Is it a fair sentence?

[Taem]

The following prosecutor withheld vital DNA evidence in this case for 6-months - evidence which could have exonerated said players from the stemming rape charges - because he wanted another win under his belt. He was willing to sentence innocent men to earn another "win." It says he 'could' face up to 30-days in jail and a $500 fine. Is this even remotely justice? These men were facing 20-years+ each for this rape charge; imagine if they hadn't been able to afford a good lawyer and were convicted? Imagine the other innocent people this prosecutor undoubtedly convicted to garner another "win?" Is 30-days in jail and a $500-dollar fine even remotely equivalent to justice? Now the city has to foot the bill for this moron as the athletes are suing the city, of course.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/news/20.../nifong_jailed/

Duke Prosecutor Jailed, Settlement Talks Underway
Posted on Friday, 7 of September , 2007 at 6:07 pm

DURHAM, NC—As attorneys for the three exonerated athletes in the Duke lacrosse rape case reportedly met with Durham city officials in an attempt to hammer out a settlement, the disgraced and now convicted prosecutor in the case reported to the Durham County Jail Friday to serve a 24-hour sentence for contempt of court.

Former Durham district attorney Mike Nifong reported to jail at 9 a.m. Friday and was expected to be held in solitary confinement for his own protection.

It has been reported that the attorneys for the three athletes are seeking $30 million–$10 million for each to be paid over five years—as well as legal reforms.

The Associated Press is reporting that the attorneys are want an ombudsman to be created to review complaints of misconduct concerning North Carolina prosecutors. They are want Durham city officials to lobby for certain legal changes that would require state legislative action.

Last month, Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III found that Nifong had willfully made false statements to the court last September in the rape case when he said he had given defense attorneys all the results from DNA testing. The DNA evidence withheld by Nifong from defense attorneys would have immediately exonerated the three Duke athletes.

Nifong, who has been disbarred and forced to resign from office, could have been sentenced to serve up to 30 days in jail and fined $500.

The judge found that Nifong had given the defense a report on the DNA testing that he knew was incomplete and omitted results which indicated that despite the DNA of multiple men being on the stripper at a team party who claimed she had been raped by the trio, none of the DNA matched any of the lacrosse players.

In July, for the first time Nifong had admitted that there was “no credible evidence” that the three Duke lacrosse players had committed any of the crimes he had accused them of in relation to the alleged rape of an African-American stripper at a team party in March 2006.

Attorneys for three athletes, Colin Finnerty, David Evans and Reade Seligmann sought to have Nifong found in contempt for lying about the DNA evidence.

Despite an iron-clad alibi from at least one of the players and a DNA test which showed no genetic material from any of the three men could be linked to the stripper, Nifong had refused to drop the charges. The DNA testing showed material on the stripper from several other men not charged. Nifong waited months to tell the defense about this—while all the while insisting publicly they were guilty.

The North Carolina Bar found the veteran prosecutor had made misleading and inflammatory comments about the athletes under suspicion, withholding potentially exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense, and lying both to the court and bar investigators. Nifong was forced to drop the rape charges last December when the woman changed her story but he unwisely forged ahead with charges of sexual assault and kidnapping.

It was only after the Bar accused Nifong of violating the rules of professional conduct that he finally turned the case over to state prosecutors who dropped all charges in April, who said that the three players were “innocent” victims of a rogue prosecutor’s “tragic rush to accuse.

Following a trial in June, the bar association unanimously found that Nifong had engaged in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation”. He was disbarred for his prosecutorial misconduct emanating from the malicious prosecution. 9-7-07