Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Mike Nifong Disbarred

Aired June 16, 2007 - 16:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

SUSAN ROESGEN, CNN ANCHOR: Next in the CNN NEWSROOM, a small but vocal group protests the immigration bill.
A military raid in Iraq turns up a surprise, the ID cards of two U.S. soldiers missing for more than a month. We'll be talking to on of the soldier's stepfathers about the latest developments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Engage in conduct involving dishonestly, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of rule 8.4c of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROESGEN: And our top story, the Duke lacrosse rape case. It could be the undoing of the prosecutor who apparently left his ethics at the door. I'm Susan Roesgen filling in tonight for Rick Sanchez. And you're in the NEWSROOM.

If Mike Nifong was holding out hope that he would get off easy, that hope was pretty much crushed today. The Durham County, North Carolina, D.A. listened glumly as a disciplinary panel listed all the ethics rules that they say he broke in his zeal to prosecute the Duke lacrosse case.

The panel is right now deliberating his punishment and CNN's Susan Candiotti has been following the proceedings all day. She joins us live from Raleigh, North Carolina -- Susan.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Susan. We're looking at a shot now of what is happening inside the courtroom. We are now waiting for the ethics panel to return with its final decision on how to penalize Durham D.A. Mike Nifong.

However, just about a half hour ago, this major development, apparently accepting what is happening to him and his career and given the ethics panel findings that he was guilty on a majority of ethics violations for his handling of the Duke lacrosse ill-fated rape case, Mr. Nifong now agrees that he should be disbarred.

Obviously the state is calling for him to lose his law license. And so Mr. Nifong now says, all right, I accept that. Many people, again, have said they saw this coming a mile away. Here is what Mr. Nifong's lawyer had to say about it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I've talked with Mr. Nifong and he has told me in light of the findings of fact this commission has made, he has told me that he believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts, that he believes that disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: Now earlier this day, after hearing closing arguments, there was a decision by the ethics panel as we indicated that in fact Mr. Nifong was guilty of a majority of the 19 ethics violations charges against him, again, for how he handled the investigation into an alleged rape involving Duke lacrosse players.

And part of that included his failure to turn over what was critical DNA information to defense lawyers in this case. Here is what the panel said about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID EVANS, FATHER OF EXONERATED PLAYER: When he dies, that it will be reported, no matter what else he did during his life, that he was one of the three Duke lacrosse players who was accused of rape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CANDIOTTI: Of course, that was the father of David Evans, not the ethics panel chairman. But the father of one of the lacrosse players who was testifying during the penalty phase that given what has happened in this entire matter, that it is something that will haunt his son and haunt their family and the other players' families for the rest of their lives.

Again, the panel has found Mr. Nifong guilty of -- they put it, of deceit, dishonesty, fraud and misrepresentation. And, again what we are waiting for now is what appears to be a formal pronouncement that he will lose his license.

Back to you, Susan.

ROESGEN: All right. Thank you, Susan. And as we wait for that panel to come back, we're going to bring in our Cleveland law professor, Avery Friedman, to talk a little bit more about the case.

Avery, we just heard the father there say, you know, this is going to be my son's legacy, that he was one of the three Duke lacrosse players. And, you know, that's a pretty profound statement there. You can kind of say, yes, that seems like what he will be remembered as. What sort of sway does that have on the panel when they hear the parent say something like that?

AVERY FRIEDMAN, LAW PROFESSOR: Well, I think what David Evans, the father, said about his son is absolutely right. And the penalty phase is intended to hear that kind of information, that kind of evidence. In the deliberation, though, the panel has been very clear. We're dealing with issues of findings of deceit, misrepresentation, these are fraud among other things.

This is very, very serious. So we are literally moments away, Susan, from a determination. Now, maybe it is a foregone conclusion that he will be disbarred. But I think what is interesting is that Michael Nifong could have said, I'm going to relinquish my license. He didn't do that. He said he thinks he deserves it.

So whatever strategy swirling around in his brain, no one can figure out. Perhaps he's trying to minimize civil or criminal liability, but what is significant to me, Susan, is that he had a chance to say, I'm giving up my license and he didn't say it.

ROESGEN: Well, you know, when you talk about criminal liability, you know, could he face some kind of jail time for this?

