Readers Note:
This post was produced on 10/7/07 when an important court filing was available only in pdf form. Read on and you'll learn why it's posted with another date.
I'm a tech dummy but a friend "flipped" the 10/5/07 Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann suit filing from pdf. into Word.doc form.
Some of the indenting, spacing and italicizing were "lost" in the "flip" but spot checking a number of places in the Word.doc form indicated the text content is all there.
Double spacing was also lost in the "flip," but most of you should be able to easily create a double spaced Word doc. by copying this post or parts thereof off the screen, pasting it into Word and going from there.
While the filing occurred on 10/5/07 I'm posting the Word.doc form with a much earlier date stamp, so this extremely lengthy post doesn't "crowd" current posts. You can bookmark this post or copy it yourself.
Those of you who have been truth and justice seekers throughout the Duke Hoax and are reading this in October 2007 or latter will appreciate the date stamp I've chosen.
It's March 25, 2006, the day the Raleigh News & Observer published it's deliberately fraudulent "anonymous interview" story about what it said was a young, black mother's "ordeal" which ended finally in "sexual violence."
I hope the filing in Word.doc form is helpful to many of you.
John
__________________________________
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 07-739
DAVID F. EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; and
READE SELIGMANN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA;
MICHAEL B. NIFONG; MARK GOTTLIEB;
BENJAMIN HIMAN; DAVID ADDISON;
LINWOOD WILSON; STEVEN CHALMERS;
BEVERLY COUNCIL; RONALD HODGE;
JEFF LAMB; STEPHEN MIHAICH;
MICHAEL RIPBERGER; LEE RUSS;
DNA SECURITY, INC.; RICHARD CLARK; and
BRIAN MEEHAN,
Defendants.
CIVIL COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 1 of 155
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NATURE OF ACTION.......................................................................................................1
PARTIES.............................................................................................................................3
A.
The Plaintiffs.................................................................................................3
B.
The Defendants..............................................................................................4
1.
The District Attorney Defendants......................................................4
2.
The City of Durham Defendants........................................................5
a.
The Supervisory Defendants...................................................5
b.
The Investigator/Spokesperson Defendants............................7
3.
The DNA Security Defendants ..........................................................8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE..........................................................................................9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS............................................................................................10
A.
Durham Police Officers Initially Conclude that Crystal
Mangum’s Rape Allegations Are False ......................................................10
1.
Crystal Mangum’s Bizarre Behavior ...............................................10
2.
Mangum Recants Her Rape Allegations..........................................13
3.
Mangum Gives Contradictory Statements to Medical
Personnel and the Durham Police ....................................................14
4.
The Medical Examinations of Mangum Further Contradict
Her Claims........................................................................................18
B.
The Initial Durham Police Investigation.....................................................21
1.
Gottlieb Takes Over the Investigation .............................................21
2.
Kim Pittman Tells Police that Mangum’s Claims Are a
“Crock”.............................................................................................22
3.
Mangum Fails To Describe or Identify the Plaintiffs ......................24
4.
Mangum Continues To Contradict Herself......................................26
5.
Mangum’s Prior History of False Rape Allegations........................28
6.
Evans and Other Lacrosse Captains Cooperate Fully with
Police................................................................................................28
7.
The Lacrosse Team Cooperates with the Non-Testimonial
Order.................................................................................................30
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 2 of 155
Page 3
C.
Nifong Takes Over the Durham Police Investigation.................................32
1.
Nifong’s Broken Promise Not To Run for Election ........................32
2.
Durham Police Officials Put Nifong in Charge ...............................32
3.
Nifong’s Awareness of the Absence of Evidence To
Charge the Three Innocent Duke Lacrosse Players .........................34
D.
Defendants’ Refusals to Consider Exculpatory Evidence ..........................35
E.
Defendants’ Extrajudicial Efforts To Manufacture Indictments of
the Three Innocent Duke Lacrosse Players.................................................36
1.
