Here is Balko, today:
[Judge] Hudson then adds, “Based on a review of the State’s Answer and exhibits, the state has presented no evidence that either Det. Dowdy or ADA Nifong were unaware of the informant memo; rather, the State concedes that both were aware of its existence.” He concludes that Nifong’s and Dowdy’s violation of Howard’s “Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights” was prejudicial.
This is a rather thorough rebuke. And as noted previously here at The Watch, it comes at a time when author William Cohan has just written a book and is in the midst of a media tour that are both transparent attempts to rehabilitate Nifong’s reputation from the damage inflicted during the Duke lacrosse case. But prosecutorial misconduct is rarely a one-off phenomenon. As I documented in my initial story on Howard, there’s evidence that the Durham DA’s office has had a serious and longstanding culture of misconduct. But an eagerness to “move on” from the Duke case has prevented any thorough assessment of that culture, or any effort to look into how many innocent people may have been victimized by it and help those people get their convictions overturned. Cohan’s book — and the praise heaped upon it by media outlets like NPR, the New York Times, the Economist and the Wall Street Journal — will make this all the more difficult. [end of quotation from Balko]
SHAME, SHAME ON THE REVIEWERS WHO PUFFED COHAN'S DESPICABLE BOOK.