"Mr. Nifong did not act as a minister of justice, but as a minister of injustice," state bar prosecutor Douglas Brocker said Saturday morning.

Brocker told the disciplinary hearing committee that as Nifong investigated allegations that a stripper was raped at a March 2006 party thrown by Duke's lacrosse team, he charged "forward toward condemnation and injustice," weaving a "web of deception that has continued up through this hearing."

The bar charged Nifong, a prosecutor in Durham County for his entire three-decade legal career, with breaking several rules of professional conduct, including lying to both the court and bar investigators and withholding critical DNA test results from the players' defense attorneys.

Those DNA tests found genetic material from several males in the accuser's underwear and body, but none from any lacrosse player. Even though he was aware of those results, Nifong still pressed ahead with the case and won indictments against Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty.

State prosecutors later concluded the three players were "innocent" victims of a rogue prosecutor's "tragic rush to accuse."

Nifong acknowledged Friday he was likely to be punished by the disciplinary committee for maybe getting "carried away a little bit" when talking publicly about the case. He said he regretted some of his statements, including a confident proclamation that he wouldn't allow Durham to become known for "a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke raping a black girl."

Brocker pounded on such comments Saturday, saying Nifong had to have known he was making improper comments to reporters.

"They (were) clearly going to cause public condemnation of anybody who was charged," Brocker said.

Brocker also focused on when Nifong learned about the full extent of the DNA test results and when he shared that information with the defense.

Nifong gave defense attorneys an initial report on the DNA testing in May 2006 that said private lab DNA Security Inc. had been unable to find a conclusive match between the accuser and any lacrosse players.

But lab director Brian Meehan testified this week that he told Nifong as early as April 10, 2006 _ a week before Seligmann and Finnerty were indicted _ about the more detailed test results.

"The positive results were the truth," Brocker said. "They just weren't the whole truth."

Nifong testified that when he gave the defense the initial report, he "believed at the time that I had given them everything."

Nifong tearfully said Friday he would resign as district attorney, stunning his staff in Durham and his own attorneys. They had insisted for weeks their client had no plans to leave the office he was elected to for the first time in November.

"It has become increasingly apparent, during the course of this week, in some ways that it might not have been before, that my presence as the district attorney in Durham is not furthering the cause of justice," Nifong said, adding later: "My community has suffered enough."

Even if he is disbarred, Nifong's troubles aren't over _ the players' attorneys have pledged to seek criminal contempt charges next week in Durham.

The private, nonprofit Partnership was started in Decmeber 2000 after Attorney General Michael Moore was successful in persuading a Jackson County chancery judge to start the program. To do so, the judge diverted to the Partnership $20 million per year of the $110 million the state receives annually from the tobacco companies.

Gov. Haley Barbour and Treasurer Tate Reeves filed suit, claiming the judge's decision to appropriate the money to the Partnership was unconstitutional. The settlement funds, they argued, were state money and only the Legislature can spend the funds.

Carlson wrote "...it is the Legislature's solemn duty and responsibility to appropriate these funds and not that of the judiciary."  The ruling was not unexpected.

Justice Oliver Diaz of Biloxi was the only member of the high court to dissent. He said the issue had been settled in 2000 and it was too late for Barbour and Reeves to object.

Barbour said the ruling pointed out "a local judge and the attorney general have no power to give taxpayer money to a private charity."

"It's a shame it look a long, drawn-out lawsuit to stop this illegal and unconstitutional diversion of taxpayer money."

Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Arthur Eaves said Barbour, a former Washington lobbyist who represented tobacco companies, is continuing "to put the interest of his Washington cronies above those of Mississippi children."

Moore said Thursday the issue had never been about constitutionality for Barbour. He said that to appease Barbour, the Legislature voted in 2006 to appropriate the funds to the Partnership, but the governor vetoed the bill.

The vote was a devastating blow to efforts to reverse a 2003 court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

An amendment now can't reach voters before 2010. That would happen only with a successful new petition drive and the backing of 50 lawmakers in two consecutive sittings of the 200-seat Legislature - including the one that just rejected the ballot measure.

Such a scenario appeared increasingly unlikely, but opponents of gay marriage vowed to press on.

The three banks involved are Merrill Lynch, Barclays and Credit Suisse First Boston.

In April, the university filed a petition along with the other plaintiffs asking that the U.S. Supreme Court hear the appeal. On Monday, the university filed a brief asking that the court hear the appeal at the same time as another case that also grappled with the degree of responsibility for secondary actors like the banks.

Enron Corporation was found to have committed investor fraud in 2001 and then collapsed.

The university alleges that banks knew of the fraud and should now be held responsible for their role in Enron’s investor fraud.

The total alleged loss for all plaintiffs involved is estimated at $40 billion, Davis said.

According to Davis, the university lost approximately $145 million in investments as a result of the fraud and collapse.