The False and Inflammatory Public Statements by Nifong
and the Durham Police.....................................................................36
a.
The Nifong Statements..........................................................36
b.
The Durham Police Statements.............................................44
2.
The Initial DNA Testing Further Confirms Mangum Is
Lying ................................................................................................47
3.
The Conspiracy to Manufacture False Identifications.....................50
a.
The April Photo Array ..........................................................50
b.
Defendants Replace a Written Lineup Policy
Intended To Protect the Innocent with a New
Lineup Crafted to Ensure False Identifications.....................52
c.
Mangum Continues To Contradict Herself
Notwithstanding the Rigged Photo Array.............................56
4.
The DNA Conspiracy.......................................................................59
a.
Nifong and the Durham Police Shop for a New
DNA Expert and Retain DSI.................................................59
b.
DSI’s Testing Excludes All of the Duke Lacrosse
Players from the Rape Kit Items with 100%
Certainty................................................................................60
c.
The April 10 Meeting............................................................62
d.
The April 17 Indictments of Collin Finnerty and
Reade Seligmann...................................................................64
e.
The April 21 Meeting............................................................67
f.
The May 12 Meeting and the May 12 Report.......................70
g.
The May 15 Indictment of David Evans...............................72
- ii -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 3 of 155
Page 4
F.
Post-Indictment Efforts To Conceal Defendants’ Misconduct and
Obstruct Justice ...........................................................................................73
1.
The Arrest and Intimidation of Alibi Witnesses..............................74
2.
Gottlieb’s Phony “Supplemental Case Notes”.................................79
3.
Additional False Public Statements .................................................81
4.
Defendants’ Misrepresentations About the DNA Evidence ............82
a.
The September 22 Hearing....................................................87
b.
The December 15 Hearing....................................................90
5.
Further Efforts To Reshape the Factual Record After the
December 15 Hearing, Including Additional Witness
Tampering ........................................................................................92
G.
The North Carolina Attorney General and State Bar Conclude
that the Plaintiffs Are Innocent ...................................................................94
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ....................................................................................................97
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ....................................................................................................98
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..................................................................................................100
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MAKING FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983 ..................................................................................................102
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(MONELL V. DEP’T OF SOCIAL SERVS., 436 U.S. 658 (1977))......................104
A.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority for Durham Police
Approved the Unconstitutional Conduct of Their Subordinates...............105
B.
Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Permitting
Officers to Publish Premature Conclusions of Criminality and
Guilt...........................................................................................................106
C.
Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Targeting
Duke University Students for Harassment Through Selective and
Improper Enforcement of the Criminal Laws...........................................107
- iii -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 4 of 155
Page 5
D.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Nifong...................................108
E.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Gottlieb.................................110
F.
After Being Given Final Policymaking Authority over the
Durham Police Investigation, Nifong Directed Officers to
Engage in Constitutional Violations. ........................................................111
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
SUPERVISORY VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ......................................113
A.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Supervise the
Investigation Resulted in Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional
Rights.........................................................................................................113
B.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Control and Supervise
Gottlieb Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights. ...............115
C.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failures to Train, Control, and
Supervise Addison Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional
Rights.........................................................................................................116
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .....................................118
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE).........................................................................120
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(WITNESS TAMPERING)..................................................................................122
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).................................123
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DURHAM
POLICE)...............................................................................................................124
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DNA
SECURITY).........................................................................................................126
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY.......................................127
- iv -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 5 of 155
Page 6
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY.......................................130
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND
CONSPIRACY.....................................................................................................132
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE...........133
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND
RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE...............................................................134
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY
DURHAM POLICE .............................................................................................137
NINTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY
DURHAM POLICE (DURHAM POLICE STATEMENTS)..............................138
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENCE BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS............................139
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND
RETENTION BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS...............................141
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS......................................................142
PRAYER FOR RELIEF..................................................................................................143
JURY DEMAND.............................................................................................................148
- v -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 6 of 155
Page 7
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
This is a civil action for damages and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
42 U.S.C. § 1985, 42 U.S.C. § 1986, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), and the common law of
the State of North Carolina arising from one of the most chilling episodes of
premeditated police, prosecutorial, and scientific misconduct in modern American
history, which resulted in charges brought and maintained against three innocent
Duke University students and lacrosse players over a period of more than one
year.
