he never committed.
North Carolina
prosecutors offered Dwayne Allen Dail a choice almost 20 years ago:
plead guilty and get a few months of probation, or go to trial for
raping a 12-year-old girl and face life if he were convicted. Dail
apparently believed in the system of justice more than did the prosecutors,
as he was willing to go to trial because he knew he was innocent
of the charges. Even prosecutors admitted that the facts of the
case troubled them, but nonetheless there had been a rape and the
victim said Dail did it. A jury believed her, and off he went to
prison for what was to be the rest of his life.
Lucky for Dail,
police and prosecutors had not destroyed all of the material
of the case (generally, that is police and prosecutorial policy,
which is a great way to cover up wrong doing – and do it legally).
A DNA test ultimately turned up someone else, and Dail was freed.
While he was in prison, this is what he faced:
In prison,
Dail said, he suffered the abuse often unleashed on sex offenders.
Inmates blackened his eyes, smashed his nose and knocked his teeth
through his lip. He spent most days furious at the hand he'd been
dealt.
Such were the
things that happened to Robert and Betsy Kelly and Dawn Wilson,
who also were wrongly convicted in the infamous Little Rascals case.
North Carolina prosecutors have proven themselves adept at pursuing
the wrong people and convincing juries that lies are the truth.
I have no doubt that had DAMN been able to take his faux rape case
to a jury in Durham, there would have been a conviction, and David
Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann would have been dead
meat in prison, the target of black gangs seeking revenge against
the men who "raped a sister."
So, while the
innocent are pursued to prison in the North Carolina system, those
who engage in these acts were anxious to defend a man who clearly
was hellbent on making a mockery of justice. Special Prosecutor
Charles Davis told Judge W. Osmond Smith III, who held the hearing,
that he "lay awake at night" wondering what might have
happened had Nifong been able to convince a jury to convict, and
given what has transpired in North Carolina on a seemingly systematic
basis, his fears were justified.
So, where does
Rothbard fit into this affair? It was Rothbard who expanded the
"capture theory" of government to include government employees
or those who work for the state. In standard "capture theory,"
government regulators become "captured" by the private
monopolies that they are supposed to regulate. For example, the
original purpose of the Interstate Commerce Commission was to regulate
railroad rates, and it was soon after its 1887 creation that the
commission itself became dominated by people with railroad connections.
Rothbard went
a step further, however. Monopolies themselves (and Rothbard held
– accurately so, I believe – that all private monopolies exist because
of government privileges) become "captured" by their
employees. To take point to its next level, we see that government
courts have a monopoly on "dispensing justice" (if we
can call it that), so if Rothbard is correct, one would expect to
see the employees of the justice system itself capturing not only
the apparatus of "justice," but also protecting each other
when someone is engaged in wrongdoing.
As a close
observer of the Duke case for well longer than a year, it became
obvious that Nifong was permitted to set the terms for everything
associated with it. Although he insisted that every word of Crystal
Mangum’s claims were true (despite her many accounts being mutually
exclusive), as soon as the DNA evidence – which Nifong himself claimed
would identify the "guilty" and "clear the innocent"
– came back empty, then he simply changed the terms of the argument
and, in his own contempt hearing, still insisted there was a rape,
but it was a "non-ejaculatory event."
(That still
did not explain why there was no DNA transfer, but Nifong had decided
that his own interpretation of the science of DNA was such that
he could make it whatever suited the pursuit of his case. Apparently,
the court system of North Carolina was perfectly happy to see a
prosecutor attempt to impose Harry Potter rules of science and treat
such viewpoints as legitimate.)
In the end,
it was painfully obvious that Nifong had lied to Judge Smith at
that fateful September 22, 2006, hearing and Judge Smith subsequently
found him guilty. Yet, how did those who were employed with Nifong
in the system react when it was determined that he had "taken
a jackhammer" to truth and justice? K.C.
Johnson explains:
In this case,
of course, this behavior manifested itself as part of an effort
to send three demonstrably innocent people to jail for 30 years
– for a crime that never occurred. The Durham prosecutorial establishment,
however, appeared not to care.