FRIEDMAN: Well, Joe Cheshire, who has really been the lead lawyer of the defense team, Susan, has indicated that they're going back to the court based upon the evidence which has been developed in this five-day trial. And they're going to introduce evidence to suggest that Michael Nifong should face imprisonment and face a fine in a criminal contempt proceeding. That's what's next. So indeed he may very well face incarceration.

ROESGEN: Wow. OK. Well, we will be watching. We will continue to stay with our live pictures from the courtroom, monitoring that in our NEWSROOM here. And we'll get back to that as soon as they come back with a penalty. Thank you to Avery Friedman.

And we're going to have much more reaction to the Nifong ruling tonight at 10:00 Eastern, 7:00 Pacific. So be sure to join Rick Sanchez here in the NEWSROOM for that.

Now the other big story that we have been following today in Iraq, just a trace, the faintest trace two of missing soldiers who had been declared dead by Islamic militants. The U.S. military announced that it has found the IDs of Specialist Alex Jimenez and Private Byron Fouty, both believed to have been kidnapped by insurgents in a raid back in May.

U.S. forces found those ID cards just one week ago as they were searching an enemy safehouse in Samarra. They weren't looking for those. They were looking for an IED-maker, a bomb-maker. And it was more than 100 miles from where the soldiers disappeared, but they did find those ID cards and it has been a tantalizing clue to perhaps where those soldiers might be. With a story now, the update, live from Samarra, is CNN's Karl Penhaul embedded with the U.S. forces -- Karl.

KARL PENHAUL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: As you say there, Susan, it was in fact by chance that paratroopers of the 82nd Airborne Division, the unit that we're embedded with, came across those ID cards. The raid was on June 9th, it was an air assault. So paratroopers flew in by helicopter to this safehouse -- this al Qaeda safehouse, about six miles south of the city of Samarra where we are now. Now that house was (INAUDIBLE) orchard surrounded by farmland, a fairly isolated house. A gunfight broke out. Insurgents fled from the house. And then paratroopers went in. Now we're told by U.S. military commanders that they seized a large quantity of computer equipment and hard drives. And then they found this bundle of documents. And in the bundle of documents was where those ID cards were found, Susan.

ROESGEN: All right. Karl Penhaul reporting live for us. Now we want to go back to our other big story, to that North Carolina courtroom where the ethics panel has returned with what we believe will be the penalty for District Attorney Mike Nifong.

F. LANE WILLIAMSON, CHMN., DISCIPLINARY HEARING CMTE.: The hearing committee has deliberated. And we are in unanimous agreement that there is no discipline short of disbarment that would be appropriate in this case given the magnitude of the offenses that we have found and the affect upon the profession and the public.

I do want to make some remarks as to why we reached that conclusion. This matter has been a fiasco, there is no doubt about it. It has been a fiasco for a number of people, starting with the defendants. And moving out from there, to the justice system in general.

We have heard evidence over the last several days of how that came about. And we are lawyers and a school administrator, we're not psychologists, you have to ask yourself why? Why did we get to the place that we got? It seems that at the root of it is self-deception, arising out of self-interest.

Mark Twain said that when a person cannot deceive himself, the chances are against his being able to deceive other people. And what we have here, it seems, is that we had a prosecutor who was faced with a very unusual situation in which the confluence of his self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex, and class.

A situation that if it were applied to a John Grisham novel, would be considered to be perhaps too contrived. And at that time he was facing a primary. And, yes, he was politically naive. But we can draw no other conclusion but that those initial statements that he made were to further his political ambitions.

And having once done that, and having seen the facts as he hoped they would be in his mind the facts remain that way in the face of developing evidence that that was not in fact the case.

And even today, one must say that in the face of a declaration of innocence by the attorney general of North Carolina, it appears the defendant still believes the facts to be one way and the world now knows that is not the case.

We are required under our rules to consider certain aggravating and mitigating factors. Under rule .0114w (ph), and those are set forth in the rule and I'm going to say what aggravating and mitigating factors we have found. We have found as aggravating factors dishonest or selfish motive, a pattern of misconduct, multiple offenses, refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct in the respect of the handling of the DNA evidence.

We do find that he has made some acknowledgement of his wrongful conduct in regard to the pretrial statements. The vulnerability of the victim or the victims in this case, and primarily the victims are the three young men who were wrongfully charged.

