|
By William F. West : The Herald-Sun
bwest@heraldsun.com
Sep 1, 2006 : 11:20 pm ET
DURHAM -- Attorneys for the three Duke lacrosse players charged with assaulting an exotic dancer claim District Attorney Mike Nifong and police still haven't provided several vital documents in the case, as required by law.
As a result, the defense lawyers have filed papers in Superior Court calling for Nifong to produce those documents.
The request to Judge Osmond Smith comes after Durham County's chief prosecutor told Smith and defense lawyers at a recent meeting that a toxicology report indicated the accuser's tested negative for the presence of controlled substances.
That undercuts public hints by Nifong in April that the woman might have been given a date-rape drug, defense attorney Kirk Osborn said.
In court papers filed this week, the defense argued it hasn't seen the written report despite indications Nifong would provide copies.
In addition, the defense is calling for Nifong to hand over complete copies of information regarding laboratory testing in the case by the State Bureau of Investigation and by the testing firm DNA Security Inc.
The Herald-Sun was not able to reach attorneys for the three indicted athletes -- Reade Seligmann, 20; Collin Finnerty, 19; and David Evans, 23 -- for comment Friday.
Seligmann, Finnerty and Evans maintain their innocence on all counts -- rape, kidnapping and sexual offense -- in connection with allegations surrounding events at the lacrosse team party March 13 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., next to Duke's East Campus.
Nifong didn't respond to a request for comment left with his office Friday.
In its filing this week, the defense also is pressing for more information about what happened in the hours after the alleged attack, particularly information regarding the accuser's trip with police to the Durham Access Center, a mental health and substance abuse facility, for involuntary commitment.
The accuser reportedly began making rape allegations while at that center.
The defense cites the lack of a substantive report about the accuser's presence at the center, and the defense points to a blank check-in log as an example of inadequate information.
In addition, the defense wants to find out what was said at a meeting Nifong and police had with the accuser April 11 at the county courthouse.
The defense said Nifong argued to an earlier judge that such information was off-limits to the defense.
More specifically, the defense argues Nifong claimed at a case hearing June 22 that the defense was not entitled to know because facts regarding the legal action were not discussed with the accuser. And the defense adds that Nifong considers that to be a confidential communication.
Debunking that argument, the defense says, is that an investigator -- Sgt. Mark Gottlieb -- in a typewritten narrative said Nifong and the accuser met and talked about the case.
The defense points out, additionally, that a police major issued a memo stating all police personnel involved in the investigation were directed to produce all e-mails to and from one other about the case.
The defense said that while the message specified a June 5 deadline for compliance -- with threats of disciplinary action for failure to comply -- there is evidence police have not fully complied.
The defense argues that, in one instance, a crime scene investigator produced a number of e-mails -- but only after defense attorney Brad Bannon found them in the investigator's case file July 18 while at the police station.
The defense goes on to contend that nearly a dozen law enforcement officers who have been involved in the case have not provided all their handwritten notes.
The defense also wants to know more about what police have on file about the woman's background in Durham and about her interaction with the local criminal justice system.
The defense, again citing the July 18 date, argues that Bannon's review of an investigative file at the police station reflects the accuser was involved -- as a suspect, witness or otherwise -- in at least five other probes.
And the defense wants to see what police may have communicated to the Durham City Council.
According to the defense, Gottlieb, in a typewritten document, said that on April 4, he was asked by a captain to produce a timeline of events for the city manager, Patrick Baker, for possible presentation to the council.
The defense wants a copy of that timeline plus a report of the substance of any meetings between or among law enforcement officers, the manager and any council member.
Baker soon afterward briefed the City Council on several points about the case.
|