Duke Lacrosse Case - Lawsuits Filed By Falsely Accused Players

Lawsuits Filed By Falsely Accused Players

On September 7, 2007, it was reported that the ex-players planned to file a lawsuit for violations of their civil rights against the city of Durham, and several city employees, unless the city agreed to a settlement including payment of $30 million over five years and the passage of new criminal justice reform laws. The city's liability insurance covers up to $5 million. Lawyers have cited three main areas of vulnerability for the city:

• The suspect-only photo identification procedure given to Mangum.
• Vast discrepancies in notes taken by Investigator Benjamin Himan during his March interview with Mangum and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb's notes in July
• The release of a CrimeStoppers poster by the police shortly after the allegations that a woman "was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific crime sent shock waves throughout our community."

Durham declined the settlement offer and on October 5, 2007, Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann filed a federal lawsuit alleging a broad conspiracy to frame the players. Named in the suit were Nifong, the lab that handled the DNA work, the city of Durham, the city's former police chief, the deputy police chief, the two police detectives who handled the case and five other police department employees. The players are seeking unspecified damages, and also want to place the Durham Police Department under court supervision for 10 years, claiming the actions of the police department pose "a substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the City of Durham". According to the suit, Nifong engineered the conspiracy to help him win support for his election bid. Nifong reportedly told his campaign manager that the case would provide "'millions of dollars' in free advertising."

On January 15, 2008, the city of Durham filed a motion to remove itself as a defendant, arguing that it has no responsibility for Nifong's actions. On the same day, Nifong filed for bankruptcy—a decision thought by many experts to be a tacit admission that he lacked the resources to defend himself. On May 27, 2008, Judge William L. Stocks lifted the stay from Nifong's bankruptcy filing and ruled that the plaintiffs lawsuit could go forward.

On March 31, 2011, Judge James Beaty issued a ruling on the Evans et. al. case, upholding claims against Nifong and his hired investigator Wilson for conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution in the course of their investigation; the city of Durham for negligence; Nifong, Wilson, and police investigators Gottlieb and Himan for malicious prosecution, concealment of evidence, and fabrication of false evidence.