And we find also as an aggravating factor substantial experience in the practice of law. As mitigating factors, we find absence of a prior disciplinary record, and reputation for character. We expressly find that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating factors.

This matter appears to be an aberration in a couple of respects. It appears to be an aberration in the life and career of Michael Nifong. It appears also to be an aberration in the way justice is handled in North Carolina. It is an illustration of the fact that character -- good character is not a constant. Character is dependent upon the situation.

And probably any one of us could be faced with the situation at some point that would test our good character and we would prove wanting. And that has happened to Mike Nifong.

But the fact that it has happened and the fact that we have found dishonest and deceitful conduct requires us in the interest of the protection of the public to enter the most severe sanction that we can enter, which is disbarment.

I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with. Their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina, and elsewhere.

And indeed prosecutors, honest, ethical, hard-working prosecutors throughout the nation, as we have heard through anecdotal evidence, are victims of this conduct. And in particular the justice system is a victim of the way this was taken out of -- as Mr. Smith (ph) testified, taken out of the courtroom and put in the hands of the public and not only the public in general, but into a media frenzy, unprecedented in anyone's experience.

As I think anyone who has sat through this entire proceeding, and been here now on the fifth day knows, that you can't do justice in the media. You can't do justice on sound bites. The way to arrive at a determination of the facts is to hear in a fair and open proceeding all of the evidence and then for the prior fact to determine what the facts are. And we have done that this week.

That did not happen, and was not going to happen, apparently, in the Duke lacrosse case. The justices -- the justice system righted itself, somehow, so that at the end of the day there was indeed a declaration of innocence of these three young men. But it was done with backup systems in a way that was never designed to work as the justice system should work.

Perhaps that was set in motion by the state bar's initial complaint filed on December 28th, 2006, that shortly thereafter led to the recusal of Michael Nifong from the Duke lacrosse cases.

That was a controversial decision, I believe, certainly unprecedented that the state bar would take disciplinary action against a prosecutor during the pendency (ph) of the case when indeed the presiding judge had concurrent and co-extensive disciplinary jurisdiction.

That was a step -- although we were not privy to the decision to do that, I am sure that was a matter of serious debate as to whether to do that. Because that in itself took the justice system off track.

The other mechanism by which the system more or less righted itself was the involvement of the attorney general and the special prosecutors, who looked at it from the standpoint of prosecutors who were cognizant of prosecutors who were cognizant of their duty, the duty that was described here by Marsha Goodenow from the Mecklenburg County district attorney's office in whom we found to be a very persuasive witness.

And that led to something really very extraordinary, a declaration of actual innocence of the three defendants. Something that could never have been accomplished, even if the criminal case had proceed before Judge Smith.

And while we don't know, it seems reasonably clear that one would predict that at the suppression hearing in February, the case would have been dismissed. But it would have been dismissed with no declaration of innocence, and indeed this entire controversy regarding the wrongful prosecution still hanging over the heads of the defendants and the justice system in North Carolina.

So perhaps that was the good thing that happened. If one can find much of anything good out of this situation. But the fact that if these extraordinary circumstances had not come to pass leading to that declaration of innocence, raises another point that we should all be aware of, which is that the person who is the most powerful in the criminal justice system is not the judge, and except at the end of the process, it is not the jury, it is the prosecutor who makes the charging decision to start with.

The prosecutor, as any defense lawyer will tell you, is imbued with an aura that if he says it is so, it must be so. And even with all of the constitutional rights that are afforded, criminal defendants, the prosecutor merely by asserting a charge against defendants already has a leg up.

And when that power is abused, as it was here, it puts constitutional rights in jeopardy. We have a justice system, but the just system only works if the people who participate in it are people of good faith and respect those rights.

And Mr. Nifong, it must be said, for whatever reason, it does appear to us to be out of self-interest and self-deception, not necessarily out of an evil motive. But that his judgment was so clouded by his own self-interest that he lost sight of them and wandered off the path of justice and it had to be put back on course again by, again, very extraordinary means.

This is also a case where due to the initial strong statement, unequivocal statements made by Mr. Nifong, there was a deception perpetrated upon the public. And many people were made to look foolish because they simply accepted that if this prosecutor said it was true, it must be true.

