"I didn't read the transcript, but yes I did gather that the decision to depart from the NC photo line-up guidelines was made by Nifong. Nevertheless, I don't believe that a failure to conform to state guidelines, if that failure does NOT rise to the level of a U.S. federal constitutional violation, would give much added weight to a federal civil rights claim for damages against Durham."
Any indictment obtained on the basis of an unconstitutionally (and intentionally) suggestive lineup most certainly would constitute a federal constitutional violation. While Nifong's conscious decision to instruct the police officers conducting the lineup to violate the guidelines may not, in and of itself, be sufficient to prove the required section 1983 elements, it is very powerful circumstantial evidence of such an intent.
"If the photo identification IS found to be a violation of the US Constitution, then yes that would of course greatly help the defendants in succeeding on a claim for damages for violation of federal civil rights."
You obviously meant to say it would greatly help the plaintiffs. Even so, there would not need to be a prior judicial determination to that effect. The plaintiffs could introduce evidence bearing on that issue at trial.
"And of course a failure to conform to the state guidelines may in and of itself be sufficient for a North Carolina court to exclude the photo identification, and a court could then easily further conclude that an in-court identification would also have to be suppressed, in which event the case would almost certainly have to be thrown out on that basis, but I don't know the answer as to whether a North Carolina court has the power to exclude a photo ID solely on the basis that it did not conform to the state guidelines."
That would certainly dispose of the criminal charges. Like you, I don't know for sure if a violation of the guidelines alone would be sufficient reason for a North Carolina court to exclude a subsequent in-court identification. However, as a lawyer and former appellate judicial clerk, I can give you plenty of reasons it *should* be sufficient grounds for exclusion, particularly when there is also evidence of the prosecutor's intent to violate the guidelines.
When I refer to "the defendants" seeking federal civil rights damages, I am referring to the lacrosse case defendants.
The body of 1983 cases is so vast, one can find winners on slim circumstantial evidence and losers on what one would think is very strong evidence. This, like many areas of law, is not one where IMO one should purport to predict outcomes with absolute certainty, but is better stated in terms of odds.
My take on their odds of success based on what has been publicly revealed about the case so far, taking ALL factors (legal and practical) into account, is about 1:4. I take it you would put them at better than 1:1.