Posted on 06/22/2006 2:23:47 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM -- District Attorney Mike Nifong plans to give defense lawyers at least 300 additional pages of information about the Duke University lacrosse rape case, adding to 1,298 pages of documentation surrendered previously.
Without describing their contents, Nifong said the new documents would be handed over during a preliminary hearing today for three recently indicted lacrosse players: Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans.
The three are accused of raping, sodomizing and restraining an exotic dancer in a bathroom during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
All are free under $400,000 bonds as they await a trial that, according to Nifong, might begin next spring.
None is expected to attend today's hearing.
In addition to a transfer of documents, the hearing will include a request from Seligmann's lawyers that his bond be lowered to roughly one-tenth its current level. The lawyers filed an affidavit in support of that request Wednesday.
Signed by Philip Seligmann, the defendant's father, the affidavit said that Seligmann had been recruited by every Ivy League university to play football or lacrosse, and that he accepted a 90-percent scholarship to be on the Duke lacrosse team.
"This case has taken an unbelievable and horrendous emotional toll on all my family, especially my wife," the elder Seligmann wrote. "We are committed as a family, along with Reade, to do everything necessary to restore our good name."
According to the affidavit, Seligmann's bail money was provided by a family friend whose "loss of income is substantial" as a result.
In a related matter, the News and Observer Publishing Co. moved Wednesday to make public certain documents -- reportedly pertaining to the alleged rape victim's medical records -- that were filed by defense lawyers under seal.
"In this case, the fact that there are charges of sexual assault is unfortunate and controversial -- either because a woman has been sexually violated or because the defendants have been wrongfully accused -- but neither is a justification for sealing a court proceeding," a lawyer for the newspaper wrote.
The lawyer, Hugh Stevens, also said the sealed documents raised questions about Nifong's handling of the case. He said that when the conduct of public officials is at issue, it is an added reason for making the pertinent files public.
Meanwhile, several defense lawyers predicted Wednesday that Nifong's latest 300-plus pages of documentation would do little to help him, since earlier paperwork -- in their view -- was more beneficial to the defense than the prosecution.
For example, attorneys Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon have said the earlier documents showed a "very significant and disturbing deficiency" in Nifong's evidence.
Specifically, there were indications that Nifong began making public statements about the accuser's medical records even before they were in his possession, according to the two lawyers, who represent Evans.
Cheshire and Bannon said the District Attorney's Office subpoenaed the accuser's medical files from Duke Hospital on March 20 -- six days after the alleged rape.
However, the files were not printed out in compliance with the subpoena until March 30, and Police Investigator Benjamin Himan didn't pick them up until April 5, Cheshire and Bannon wrote in court paperwork last week.
But the lawyers said Nifong told a local television station on March 27 that he had no doubt the exotic dancer was raped, based on a "personal review" of her medical records. They quoted the district attorney as saying, "My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place."
Citing the 1,298 pages of documentation given them by Nifong earlier, various defense lawyers also have contended there were numerous inconsistencies in the accuser's version of events, along with unacceptable omissions in a sworn affidavit prepared by police. The affidavit was used by Himan to obtain judicial permission for his evidence-gathering efforts.
Among other things, Himan failed to mention that a co-dancer had described the rape allegation as "a crock," even though she was with the accuser for all but about five minutes on the night in question, according to defense lawyers.
Nifong has bristled at that and other defense characterizations of his evidence, while attacking the national press corps for -- in his opinion -- blindly reporting the characterizations without checking their accuracy.
"Is anyone surprised that the defense attorneys are spinning this case in such a way that things do not look good for the prosecution?" Nifong wrote in an e-mail to Newsweek magazine last week.
"Their job, after all, is to create reasonable doubt, a task made all the easier by an uncritical national press corps desperate for any reportable detail, regardless of its veracity," the district attorney said.
The e-mail traffic was made public by Nifong on Monday.
URL for this article: http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-746370.html
request denied!!!!!
denied again!!!!
Judge denies Cheshire's request on items 8 and 9. I think those were concerning reports of meetings between Nifong and detectives.
For anyone that thought Judge Stephens would act fairly due to the public scruntiny, I guess you've just been shown that Stephens doesn't give a crap about anyone outside of Durham!
They were interviewing the skank...why is that not discovery?? I'm starting to break out in hives....
Judge Steven getting snippy............
It really doesn't matter. Those conversations can be recalled, under oath, if this thing gets to trial.
Cheshire: I understand the court is denying the motion to have AV's discussion with police and DA. Can you have DA provide it under court seal?
Judge: No
Cheshire: I'm not indicating the state isn't doing everything they can to provide discovery, but I ask court to issue order ordering as statute requires that everyone put things in writing, law enforcement to certify that this has been done, order to DA to provide all discovery and to make representation to court that he has persnally read and viewed all documents and files and contacted LE to ensure he has received all evidence and will provide all material to defendant. I'm asking for what the statute requires.
Judge: You're asking the court to have him tell me he's satisfied statute and certify it. Denied.
Stephens can't understand why Cheshire would doubt Nifong.
Stephens denies motion after motion !
I'm watching CTV.
So far, we have learned:
1. Nothing has happened as we suspected at Durham Access. One form was filled out.
2. The rape exam left out irrelevent pages. [No Nifong they know how a rape kit is done, they think you are a liar and may well be sandbagging them.]
Deny....deny....deny....
Hh??
Expects Nifong to comply but will not require him to certify?????/
Judge asks Nifong and Cheshire to approach the bench.
See, this is where it's so different. We were allowed to depose the Accuser -- she was even worse in the deposition than she was on the stand at the Preliminary and in her written statement to the school, and in her statement to the police. It got so bad the D.A. did a smack down in the deposition. This is awful. You can't defend what you can't see coming. I guess that's the point.
Judge asks both Nifong and Cheshire to approach the bench.
Wonder what's up at the bench?
Stephens barely let Cheshire finish before Denying his motions. He had his mind already made up.
More Good Ol' Durham Justice !
Judge asks Nifong and Reade's attorney to approach the bench.
So much for public access in NC courts....
Each denial is a possible route to an appeal (if needed).
You don't honestly think that Stephens would make "his" DA write a note from his parents (figuratively) to say he is complying with the law.
Guess the Judge is going to tell Cheshire to know his role and shut his mouth. And Nifong to bring his golf club next time they have lunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.