We all think back to those early days in the spring of last year, and you think of how public opinion was so overwhelmingly against these defendants. And you think of the public approbation that they suffered. And then you look as to how the truth came out slowly in small increments and look at the situation now as to what public opinion is, it is a 180 degree turn.

And those who made a rush to judgment, based upon an unquestioning faith in what a prosecutor had told them, were made to look foolish. And many still do look foolish. It is very difficult to find any good in this situation that brings us here. I can only think of a couple of things.

One is that there are very few deterrents upon prosecutorial misconduct. For very good policy reasons, prosecutors are virtually immune from civil liability, about the worst that can happen to them in the conduct of the case is for the case to be overturned. The only significant deterrent upon a prosecutor is the possibility of disciplinary sanction. In here, the most severe sanction is warranted.

I want to briefly address a matter that was actually included in Mr. Nifong's initial response to a state bar of grievance which was to the effect that the word on the street was that the state bar was out to get a prosecutor.

And citing a couple of well-publicized cases in recent years involving prosecutors where it was widely perceived that there was insufficient discipline imposed. And I just want to step back for a moment and speak not as the chair of this panel, but as the chair of the disciplinary hearing commission and note that in those two cases, the situation was very different.

Although you could look at it and say that the harm that was caused by the conduct was greater. In both of those cases someone was actually wrongfully convicted of a capital crime. But in one of those cases, when it was prosecuted, there was no contention that there was any misconduct on behalf of the prosecutor that extended beyond gross negligence.

In other words, there was no allegation or proof of intentional wrongdoing. And under the restrictions that we are under in the case of State Bar versus Talford (ph), probably the maximum discipline that could be imposed was imposed.

And indeed, under the particular provision, the same one that we are dealing with here, with 3.8d as it was previously worded, the panel held that there was a non-delegatible duty to know what is in your file and that under the most jurisdictions or the majority viewed, actually no discipline would be imposed.

In the other case, which is really been affirmed by the court of appeals, there was a dismissal based upon essentially the running of the limitations rule. And we did not address the merits. But we applied the rules.

We applied the rules in both of those cases, and reached, in my opinion, the correct result. And in this case we have applied the rules and again, we believe we have reached the correct result. And every case is different, but the case we have here is a clear case of intentional prosecutorial misconduct.

ROESGEN: We have been listening to Lane Williamson, the chairman of the ethics panel there at -- in the North Carolina courtroom in Raleigh, North Carolina, delivering some lengthy remarks as he announces that the panel has decided to disbar Mike Nifong. What he says is the most serious penalty they can give him.

Let's rejoin Avery Friedman now, Cleveland law professor. Avery, Lane Williamson said most powerful person in the criminal justice system is not the judge, is not even the jury, it is the prosecutor. Do you agree with that?

AVERY FRIEDMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: I absolutely agree, Susan. The fact is that the prosecutor controls the process. In other words, a judge or a jury will never see a defendant unless a defendant -- unless the prosecutor moves forward, gets the indictment and so that's really what Lane Williamson meant. That the power held by prosecutors around this country is a profound one and in this case, of course, the panel had little difficulty in saying that we dealt -- we found a pattern of prosecutorial abuse.

ROESGEN: We want to also bring in here now, Avery, our correspondent, Susan Candiotti who has been covering this story for us from the beginning. Susan, it is almost painful to watch a man's career go down in flames like this. Whatever you think of what he did there. Have you been able to get any other reaction? I know it is still going on right there in the courtroom, but any other take here on what people think of this?

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Too soon to get reaction to this. But it has been clearly a painful experience for an entire community. And I think really the legal system in the United States to see all this unfold. You know, it is -- we have to all think back about how this happened.

Everyone was shocked by the charges in the beginning. And then slowly we all started to learn additional information along the way. Stories that just didn't completely match up. Evidence that seemed to indicate that the players in this case were at the parties at the times these allegations supposedly occurred, this crime allegedly occurred. Then to see it chip away, chip away, chip away yet, the case still seemed to move forward. It was hard to understand.

And now we see Mike Nifong sitting there, his shoulders almost slumped, it would seem, and he now has to find himself another job. Imagine how hard that may be for him to try to do. But really there aren't many people around this particular courthouse right now who feel very sorry for him.