2.
From March 15, 2006 to April 11, 2007, Defendants, individually and in concert,
maliciously conspired to bring charges of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping
against these three innocent students. Defendants knew that these charges were
completely and utterly unsupported by probable cause, and a total fabrication by a
mentally troubled, drug prone exotic dancer whose claims, time and again, were
contradicted by physical evidence, documentary evidence, other witnesses, and
even the accuser herself. In their rush to accuse, Defendants willfully ignored and
were deliberately indifferent to overwhelming evidence of Plaintiffs’ actual
innocence.
3.
Instead, Defendants used the accuser’s inconsistent and demonstrably false
allegations as the fuel for a media campaign to obtain indictments and win a hotly-
contested election at the expense of the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
With a community and a nation thus inflamed and clamoring for indictments of
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 7 of 155
Page 8
Duke lacrosse players, but with no evidence that any players had actually
committed a crime, Defendants set about to fabricate such evidence. And, when
scientific testing threatened to expose the truth by reaffirming that the accuser was
lying and that no crime had occurred, Defendants conspired to conceal this
exculpatory evidence in order to charge and convict the Plaintiffs on “facts” they
knew to be untrue. Defendants’ actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard
for and deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and Defendants’
responsibilities to the criminal justice system.
4.
As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered deprivations of the
rights guaranteed to them under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina
Constitution; they have suffered economic, emotional, and physical harm; they
have suffered irreparable harm to their reputations; and they have incurred
millions of dollars in legal fees defending themselves against criminal
prosecutions that the Defendants knew were baseless.
5.
Moreover, because the Defendants' policies, customs, practices, and supervisory
misconduct raises a substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the
City of Durham, Plaintiffs seek the entry of an Order and Permanent Injunction, as
set forth in further detail below, to protect all persons and to prevent such
misconduct from ever happening again.
- 2 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 8 of 155
Page 9
PARTIES
A.
The Plaintiffs
6.
Plaintiff David F. Evans is a citizen and resident of New York.
7.
Plaintiff Collin Finnerty is a citizen and resident of New York.
8.
Plaintiff Reade Seligmann is a citizen and resident of New Jersey.
9.
As of March 13, 2006, each of the Plaintiffs was an undergraduate student
enrolled at Duke University, one of the leading academic universities in the world.
10.
As of March 13, 2006, each of the Plaintiffs was in good academic standing at
Duke.
11.
As of March 13, 2006, each of the Plaintiffs was a member of Duke’s nationally-
ranked men’s lacrosse team, which one year earlier had competed in the national
championship game of the NCAA Division I Men’s Lacrosse Tournament.
12.
As of March 13, 2006, Evans was a senior at Duke and was on track to graduate
on May 14, 2006. Evans was also a co-captain of the Duke lacrosse team. Evans
had accepted an offer to work for a leading Wall Street investment bank after his
graduation from Duke.
13.
As of March 13, 2006, Finnerty was a sophomore at Duke and was on track to
graduate in May 2008. Finnerty was also a member of the Duke lacrosse team.
14.
As of March 13, 2006, Seligmann was a sophomore at Duke and was on track to
graduate in May 2008. Seligmann was also a member of the Duke lacrosse team.
- 3 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 9 of 155
Page 10
B.
The Defendants
1.
The District Attorney Defendants
15.
