Another Congressman Demands Federal Probe of Nifong

Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. House Representative Peter King, R-NY, has joined a growing chorus of voices demanding a federal investigation of the Duke lacrosse rape scandal and its central figure, D.A. Mike Nifong. On Tuesday of this week, Justice Department officials stated that they had rejected a similar request from Representative Walter Jones, R-NC.

That rejection prompted a stinging rebuke from King, who wrote to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, stating, 'I am deeply disappointed by your apparent decision to defer a decision whether to investigate Mr. Nifong's prosecution of this case.' King maintains that it is essential that the FBI investigate whether the prosecutor violated the civil rights of the defendants, including due process of law.

However, a spokesman for the Justice Department, stating that it is too early to launch such an investigation, indicated that it would be premature for federal intervention during an ongoing criminal trial in the state of North Carolina.

That is a big mistake.

The ongoing trial in North Carolina is a joke. Even with the removal of Nifong, questions swirl over the choice of the N.C. Attorney General as to who would prosecute the case. In a case that is already riddled with conflicts of interest, inflammatory rhetoric, prosecutorial misconduct, and inappropriate comments in the media from the D.A.'s office and Duke University officials and faculty, the North Carolina Attorney General appointed a prosecutor, who once worked with Mike Nifong, to handle the state's case. That prosecutor is none other than Mary Winstead, who worked as an Assistant District Attorney in Durham with Nifong in the late 80s and early 90s.

This is a highly questionable choice since there is a definite history between Nifong and Winstead. Even if Winstead were an arch enemy of Nifong, such a choice blows to smithereens any objectivity that this case demands. Worse still, if Winstead considers Nifong a longtime friend and colleague, there is certainly no doubt that she will be highly reluctant to handle the case in such a manner as to cast aspersions upon Nifong's work.

Thus, this begs the question, why would the North Carolina Attorney General choose a person to take over the case that has such a long-standing history with Mike Nifong and with the Durham community as a whole? Would not justice be better served by appointing a prosecutor to the case that has no such history? Objectivity is better served by having the case scrutinized by those who have absolutely no vested interest in the outcome and no personal agenda to save Nifong's reputation.

This would seem to be a no-brainer. But remember, we are dealing with the North Carolina judicial system.

The very fact that the N.C. Attorney General would appoint someone like Winstead to the case is ample reason for a federal investigation to be launched right in the middle of this process. In fact, it has become crystal clear that the ONLY way justice will be served is for the U.S. Attorney General to intervene. If the N.C. judicial system, including its Attorney General, cannot be trusted to provide an impartial investigation of this travesty of justice, then perhaps the U.S. Attorney General's office can.