Nifong Is Out

July 2, 2007 — -- It's official: Mike Nifong is no longer the Durham County district attorney.

The embattled former prosecutor submitted a resignation letter this morning, effective today.

Nifong was disbarred last month for unethical conduct in his handling of the Duke lacrosse case. In a tearful breakdown during his ethics trial before the North Carolina Bar, Nifong announced he would resign as district attorney by mid-July.

That timing was not soon enough for some. Days after Nifong's announcement, he was stripped of his badge and kicked out of his office in the Durham County Judicial Building. He has since been replaced by his predecessor Jim Hardin, who will serve as interim district attorney until North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley appoints a successor.

Nifong faces another hearing on July 26 to defend himself against charges of criminal contempt of court. Judge Osmond Smith III will consider whether Nifong broke any laws during his handling of the Duke lacrosse case. In June, the North Carolina Bar found him guilty of ethical violations that included lying to the court about withholding potentially exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense.

Nifong's dismissal was "a sigh of relief," said former North Carolina Attorney General Rufus Edmisten, echoing the views of many of the state's lawyers as the tortuous legal saga has dragged on. "People need to get back to normal now."

If Nifong is found guilty of criminal contempt, he could face fines or jail time.

"It's not hard to prove. The burden is on him to prove [that he wasn't lying]. That's a pretty hard bar to overcome," Edmisten said.

Nifong, a career prosecutor for nearly 30 years, was not present in court today. His resignation letter was submitted by an attorney.

Nifong led the prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players for alleged rape and sexual assault. The case began in March 2006 when a woman hired to strip at a team party accused three players of attacking her in a bathroom. In the months that followed, the case fell apart, riddled by a lack of evidence and an accuser who changed her story repeatedly.