ROESGEN: Yes, let's try to take it to the next step. Want to bring back Avery Friedman. Avery, prosecutors are usually protected from civil suits as long as they remain prosecutors. The second he said I'm going to resign, didn't he really open himself up to big civil lawsuits?

FRIEDMAN: I don't know. The Supreme Court, Susan, has made clear that there is a virtual, absolute immunity. And it is interesting that Chairman Williamson reaffirmed that. So -- but the point was, I think, by this panel, was look at, there may be immunity from civil liability, but you're not immune from us.

And actually, I must say this was a thoughtful, reasoned, careful and I think -- careful, I guess, the best way of saying t I think the chairman wanted to be very plain spoken, which he was. But there was something very restorative in listening to him. It was almost enlightening to hear that if you don't think the system works, take a look at what we're doing today. And it tells you that it really does.

ROESGEN: You know, something about what he said here, Avery, he was quoting Mark Twain, he quoted John Grisham. His remarks sound so prepared. It is as if the chairman had made up his mind before hearing anything today, that he was going to find Mike Nifong guilty of these ethics violations. Isn't there something unethical about that?

FRIEDMAN: Well, your question assumes an awful lot. I would respectfully disagree. I think as they heard evidence over the past five days, they were clearly formulating some thoughts. And, again, we have three members of the panel, all of whom had input. But I don't think that this was a predisposition.

I think actually I was sort of impressed with the idea that the chairman reached out to make clear that we dealt with self-deception and self-interest, colliding with issues of race and class and sex. I think what the chair did was carefully thought -- think out what was going to be said. So I actually found that the way he put it was admirable and I think was based on the totality of the evidence which the panel heard.

ROESGEN: All right. Avery Friedman, thank you for your insight. Susan Candiotti, thank for your reporting. I see an HBO movie on this coming somewhere down the line. Thank you, both.

When we come back, the latest on the search for those two missing soldiers and some heart felt thoughts from the father of one of them. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROESGEN: The prosecutor in the infamous Duke lacrosse case has just been disbarred. You're looking at a live picture as the students in that case congratulate each other. And here is more on the decision from chairman of the North Carolina ethics panel hearing this case, Lane Williamson.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LANE WILLIAMSON, CHAIRMAN, NORTH CAROLINA ETHICS PANEL: The unanimous agreement there is no discipline short of disbarment that would be appropriate in this case given the magnitude of the offenses that we have found and the effect upon the profession and the public.

And the fact that we have found dishonest and deceitful conduct requires us in the interest of the protection of the public to enter the most severe sanction that we can enter, which is disbarment.

I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with. Their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina, and elsewhere.

And indeed prosecutors, honest, ethical, hard working prosecutors throughout the nation as we have heard through anecdotal evidence are victims of this conduct.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROESGEN: And once again, that was the latest from that Duke lacrosse case. Now the other big story we have been following today, and that is the military's announcement that coalition forces in Iraq have found the I.D. cards of those two missing U.S. soldiers, found the cards but not the soldiers themselves.

The stepfather of one of those missing servicemen, Private Byron Fouty says that he learned about that earlier this week. His first reaction, of course, was excitement but now we want to see how feels about it now. Gordon Dibler joins us now live. Has this given you hope? What has this done for you?

GORDON DIBLER, PVT. BYRON FOUTY'S STEP FATHER: Absolutely gives me hope. Hope to another level. And we're excited about the prayers going out for him and they seem to have been helping.

ROESGEN: Gordon what did the military tell you when they let you know a few days ago what they had found.

DIBLER: I was actually out with my grandson, Isaac, the nephew Byron hasn't met yet and I was thanking him for the banner that we had made. And I got the call and my coordinator had first announced to me it wasn't good or bad news, but it was data that they had found these items. And that they don't know any more than what they were telling us at the time.

Some personal items and a couple of I.D.s but that was as clear as they could be at the time.

ROESGEN: Do you feel that the military keeps you well informed on this, on their search for your stepson?

DIBLER: Yeah, they have been excellent. I've been had 24/7 contact if I need be. And anytime they get information, they pass it on to me.

ROESGEN: Are you in contact with relatives of the other missing soldier?

DIBLER: No, I've respected their privacy. I did an interview and saw Mrs. Jimenez and like me, she has a candle by her son's picture and I keep mine lit for Byron so that we both -- I know we're in prayer for each other's sons.

