Actually I seem to recall reading in one the news articles that the warrant was indeed issued back in 2003 and thinking that since the warrant would have tolled the limitations period, the cabbie unfortunately wouldn't have a basis to argue false arrest, malicious prosecution or witness intimidation (unless something egregious was said, and even then, it's a they said/he said). Of course I may be wrong or that news article may be wrong.
Ben Himan, lead investigator in the lacrosse case, personally served the years old warrant. I'd like to know who normally serves warrants in Durham.
I heard reporters say it was a warrant from a 2003 incident, but I'll bet you he wasn't even charged back then.
If he had been, why wouldn't they have brought him in when they tried the woman five months after the incident?