Defendant Michael Nifong was, at all times relevant to this action, the District
Attorney for the Fourteenth Prosecutorial District in North Carolina
(encompassing the City of Durham and Durham County). Between March 24,
2006 and January 12, 2007, Nifong also directed the Durham Police Department’s
factual investigation of the allegations regarding the Duke lacrosse team, and in
that capacity served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the Durham
Police Department with respect to this investigation. On June 16, 2007, Nifong
was disbarred by the North Carolina bar for his actions relating to the investigation
and prosecution of Plaintiffs. On June 18, 2007, Nifong was suspended from his
position as District Attorney, and on July 2, 2007, Nifong tendered his resignation
as District Attorney. On August 31, 2007, Nifong was found guilty of criminal
contempt by the Superior Court for Durham County for Nifong’s actions relating
to the investigation and prosecution of Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief,
Nifong is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of
North Carolina.
16.
Defendant Linwood Wilson was, at all times relevant to this action, an investigator
employed by the District Attorney for the Fourteenth Prosecutorial District in
North Carolina. Wilson was fired from the District Attorney’s Office on or about
- 4 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 10 of 155
Page 11
June 25, 2007. Upon information and belief, Wilson is, and has been at all times
relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
2.
The City of Durham Defendants
17.
Defendant City of Durham is a municipal corporation formed under the laws of
North Carolina. Upon information and belief, the City of Durham has purchased
liability insurance and/or participates in a municipal risk-pooling scheme
sufficient under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-485 to waive its immunity against civil
liability.
18.
The City of Durham operates the Durham Police Department (“Durham Police”),
which is the city department having law enforcement authority in the City of
Durham.
a.
The Supervisory Defendants
19.
Defendant Steven Chalmers was, at all times relevant to this action. the Chief of
Police for the Durham Police Department. In that capacity, Chalmers served in a
supervisory and/or policymaking role for the Durham Police Department. Upon
information and belief, Chalmers is, and has been at all times relevant to this
action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
20.
Defendant Ronald Hodge is and was, at all times relevant to this action. the
Deputy Chief of Police for the Durham Police Department. In that capacity,
Hodge served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the Durham Police
- 5 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 11 of 155
Page 12
Department. Upon information and belief, Hodge is, and has been at all times
relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
21.
Defendant Lee Russ is and was, at all times relevant to this action. Executive
Officer to the Chief of Police in the Durham Police Department. In that capacity,
Russ served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the Durham Police
Department. Upon information and belief, Russ is, and has been at all times
relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
22.
Defendant Stephen Mihaich is and was, at all times relevant to this action. the
Commander of Investigative Services for the Durham Police Department. In that
capacity, Mihaich served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the
Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief, Mihaich is, and has
been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
23.
Defendant Beverly Council is and was, at all times relevant to this action. the
Commander of the Uniform Patrol Bureau for the Durham Police Department. In
that capacity, Council served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the
Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief, Council is, and has
been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
24.
Defendant Jeff Lamb is and was, at all times relevant to this action. the
Commander of the District Two Uniform Patrol of the Durham Police Department.
In that capacity, Lamb served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the
- 6 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 12 of 155
Page 13
Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief, Lamb is, and has been
at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
25.
Defendant Michael Ripberger is and was, at all times relevant to this action. a
Lieutenant in the Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief,
Ripberger served in a supervisory and/or policymaking role for the Durham Police
Department. Upon information and belief, Ripberger is, and has been at all times
relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
26.
Defendants Chalmers, Hodge, Russ, Mihaich, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger are
referred to collectively herein as the “Supervisory Defendants.”
b.
The Investigator/Spokesperson Defendants
27.
Defendant David Addison is and was, at all times relevant to this action. a
Corporal employed by the Durham Police Department. Upon information and
belief, Addison’s duties include serving as an official spokesperson for the
Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief, Addison is, and has
been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North Carolina.
28.
Defendant Mark Gottlieb is and was, at all times relevant to this action. a detective
employed by the Durham Police Department. Upon information and belief,
Gottlieb is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident
of North Carolina.