ROESGEN: I know this is not going to be a very good Father's Day for you. How do you plan to get through it tomorrow?

DIBLER: Well, I have three other children. And they all had part of Byron's life. And in fact my oldest son is in the Navy and he sent a package just today to the platoon leader of Byron's so that they can know we have much support for him and the search and that our hearts are still there with the ones that are doing the search. So it is going to be a very different Father's Day, of course, but I know that his real father and stepfather he has now are very much in anguish like I am.

And have a very big heart when it comes to Byron. And we all had a wonderful part raising him into the man that he is. And we're looking so forward to seeing him.

ROESGEN: All right. As long as you keep the hope, we'll keep the hope for you too. Thank you, Gordon.

DIBLER: Thank you very much.

ROESGEN: You bet.

Well, it is a busy day for our meteorologist Jacqui Jeras. Thunderstorms, flight delays and just plain hot in some parts of the country. We'll be taking a look at the weather picture now with you now, Jacqui.

JACQUI JERAS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: We sure will. A tornado watch has just been issued across central parts of Montana. We'll have this and your Father's Day forecast coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I killed those men. I robbed them and killed them as cold as ice.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Men are taught to use violence as a solution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROESGEN: Men sentenced to death, women sentenced to death. They kill in different ways for different reasons. The gender line for capital punishment is a jagged one. We'll explore it tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern with Rick Sanchez right here in the CNN NEWSROOM. And happening now in the news, a disciplinary panel in North Carolina has disbarred long time prosecutor Mike Nifong. That decision came after a ruling by the panel earlier today that Nifong had violated the rules of professional conduct in his handling of the Duke lacrosse rape case. The military announced today the I.D. cards of those two missing U.S. soldiers have been found. They were discovered during a raid on an insurgent safe house near Samarra last Saturday. No sign of the soldiers. But the father of one of them just told us he still hopes that they'll be found alive.

Evangelist Billy Graham told a gathering today that his wife retained her beauty even in death. Graham spoke at a public funeral service this afternoon for his wife, Ruth. She died Thursday at the age of 87 after a long illness. A private service is scheduled for tomorrow in Charlotte.

All this year we're bringing you the stories of people we call "CNN Heros". And we invite you to tell us about a hero you might know. Today the story of a man who spends a lot of time with celebrities and supermodels but he is also committed to improving the lives of women from his home country, much poorer circumstances in Afghanistan. His name is Matin Maulawizada and he's today's "CNN Hero."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Explain to me everything you want to explain.

MATIN MAULAWIZADA, "COMMUNITY CRUSADER": Afghanistan offered me a lot. And I wanted to bring a little something back. It is a tiny project. But I really wanted to really make sure to bring something. Afghan women survived years of war, years of suppression. Still they do. And they prevail. So to me the strength of Afghan women are just remarkable and I wanted to work with them.

Widows in particular rely on the mercy of their families, they kind of become servants to them. And I wanted to kind of change that, one person at a time, if I could.

My entire point was to make sure that widows and women will be able to proudly work and be proud of their work and work outside their house and provide well for their families. It is just amazing. It sells itself, really.

They read and write equivalent of fourth grader now. Mentally they're prepared to go to work. They know how to take measurements. They know how to do -- to write measurements. Once they learn enough, they will basically be business women. And look at the embroidery on this.

I'm hoping that I would send them to courses that they could actually manage a business, grow a business. My whole dream is for them to basically have the confidence to see beautiful objects that they're making and know that people are enjoying and appreciating them.

They're doing the work. And all I'm offering is basically an opportunity for them to show what they have.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ROESGEN: And when we come back, we're going have the very latest on our top story, the disbarment of the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse rape case. In the meantime, go to cnn.com/heroes and nominate a hero of your own. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ROESGEN: A news conference under way now outside the courtroom in Raleigh, North Carolina. Let's go straight to CNN's Susan Candiotti. Susan? Susan?

Susan Candiotti and you here now listening as we all are to this news conference after the disbarment of D.A. Mike Nifong.

DAVID FREEDMAN, MIKE NIFONG'S ATTORNEY: And worked very hard and they made the system work. And today I want to throw a bouquet to the state bar because I think the state bar has demonstrated that the lawyers of North Carolina will police themselves. I think that this was a demonstration of excellence on their part, very hard work on their part, and as a lawyer I was proud of them and proud of the work they did.

