Judge W. Osmond Smith III went to lengths to explain the basis of his sentencing disgraced and disbarred Mike Nifong for criminal contempt of court.
The proceedings, he explained, focused not on the merits of the "rape" case (make than non-case) against Duke lacrosse players. It was on the single issue of whether the prosecutor had lied to the court.
In this case, he had lied not only to the court, but to this very same judge.
On the basis of the court records alone, he was guilty.
The penalty could have been as much as 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.
But in preface to passing sentence, Judge Smith noted that no sentence could undue the damage wrought to the court system and to the falsely accused players.
That, apparently, was his justification for the one day in jail to which he sentenced Nifong. No fine was imposed.
It could be argued that Nifong already had paid heavily for his handling of the case. He lost his job and law license and has been disgraced. And civil suits are likely.
But in the words of Judge Smith, Nifong's lying to the court had to be considered separately.
Was one day in jail an appropriate sentence - with the explanation that no sentence could undue the harm already done?
Using that philosophy as a guide, could a tap on the wrist be considered by the jduge to be sufficient punishment for a burglar, a rapist or murderer or bank robber?
The State Bar sent a very clear message when it disbarred Nifong.
Judge Smith also sent a message. His stern and eloquent lecture aside, the bottom line of his one-day sentence was that for a prosecuting attorney to deliberately lie to the court isn't a very serious matter.
Comments