CdwJava, I don’t disagree that credibility is an important aspect of any case. Using Ms. Mangum as an example, the charges were of a sexual nature and so were the questions as to her character. I’m sure it would be difficult to successfully prosecute anyone for raping a stripper/prostitute who has a history of indiscriminate sex with multiple partners, has previously lied about other assaults, and has the DNA of several other men on her underwear at the time of the alleged incident. It would be difficult to defend a dog accused of having bitten someone if that dog has a proven history of biting people. If the OP sashays into a police station in the future and accuses her boyfriend of stealing her truck, I wouldn’t blame anyone for sending her on her way.
What our “prosecutor” said, however, was that he would not prosecute any case in which the OP is the victim. To continue with the lacrosse players case as an example, the idea of a woman claiming that kind of horrific abuse and being dismissed because she once lied about a stolen truck seems outrageous. Any prosecutor who would deny justice to anyone who is not squeaky clean or otherwise irreproachable is, in my opinion, a pretty sorry excuse for a prosecutor.
The disagreement was, however, that I said he would be disbarred and you said he would not be. It disappoints me to think that any prosecutor may choose to ignore evidence (and for the sake of argument, let’s call it compelling evidence) and refuse to prosecute because the victim once lied, but the more I think about it the more I realize you’re right. My statement was naïve and I concede to your more learned opinion--and that of those who will no doubt agree with you--that no, he probably would not be disbarred.
I’m not a liar and I take pride in my character but I’m no Mother Theresa, either. I wonder how vulnerable I really am to the criminals in North Carolina.