And I think that this outcome does a lot to say to the world that this is a good place. And that this is an aberration, should never have happened. It happened because of hubris. It happened because of pride.

And I'm thankful that we have come to this place. So that's the statement I wanted to make.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)

FREEDMAN: I loved what Ms. Finnerty said, so genuine and true to her thoughts to demonstrate the great suffering these families have been through. All of them. It is just remarkable what they have lived through. And I was very proud of Ms. Finnerty.

QUESTION: I have one more question.

FREEDMAN: OK, yeah.

QUESTION: Are you going to push for ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For criminal charges? I think Mr. Cooney made this clear yesterday and I'll let him speak to it. But I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about this investigation. And I think we would all welcome an outside agency coming in and taking a look at it from the very beginning to the very end. And I'll just give you one example. The Lynnwood Wilson (ph) interview of Crystal Mangum (ph) that changed the timeline in an effort to try to convict Reade Seligmann even at a late date. And any questions remain unanswered. And one other thing I would like to follow what Wade said, I love my friend Wade Smith. He's a very generous man. I do not think prosecutorial misconduct is an aberration. In this state, eight people have been let off death row in the last few years because prosecutors did not turn over exculpatory material. So to follow up what you said, I hope this sends a loud and clear message that if you cheat and try to put innocent people in prison, you'll either go prison yourself or you'll lose your law license.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, would you like to follow up?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really want to say a couple of things because there are a couple of facts or two facts in particular that haven't been made clear and a lot of people don't know. And you change either up with of these facts and we're looking at a very different situation. Mr. Nifong talked a lot about how well were great defense attorneys, we were going to find ...

ROESGEN: We're listening now to reaction from supporters of the families of the Duke lacrosse players. And we want to bring in CNN's Susan Candiotti there following the case.

Susan, just to sort of sum this case up, the chairman of the ethics panel said today you can't do justice in the media. They were really hostile toward Mike Nifong's handling of this case, the pretrial publicity for a trial that as it turned out never happen. I get the sense that as reporters we'll have a tougher time in the future getting comments from prosecutors.

CANDIOTTI: I don't know about that, Susan. Here is why. There is always going to be pretrial publicity when there is news. Reporters are going to cover it. But prosecutors do know and should know that there are rules that they have to play by. They do know there are certain things they can say and that they cannot say. Doesn't mean the reporters won't aggressively follow a story and not necessarily accept everything at face value.

But I think that for the most part as we cover investigations like this, that are quite controversial, that we will continue to go after information and prosecutors will continue to try to give us as little information as they can. But they are allowed to tell us the facts of the case and they do know that they cannot convict someone before there is a trial.

ROESGEN: And, again, Susan, we're looking now at the supporters of the families. Did you see what happened to Mike Nifong? Has he just sped away somewhere or is he still around?

CANDIOTTI: I actually did not get an opportunity to see him but I did see two of his lawyers being interviewed as they walked quickly down the street.

In fact, I saw one of the ethics panel members walk down the sidewalk and said, I'm glad no one is following me.

But it is important to emphasize here that the ethics panel called this entire investigation a fiasco, although we're hearing from the defense attorneys here, the attorneys, I should say, representing the Duke lacrosse players that they were hopeful that this will be instructive as the ethics panel itself said.

That this is possibly an aberration but it does point out that the system does work in the end as they see it. And that something like this, they hope it will not come again. Now whether or not there will be additional charges down the road or a civil lawsuit, I guess we'll have to wait and see, but these lawyers did leave open the possibility of criminal charges possibly being brought. Although, of course, they're not the ones that would do that. They'd welcome an independent prosecutor, they said, to take a look at this.

ROESGEN: And, Susan, finally you mentioned earlier today that Mike Nifong had said that he still believes something happened at that off-campus party. Does anyone else believe that or is this case dead?

CANDIOTTI: Well, certainly it's very -- it would appear that the case is dead. Although Mr. Nifong does say that he does believe something did happen in the bathroom that night. But these lawyers here are calling that slander.

ROESGEN: All right. Susan Candiotti reporting live for us, thank you.

CANDIOTTI: And LOU DOBBS THIS WEEK starts right now.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com