A judicial discipline council has voted to publicly reprimand U.S. District Judge Manuel Real for taking actions based on ex parte communications with a litigant — and for giving inaccurate and misleading testimony about the incident. Real is appealing the decision.
If the reports are accurate, and the findings are upheld, it’s hard to reach any conclusion other than that Judge Real should be impeached — at the very least, for giving deliberately misleading testimony. How can we allow a judge to continue in office if he has deliberately lied under oath?
I haven’t followed the Duke rape case closely.
But I do want to take this opportunity to say: thank you, Mr. Nifong. Thanks for giving prosecutors a bad name.
Thank you for making people believe it’s standard procedure not to talk to a rape victim before filing charges. My wife has been filing rape cases for years, and she always interviews the victim first. This is standard procedure in our office — and it means a lot of cases don’t get filed, because they can’t be proved.
But thanks to you, Mr. Nifong, the public thinks prosecutors file these cases blindly. Thank you.
And thank you especially for spreading the image of prosecutors as people who withhold exculpatory evidence. We all know what it’s like to learn that bad fact — the one that takes a great case and turns it into a struggle. But we also know what we do when that happens: we make a beeline for the phone, to call the defense attorney. Because that’s what the Constitution requires. And it’s just what you do.
But thanks to you, Mr. Nifong, people think that prosecutors learn about DNA evidence that points to innocence, and then collude with the lab to hide the results from the defense.
What the thank were you thinking, you dumb thank?
Thank you. From the bottom of my heart. Thank you so very much.