Case Study: The Duke Case - Legal and Procedural Failures Examined

This case study analyzes the Duke case, which involved the false accusation of rape against three Duke University students. The assignment examines the manipulation of evidence by the police and prosecutor, highlighting the failures within the legal system. The analysis emphasizes the importance of judicial oversight, cross-checking of evidence, and the need for strict adherence to procedural guidelines. It also underscores the responsibility of the court to compensate the wrongly accused and address the lasting impact on their lives, including financial compensation, educational support, and assistance in securing employment. The study concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing and rectifying the mistakes made during the trial to uphold justice and maintain public trust in the legal system. The case serves as a critical examination of legal and ethical failures and their consequences.

Running head: THE DUKE CASE
THE DUKE CASE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1THE DUKE CASE
The Duke case was reported in 2006 in which 3 men of Duke University were falsely
arrested for rape by a black woman who was a stripper. However, in 2007 the charges against the
boys were dropped and the prosecutor against the case had to withdraw from trail as he had
manipulated with the evidence (DeMets et al., 2017). The essay aims to shed a light on the Duke
case.
The police as well as the prosecutor had manipulated with the evidence. The travesty
with the evidence could have been prevented if the judge of the court would have been directly
involved with the case, with its proceedings and with the evidence that was brought before the
judge. There should have been cross checking of the DNA test so that it could prevent the
harassment that the boys had to face during the trail. There should have been a strict supervision
on the police as well so that they could not violate the policies that had been set for them by the
judiciary. Furthermore, the DNA test should be conducted in front of the jury and the judge to
make the evidence more credible and prevent any tampering of the evidence. The judge should
have dealt strictly with Mangum so that she could not change her story. Cctv should have been
checked by the judge during the trial so that the case could have been closed much earlier. To
further prevent the travesty of justice the court should have checked if the convicts as well as the
victim was previously connected to a criminal activity or not. Thus, the above measure could
have prevented the travesty of justice.
The court, victim as well as the prosecutor should be held responsible for wrongly
accusing the boys of raping the black woman (McCannon & Wilson 2020). The boys should be
compensated not only with money but also for the respect that they lost during their entire trail.
They should get extra time to cope with the studies that they had missed as they were involved in
the trail. All allegations should be withdrawn and it should be circulated in the media that the

2THE DUKE CASE
boys were not responsible for the rape as there was no rape that was committed. This would clear
the remaining suspicion that people would have in their mind. Furthermore each accused should
be given $800 by the judiciary as compensation for their loss of time and education. They should
also be provided with a scholarship that would help them to move on in their life and forget the
traumatic trail. They should also be provided with a well secure job as after the incident no
reputed organisation would hire them even though they were freed from the allegations. The
court should further compensate for the attorney’s fees that was spent in proving their innocence.
Therefore, to conclude it must be noted that it is the responsibility of the court to
recognise and identify the loopholes that was presented during the trial. The court for wrongfully
accusing people should also realise the need for compensating the individuals and work towards
rectifying their mistake as people look up to them for justice.

3THE DUKE CASE
References
DeMets, D. L., Fleming, T. R., Geller, G., & Ransohoff, D. F. (2017). Institutional responsibility
and the flawed genomic biomarkers at Duke University: A missed opportunity for
transparency and accountability. Science and engineering ethics, 23(4), 1199-1205.
McCannon, B. C., & Wilson, M. (2020). “A Million Dollars in Free Advertising” Politics and
Sex Offense Prosecution in the Wake of Duke Lacrosse. Supreme Court Economic
Review, 27(1), 000-000.