The 50,000 plaintiffs include both individual and institutional investors, although Davis said the university was one of the pension funds with substantial losses.

The case had been heard in March by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; that court ruled in favor of the banks in a 2-1 vote.

The idea of holding banks responsible for their part in the Enron scandal would bring into question the concept of scheme liability.

Scheme liability envisions fraudulent practices involving additional parties who actively and knowingly participate in the fraud, Davis said.

“We’re alleging that banks knew what they were doing and did what they did to perpetuate the fraud,” Davis said. “Scheme liability means banks were part of the scheme as opposed to just being innocent bystanders.”

While three banks currently remain as defendents, Davis said a number of other banks that had been involved in the case have settled for a total of approximately $7 billion out of court.

If the Supreme Court decides in the university’s favor, Davis said the remaining three banks could have the option to settle out of court as well.

Davis said he did not know when the Supreme Court is expected to respond or what the next steps will be for the case, adding that the university hopes the plaintiffs will get the chance to go to trial.

"This is sickening," Prosecutor Bill Mason said Wednesday. "The charitable trust established by Father O'Dea continues his life's work of giving to others even after his death. This attorney's theft of trust assets is, in effect, stealing from the poor and needy. He is without conscience."

Mason said Economic Crimes Unit prosecutors already have negotiated a plea deal with Parrish and his lawyer that would require him to repay $250,000 to the trust and to plead guilty to an aggravated theft charge.

Parrish already has repaid $83,000, and filed a request with the Ohio Supreme Court to assume inactive status as a lawyer, said his attorney, James Sammon.

"We have worked diligently to resolve the estate in probate court," Sammon said. "And he is in the process of winding down his law practice."

When he died, O'Dea was 92 and under the care of the Little Sisters of the Poor at their home in Warrensville Heights. He had served as pastor of St. Mary's Church in Hudson and St. Peter's Church in Lorain.

One of the trustees of O'Dea's charitable trust account noticed suspicious bank activity, and reported it to the Cleveland Bar Association. Bar officials contacted the prosecutor's office.

With another challenge to the law pending in federal court, it was unclear if the state could begin requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

For months, lawyers have been battling over the law, one of several passed recently across the country.

Opponents claim the photo ID law will disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly who don't have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.

The law's mostly Republican supporters say it is needed to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. No examples of in-person voter fraud have been presented, though the proposal's backers often mention the threat of noncitizens casting illegal ballots.

Monday's ruling, written by Justice Harold Melton, said that plaintiff Rosalind Lake was not harmed by the voter ID law and lacked standing to challenge it since she was exempt as a first-time voter.

The Secretary of State's office, which enforces voting law, did not immediately comment. But the law's sponsor, state Sen. Cecil Staton, said the court's opinion reinforced the Legislature's intent when it passed the law last year.

"It gives credence to our position all along that the argument that there are many, many people who are harmed by this law is just not correct," said Staton, a Macon Republican. "They didn't even have a plaintiff who's been harmed."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, vowed to "continue to fight this battle in federal court."

At the federal level, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law in 2005, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Legislature addressed his complaints in a subsequent version, but he blocked the law again in September, saying the bill isn't in the public's interest. An appeal is pending.

Other states have faced similar legal battles over requiring voters to have photo IDs.

In Arizona, the law survived court challenges, and voters have had to show a photo ID to vote since 2006. In Missouri, the state Supreme Court in October struck down a law that required voters there to show a photo identification.

A federal appeals court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in January, saying it has the potential to do more good than harm. A month later, a New Mexico federal judge struck down the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance.

The president's message was that it's important to reduce "unnecessary lawsuits" and that federal securities regulators are in the best position to sue, said Al Hubbard, Bush's chief economic adviser and director of the National Economic Council.

Hubbard said deputy White House counsel Bill Kelley conveyed Bush's perspective to Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents the government's views before the Supreme Court.

Hubbard said the president communicated his policy views, not specifically what he thought the solicitor general should do.

Bush's role in the case underscores its significance. The outcome of the Supreme Court case could determine whether investors can pursue lawsuits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and scandal-ridden companies.

The deadline for siding with investors in the case ended at midnight Monday, and the solicitor general did not file a brief.

The administration will decide in the next 30 days whether to side with the defendant companies or not to participate in the case at all.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted 3-2 to ask the solicitor general to support shareholders.

Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO's associate general counsel, criticized Bush's action.

"The president decided that he thinks it's more important to protect his friends than it is to enforce the law," Silvers said.

The issue is whether shareholders can collect damages from investment banks, attorneys and accountants who are thought to have aided in fraud committed by their corporate clients.

The high court's ruling in the case could determine whether the Enron plaintiffs' separate $40 billion lawsuit against the investment banks — stalled by a federal appeals court ruling in March — can proceed.

Thirty state attorneys general sided with investors and referred to the Enron scandal 55 times in a 43-page court filing.