Only in Durham

This was a sensational week for lacrosse case followers. Among other things, Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson's highly anticipated book was released Tuesday, lacrosse players demanded that Durham pay $30 million to cover its misdeeds and former Durham DA Mike Nifong even did his 24-hour stint in the pokey.

Now as someone who's been inside the Durham County Detention Center (don't worry, I was taking a tour), I can personally assure Chronicle readers that Nifong's time there wasn't pleasant. I realized I was in trouble somewhere between the Latin Kings graffiti and the announcement that ARAMARK, Corp. feeds each inmate 3,200 calories per day for 89 cents. Students who were here when ARAMARK still ran Duke's dining service will understand just how troubling that is.

So although a Paris Hilton-sized sentence would have been preferable, the Nicole Richie option was better than nothing. That's because Nifong's (all-too-short) incarceration put "rogue prosecutors" across the country on notice that the Disciplinary Hearing Committee isn't the worst that can befall a wayward attorney. Indeed, it would be fitting if others like Nifong-especially those who target less affluent defendants-begin to suffer his fate in large numbers.

As expected, Nifong's contempt trial featured a litany of "only-in-Durham" moments. My personal favorite was when Durham's self-described "chief asshole" suggested (under oath) that Crystal Mangum's young son may have contributed some of the unidentified male DNA found on swabs taken from her panties, vagina and rectum. Also extraordinary was the testimony of local judges Ron Stephens and Marcia Morey, who both supported the disgraced DA during the sentencing phase of his trial. Stephens, who initially presided over the case in Spring 2006, praised Nifong for (of all things!) "enforc[ing] the rules" and being "a good lawyer, a real good lawyer" whose "word was his bond."

Morey, by contrast, asserted that it was acceptable for prosecutors to willfully lie to the court during a pretrial hearing-a remarkable thing for a judge (who has presumably studied the law at some point in her career) to say. Morey was later seen marching with Nifong as he entered the Durham County Detention Center to serve his sentence, where she was joined by 20 supporters carrying signs that read "We believe in your integrity and goodness." Durham resident Gloria Parker stopped to tell reporters, "I know what he did. He did what he thought was right, and I support him 100 percent and I don't care in Durham who knows... I respect him to the fullest."

When I hear such things, I wonder how Durham officials expect us to have any confidence in this county's justice system at all. Over the past 18 months we've seen a succession of judges, assistant district attorneys, police officers, city council members and other high-ranking officials (like City Manager Patrick Baker and Chief of Police Steve Chalmers) lining up to support or cover for Nifong. Even newly appointed interim DA David Saacks-who is widely described as moderate and relatively untainted by the scandal-appeared on Nifong's behalf at the contempt trial.

For these highly educated, ostensibly well-respected people to defend Nifong after everything he's done-after all, the man was willing to send three young men to prison for 30 years to save his pension-is a disgrace, and one that reaffirms many Duke students' deeply held mistrust of this county's justice system. That's why I hope settlement talks for Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans will encourage the reforms that city officials have neglected. It was widely reported last week that the three are seeking $30 million from the city, and I hope they get every penny.

But the legal remedies they are pursuing are far more important. By demanding the creation of an ombudsman to review complaints about the conduct of district attorneys, calling for stricter police procedures to prevent tainted lineups and enlisting city officials to lobby the General Assembly for legislation requiring transcripts of grand jury proceedings, the three former players should be commended for thinking of future defendants' rights. With a $30-million price tag, their actions aren't quite selfless. They are, however, much appreciated.