Following last week’s trial of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong on ethics charges brought by the North Carolina State Bar, it would be absurd to envision the disgraced prosecutor seeking to become the Chief Justice of the NC Supreme Court. In announcing the disbarment ruling of the Disciplinary Hearing Committee, Chair F. Lane Williamson cited Mr. Nifong’s refusal to acknowledge the factual innocence of his wronged victims as evidence of the DA’s lapse in character, fueled by "self deception arising out of self interest." The description of Mr. Nifong offered by DHC Chair Williamson is diametrically opposed to what one would expect from a candidate for any state's most esteemed judicial position.
.
While in the case of newly disbarred D.A. Mike Nifong, the suggestion of election to Supreme Court Chief Justice is ludicrous, the State of Montana is faced with the prospect that a prosecutor, who has exhibited some of the same flawed characteristics denounced by Chair Williamson, may soon sit in judgment over the State’s most critical cases. Despite demonstrating a Nifongesque inability to maintain consistency in character while avoiding self deception and selfish motives, Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath recently announced his intention to become the Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court. McGrath recently offered an alarming sworn deposition in response to a lawsuit from an innocent man wrongfully convicted by the State of Montana. In it, A.G. McGrath attested to his continued belief in the guilt of the wrongly convicted man, who was finally exonerated when DNA evidence unequivocally demonstrated his factual innocence.
.
The Chicago Tribune addressed McGrath’s high court ambitions and Nifong-like tendencies in a recent article.
Exonerated by DNA, guilty in official's eyesHigh court hopeful's view troubles criticsIn the fall of 2002, DNA tests exonerated Jimmy Ray Bromgard in the 1987 rape of an 8-year-old girl in Billings, Mont. His case was dismissed and he was freed from prison.".Mr. Bromgard has spent 15 years in prison for a crime that the state is now convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he did not commit," Yellowstone County Atty. Dennis Paxinos declared. "The DNA from the room where the attack took place simply does not match his. He simply could not have committed this crime.".Nearly five years later, Montana Atty. Gen. Mike McGrath -- a recently announced candidate for chief justice of the state's Supreme Court -- has stated under oath that he still believes Bromgard is guilty..In most of the cases where prosecutors have refused to believe in an exoneration, they have cited evidence that more than one person was involved in the crime to argue that the DNA was left by a second, unidentified offender. It is rare for a prosecutor to dispute a DNA exoneration when there is no evidence -- as in Bromgard's case -- that more than one person committed the crime..McGrath, testifying in a deposition taken in a lawsuit brought by Bromgard, cited several possibilities, including that the victim was sexually active with someone else or that her 11-year-old sister was sexually active while wearing her younger sister's underwear..The veteran prosecutor also suggested that the DNA could have been from the child's father and that the girl's parents had sex on their daughter's bed and left DNA, or that the father assaulted the girl..A question of 'far-fetched'."In my experience as a prosecutor, none of those theories is far-fetched," said McGrath, who has spent 25 years in the criminal justice system in Montana. "All of those are possible.".Paxinos, informed of McGrath's views, said, "I had [Bromgard] cut loose because his DNA did not match the DNA in the case. He could not be the perpetrator unless you believed the 8-year-old was having sex with multiple men. That would be far-fetched.".The DNA from the case did not match any of the victim's family. It was run through the FBI's database of convicted felons without finding a match..Edward Blake, a top DNA scientist who performed the testing that freed Bromgard, said, "Any college-educated individual who has had a high school biology class should be able to look at my report and see ... that it is scientifically not possible for that sperm to be from the father of that girl.".That a prosecutor would believe a defendant guilty despite DNA evidence is not unusual. What makes McGrath's position unusual is his bid to become chief justice of the Montana Supreme Court, where he would sit in judgment over many criminal cases..Steven Lubet, professor of law at Northwestern University and an expert on judicial ethics, called McGrath's testimony "a hyperextreme form of advocacy that would be inconsistent with the obligations of a judge once someone was on the bench.".Peter Neufeld, a lawyer for Bromgard who questioned McGrath at the deposition, characterized McGrath's answers as "the most remote, absurd, speculative theories to explain evidence that otherwise ... exonerates Mr. Bromgard."….The victim's father, whose identity is being withheld to protect the identity of the victim, accused McGrath of making "reckless statements that will cause more harm to the victim and her family. ... Needless to say, we are deeply offended by his remarks. Deeply offended."Ronald Singer, director of the Tarrant County, Texas, medical examiner's crime lab and former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, said, "To even insinuate that an 8-year-old is sexually active is kind of extreme. ... I find it amazing.".Chuck Watson, a criminal defense lawyer from Bozeman, Mont., and head of the Montana state bar association's criminal section, said McGrath's testimony is "troubling because it suggests something as compelling as DNA should be disregarded in favor of mere possibilities."
DHC Chair Williamson offered some advice aimed at preventing future prosecutorial "fiascos" like those overseen by Mr. Nifong and championed by Mr. McGrath. The citizens of Montana might keep his words in mind when evaluating Mr. McGrath's candidacy, in light of his continued belief in an innocent man's guilt despite clear evidence to the contrary:
"You have to carefully consider the facts and the evidence before you make a conclusion about something and not just trust someone who tells you it is so because that is someone who's in a position 'to know.'"
Click here to read the deposition of Montana Attorney General, and Supreme Court Chief Justice hopeful, Mike McGrath: Deposition.
Click here to view McGrath’s election website: Mike McGrath for Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Click below to submit letters to Montana newspapers expressing your opinion on the candidacy of a Nifong clone for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:
No comments:
Post a Comment