29.
Defendant Benjamin Himan is and was, at all times relevant to this action. an
investigator employed by the Durham Police Department. Upon information and
- 7 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 13 of 155
Page 14
belief, Himan is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and
resident of North Carolina.
3.
The DNA Security Defendants
30.
Defendant DNA Security, Inc. (“DSI”) is a corporation formed under the laws of
North Carolina with its primary place of business in Burlington, North Carolina.
During times relevant to this action, DSI was retained by the State of North
Carolina, the City of Durham, or the Durham Police Department, to provide
forensic analysis services relating to the investigation of Plaintiffs and the Duke
lacrosse team, and in this capacity acted under color of state law at all times
relevant herein.
31.
Defendant Richard Clark is the President of DSI. Clark participated in DSI’s
engagement by the State of North Carolina, the City of Durham, or the Durham
Police Department, to provide forensic analysis services relating to the
investigation of Plaintiffs and the Duke lacrosse team, and in this capacity acted
under color of state law at all times relevant to this action. Upon information and
belief, Clark is also the controlling shareholder of DSI, and serves in a supervisory
capacity with respect to DSI personnel. Upon information and belief, Clark is, and
has been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and resident of North
Carolina.
32.
Defendant Brian Meehan is the Laboratory Director of DSI and, upon information
and belief, serves in a supervisory capacity with respect to DSI personnel.
- 8 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 14 of 155
Page 15
Meehan was retained by the State of North Carolina, the City of Durham, or the
Durham Police Department, to provide forensic analysis services relating to the
investigation of Plaintiffs and the Duke lacrosse team, and in this capacity acted
under color of state law at all times relevant to this action. Upon information and
belief, Meehan is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, a citizen and
resident of North Carolina.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
33.
This action arises under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States; Article I, Section 19, of the North Carolina State
Constitution; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 42 U.S.C. § 1985; 42 U.S.C. § 1986; 42 U.S.C.
§ 1988(b); and North Carolina law.
34.
This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional and federal law
claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a).
35.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they are part of the same case and controversy
described by Plaintiffs’ federal claims, and independent original jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because this action is
between citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum
of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
36.
Venue is proper in the Middle District of North Carolina pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1391(b)(1), (2), and (3), because most or all of the Defendants reside and may
- 9 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 15 of 155
Page 16
be found in the Middle District of North Carolina and a substantial part of the
events giving rise to these claims occurred in the Middle District of North
Carolina.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A.
Durham Police Officers Initially Conclude that Crystal Mangum’s
Rape Allegations Are False
1.
Crystal Mangum’s Bizarre Behavior
37.
In the early morning of March 14, 2006, two exotic dancers, Crystal Mangum and
Kim Pittman, arrived at the Kroger grocery store on Hillsborough Road in
Durham. Mangum and Pittman were occasionally employed by Angels Escort
Service.
38.
From approximately 12:00 midnight to 12:04 a.m., Mangum and Pittman had
attempted a brief dance performance for a group of Duke students at an off-
campus home located at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard in Durham (“610 N.
Buchanan”), which was the home of plaintiff David Evans and fellow co-captains
Daniel Flannery and Matthew Zash. The attendees included some, but not all,
members of the lacrosse team, and some students who were not lacrosse players
also attended the party.
39.
Upon information and belief, Mangum was under the influence of alcohol and/or
drugs before, during, and after the performance at 610 N. Buchanan.
- 10 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 16 of 155
Page 17
40.
Mangum and Pittman left 610 N. Buchanan in Pittman’s car. While in Pittman’s
car, Mangum became belligerent and accused Pittman of stealing her purse and
money, and refused to leave Pittman’s car. When Pittman tried to remove
Mangum from her car in the Kroger parking lot, Mangum told Pittman to “go
ahead . . . put marks on me . . . that’s what I want . . . put marks on me.”
