Case Summary
The Duke lacrosse case involved allegations of sexual assault against members of the Duke University lacrosse team by an exotic dancer who was hired to perform at a team party. The prosecutor in the case, Mike Nifong, was accused of making several ethical and procedural errors that ultimately led to the case’s dismissal and his disbarment.
The Prosecutor’s Ethical and Procedural Mistakes
The ethical and procedural errors made by the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case include withholding evidence, making false statements, improper identification procedures, and failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. First, Nifong was accused of withholding DNA evidence that could have exonerated the defendants.
Second, Nifong made several false statements to the media and the court about the evidence and the case (Wilson & Barstow, 2007). Following that, the police conducted a flawed photo identification process that may have influenced the alleged victim’s identification of the suspects. Finally, Nifong failed to disclose evidence that could have helped the defense, including a report stating that the accuser had falsely accused someone of rape. These errors ultimately led to the dismissal of the case and Nifong’s disbarment for unethical conduct.
Moral Agent, Legal Agent, and Special Relationship Views of the Attorney-Client Relationship
There are three main views on the attorney-client relationship: the moral agent view, the legal agent view, and the special relationship view. The moral agent view holds that lawyers have a moral obligation to act in their client’s best interests and to uphold ethical standards (Miller, 2018). The legal agent view holds that lawyers are hired to provide legal services and to represent their clients’ interests within the bounds of the law. The special relationship view holds that the attorney-client relationship is unique and confidential and involves a high degree of trust and loyalty.
Application of the Attorney-Client Relationship Terms to the Duke Lacrosse Case
In the Duke lacrosse case, the defense attorneys acted as legal agents for their clients, working to defend them against the charges brought by the prosecutor. However, the special relationship view may have come into play, as the defense attorneys were tasked with protecting their clients’ reputations and ensuring that they received a fair trial. Additionally, the prosecutor, as a legal agent of the state, had a special responsibility to ensure that justice was served and that the accused were not unfairly punished. However, his unethical behavior undermined this responsibility and ultimately led to the case’s dismissal.
References
Wilson, D. & Barstow, D. (2007). All Charges Dropped in Duke Case. The New York Times. Web.
Miller, A. S. (2018). Assessing the status of the attorney-client privilege in the age of Twitter. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 35(12).