Judge Ron
Stephens has a reputation as a tough-on-criminals judge. It appears,
however, that he holds his friends to a different standard. This
sitting judge – the same man who signed the fraudulent NTO that
launched this case into the media stratosphere – appeared as a
character witness for the convicted Nifong. He suggested that
professional jealousy explained the dislike for Nifong: lots of
defense lawyers, Stephens asserted, didn’t want to go up against
Nifong because he would win close cases. Nifong, he added, was
the "appropriate choice" to be DA as of spring 2005.
Stephens
also hailed Nifong as a mentor to the next generation of Durham
ADA’s. Perhaps he had in mind Judge Marcia Morey, who testified
on Nifong’s behalf and then returned to the courtroom to offer
solace to Nifong’s family as the verdict was rendered. In her
willingness to defend Nifong, Morey disgraced her own office.
Neff and Blythe summarized:
An unusual
moment came before Nifong's testimony, when a judge testified
that she expected lawyers to be more honest during trial than
during pretrial hearings.
A prosecutor
asked the judge, Marcia Morey, whether a lawyer would be following
his duty to be candid if he assured a judge that a report was
complete when the lawyer knew it to be incomplete.
It depended
on whether the case had reached trial, Morey said.
"I do think
it makes a difference," Morey said. "Are you are at a trial stage,
are you at a pretrial conference."
Sitting alongside
Morey was current ADA Jan Paul. Paul vigorously nodded as Nifong
attorney Jim Glover insisted in his closing argument that not
only did Nifong not lie, but he couldn’t really see any errors
his client had made. Paul then visibly wept as the guilty verdict
was rendered. Remember, this is someone whose job it is to uphold
justice for the people.
The appearances
of Paul, Morey, and Stephens brought to mind the equally troubling
testimony of Innocence Commission executive director Kendra Montgomery-Blinn,
another former Durham ADA and someone who saw no problem with
Mike Nifong’s conduct.
Johnson adds:
How confident
could any defendant be appearing before Judge Stephens? Or Judge
Morey? Or going up against ADA Paul? The trio’s endorsement of
Nifong suggested a conception of justice so warped as to defy
description.
One can call
it corruption or cronyism, or whatever one wishes, but Rothbard’s
"capture theory" seems to provide the best explanation.
For all of the talk of justice, the purpose of such a system after
a while seems to become little more than a mechanism for keeping
people employed with nice paychecks. After all, as I have explained
in previous articles, Nifong originally decided to seek the elected
position of district attorney (he originally had been appointed
by the governor after promising that he would not seek to be elected)
in order to receive a raise and to be able to earn a pension of
$15,000 a year more than what would be the case if he were not elected.
But even "capture
theory" does not explain fully why Nifong sought to pursue
a case in which he had no evidence. The other factor was that he
was able to tap into the politics of race and radical, left-wing
feminism, and Durham is a hotbed of both. When people do not care
about truth and have only a politicized view of the world, we should
not be surprised when massive injustices arise. Throwing Nifong
into prison for a thousand years would not change the fact that
leftist political radicalism and injustice against individuals go
hand-in-hand. (What else should we expect from collectivism?)
When Judge
Smith announced Nifong would spend a day in jail, the reaction was
understandably varied. Those people who had followed the case and
had been outraged at what Nifong did were outraged that the sentence
seemed to be lenient. Others, including attorneys who had represented
Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans, thought it was
just, in large part because they have seen prosecutorial and judicial
misconduct unpunished for years and held it to be extraordinary
that Nifong had faced any punishment at all.
Yet, as one
attorney pointed out, Nifong has lost everything, his job, his license,
much of his money, his reputation, and about everything else he
held to be important. He has not gone unpunished, and sometimes
we forget that prison is not the only form of punishment that one
receives.
Furthermore,
I would not be surprised if criminal charges are filed against Nifong
and others who took part in this legal scam. Lawsuits surely are
going to follow, and many people who were swaggering a year ago
soon will see the law work against them. While Nifong might seem
to have escaped justice, I contend that Rae Evans, the mother of
former defendant David, was correct when she told Leslie Stahl of
"60 Minutes," "Mr. Nifong, you will pay every day
for the rest of your life." For now, the life of DAMN no longer
is worth a damn.
September
3, 2007
William
L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him
mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland,
and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute. He also is a consultant
with American Economic Services.
Copyright
© 2007 LewRockwell.com
William
Anderson Archives
|