41.
Pittman asked a Kroger security guard to intervene. The security guard made the
immediate assessment that Mangum was intoxicated and made a 911 call to
Durham Police.
42.
Sergeant John Shelton of the Durham Police was the first to respond to the 911
call. He met Pittman in the Kroger parking lot. Pittman said that Mangum was so
severely intoxicated that she could not care for herself. Pittman told Sergeant
Shelton that she had given Mangum a ride, but that Mangum now refused to leave
her car.
43.
Sergeant Shelton observed Mangum in the front passenger seat and attempted to
rouse her. When she did not respond, Sergeant Shelton broke an ammonia capsule
under Mangum’s nose, at which point Mangum immediately began to breathe
through her mouth.
44.
Based on his training and experience, Sergeant Shelton immediately recognized
from Mangum’s response that Mangum was only pretending to be unconscious.
Mangum admitted as much months later during an interview conducted by special
prosecutors in the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office.
- 11 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 17 of 155
Page 18
45.
With assistance from another officer, Sergeant Shelton removed Mangum from
Pittman’s car and placed her in a marked patrol car.
46.
Because Mangum was pretending to be unconscious, Sergeant Shelton could not
take her home or put her in jail. Accordingly, Sergeant Shelton directed
uniformed Durham Police officers to transport Mangum to Durham ACCESS, a
local outpatient mental health clinic for a twenty-four hour observation.
47.
If Mangum had allowed herself to be admitted to Durham ACCESS, she would
have been involuntarily held at the facility for at least twenty-four hours.
48.
During her intake interview at Durham ACCESS, Mangum alleged that she had
been raped at 610 N. Buchanan, at which point she was transported by Durham
Police officers to Duke Medical Center for a rape exam.
49.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including Mangum’s bizarre behavior and
Sergeant Shelton’s conclusion that she was feigning unconsciousness, yet willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating
Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players.
50.
Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including Mangum’s bizarre behavior and Sergeant Shelton’s conclusion
that she was feigning unconsciousness, yet willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence
- 12 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 18 of 155
Page 19
demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke
lacrosse players
2.
Mangum Recants Her Rape Allegations
51.
At or around the time that Mangum was being transported to Duke Medical
Center, Sergeant Shelton was informed of Mangum’s rape allegation and drove to
Duke Medical Center to conduct an interview of Mangum. During the interview,
Mangum stated to Shelton that she was a professional stripper; that she had been
hired by Angels Escort Service to perform with another woman named “Nikki”
(Pittman’s stage name) at 610 N. Buchanan; that an altercation broke out between
Nikki and some of their audience; and that the two then left the party.
52.
During the interview, Mangum specifically denied to Shelton that she had been
forced to engage in sexual activity. Instead, she claimed only that someone had
taken her money.
53.
Sergeant Shelton reported Mangum’s recantation of her earlier rape allegation to
the Durham Police Watch Commander.
54.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of Mangum’s recantation, yet willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in
their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
55.
Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of
Mangum’s recantation, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent
- 13 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 19 of 155
Page 20
or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’
innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
56.
To the contrary, upon information and belief, in or around May 2006, Defendants
Nifong, Wilson, Lamb, Gottlieb, and Himan, acting at the direction of the
Supervisory Defendants and other senior officials in the City of Durham,
attempted to intimidate and discredit Sergeant Shelton by subjecting him to an
internal investigation, accusations of unprofessional conduct, and threats of
disciplinary action for reporting Mangum’s recantation of her rape claim while at
Duke Medical Center on March 13.
3.
Mangum Gives Contradictory Statements to Medical Personnel
and the Durham Police
57.
Over the next two days, Mangum would reverse herself again, claiming that she
was raped in a series of wildly conflicting and patently implausible statements to
medical personnel and police officers.
58.
While at Duke Medical Center, Mangum separately and alternatively claimed that
she had been raped by three, four, five, and twenty different men.
