I don't like Nancy Grace. In fact, let's be honest, I find her utterly loathsome. In the name of ratings, she rushes to prejudge every case (and always on the side of the prosecution), she blatantly takes sides, she's an abusive interviewer, she's intellectually dishonest, and she's a coward. Recall when she lead the mob that chased the Duke lacrosse team? When they were declared innocent, she just happened to take that night off:
“Shortly after the alleged March 14 assault, wild stories began to circulate about what had transpired at 610 North Buchanan. Within days Nancy Grace was claiming — falsely – that the players had refused to provide DNA samples…Grace then invited a series of guests who would take orgiastic delight in the demonization of three young lacrosse players…
“Nancy Grace even vilified those who cautioned the rush to judgment might be premature. During one interview Stephen Miller of the Duke Conservative Union began to worry that ‘two innocent people may have possibly …’ But Grace quickly cut him off: ‘Oh, good lord! … I assume you’ve got a mother. I mean, your first concern is that somebody is falsely accused?’”
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show also skewered Grace over her enthusiastic support of the false accuser, noting that Grace is “the person who had staked the most on this case.” On April 11, 2007 North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced they were dismissing the charges and said that the accused players “are innocent.” The next day Stewart asked “Put through hell for over a year–how will the media show contrition?” He then said “let’s see how Nancy Grace handled it” and cut to Grace’s April 11 show–and there was a substitute host!
This sort of thing can't be good for the rule of law, especially when Grace berates the tot mom jury for having done their job. She taints the jury pool with her lies and misjudgments and then bullies jurors who nevertheless do their best to follow the law.
But what do you expect from somebody whose prosecutorial record was tainted by repeated improprieties. In a 2009 law review article (55 Wayne L. Rev. 1327), Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier, Stephen R. Greenwald, Harold Reynolds, and Jonathan Sussman wrote that:
In another case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit noted that a prosecutor played “fast and loose” with her ethical duties for failing to turn over exculpatory evidence in a murder case. Stephens v. Hall, 407 F.3d 1195, 1206 (11th Cir. 2005) (affirming conviction under a deferential federal habeas corpus review standard despite the ethical concerns). The prosecutor in Stephens, Nancy Grace, now has her own national television show. See CNN webpage, http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/nancy.grace (last visited Jan. 23, 2010). Nancy Grace's ethics as a prosecutor were questioned in other court opinions too. In Bell v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court granted the defendant a mistrial because Nancy Grace's statements in closing argument exceeded the scope of proper argument in that heroin trafficking case. Bell v. State, 439 S.E.2d 480, 481 (Ga. 1994) (“By referring to such extraneous and prejudicially inflammatory material in her closing argument, the prosecutor exceeded the wide latitude of closing argument, to the detriment of the accused and to the detriment of the fair administration of justice.”). See also Carr v. State, 482 S.E.2d 314, 322 (Ga. 1997) (“[T]he conduct of the prosecuting attorney demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness, and was inexcusable.”). According to the Brief and Enumerations of Error in Carr, “the prosecuting attorney engaged in an extensive pattern of inappropriate and, in some cases, illegal conduct in the course of the trial.” Brief and Enumerations of Error, Carr v. State, 1996 WL 33482455, at *152-64 (July 24, 1996) (detailing Grace's role in the trial).
and rereading the book at more or less the same pace. Herewith some random thoughts, offered FWIW. POSSIBLE SPOILERS WARNING