59.
Mangum also told Duke medical personnel that she had not engaged in sexual
intercourse at any point before the alleged rape. This statement was utterly
disproved by subsequent DNA testing, which established, among other things, that
the various rape kit items collected from Mangum contained DNA from at least
four unidentified males—none of whom was a Duke lacrosse player—and that
- 14 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 20 of 155
Page 21
corroborated the witness statement provided by Mangum’s driver, Jarriel Johnson.
Johnson had told Durham Police that he had driven Mangum to various locations
in the Durham area so that Mangum could have sexual intercourse with other men
in the hours and days before the party, and that Johnson himself had had sexual
intercourse with Mangum in the days before the party.
60.
Mangum at one point told medical personnel at Duke Medical Center that she had
been performing at a bachelor’s party, and that one of the alleged rapists was the
groom. She claimed that the groom did not want to have intercourse with her
because he was getting married the next day. Of course, there was no bachelor
party at 610 N. Buchanan, and there was no groom there either.
61.
While at Duke Medical Center, Mangum also claimed that her (now three)
assailants were named Adam, Brett, and Matt; that none of the men used a
condom; that they ejaculated in her vagina or anus; that one of them ejaculated in
her mouth; and that before releasing her from the bathroom they “wiped [her]
vagina with [a] rag” and put her clothes back on. These claims were utterly
disproved by subsequent DNA testing, which revealed that the various rape kit
items collected from Mangum contained DNA from at least four unidentified
males—none of whom was a Duke lacrosse player—and that corroborated Jarriel
Johnson’s statement that Mangum was having intercourse with multiple different
partners in the hours and days before she arrived at 610 N. Buchanan.
- 15 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 21 of 155
Page 22
62.
While at Duke Medical Center, Mangum also claimed that Pittman had initially
attempted to convince Mangum to engage in a “threesome” with one of the men at
the party, and that Pittman had then assisted the alleged rapists in carrying
Mangum back into the house to be raped. Mangum further claimed at Duke
Medical Center that Pittman had threatened to leave Mangum on the street if she
did not engage in sexual activity with the men at the party. Pittman denied these
allegations. Mangum also alleged that Pittman had driven her to an unfamiliar
location in Raleigh or Durham, berated her, pushed her out of her car, called the
police, and stolen her money and possessions. Mangum reported rolling over
glass when Pittman pushed her out of the car. Of course, the medical reports
identified no evidence of injury from allegedly rolling on glass. Moreover, these
allegations were known to be false, given that Sergeant Shelton, not Pittman, had
removed Mangum from Pittman’s car himself.
63.
While at Duke Medical Center, Mangum claimed that the alleged sexual assault
occurred at “about 1:00 a.m.” Mangum had left 610 N. Buchanan prior to 1:00
a.m.
64.
On March 15, 2006, Mangum went to UNC Hospital to seek painkillers. When
asked why she needed the drugs, Mangum told UNC medical personnel that she
had been the victim of a violent assault in which she had allegedly been hit in the
head and pushed backwards into the sink, hitting her head, but that she was
“drunk” and “felt no pain” on the night of the attack. One day earlier, Mangum
- 16 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 22 of 155
Page 23
had indicated precisely the opposite to Duke medical personnel, alleging that she
was supposedly in excruciating pain from the alleged rape, but that she had not
otherwise been physically assaulted by her purported assailants. While at Duke
Medical Center, Mangum never once alleged that she had been hit in the face or
pushed into the sink.
65.
While at Duke Medical Center, Mangum claimed that she had been taking the
muscle relaxant Flexeril and had had one drink earlier in the evening. At UNC
Medical Center, however, Mangum stated that she was taking other prescription
drugs in addition to Flexeril and was very drunk at the party.
66.
Mangum made other conflicting statements to Durham Police on the morning of
March 14. As noted above, within hours of the purported sexual assault, Mangum
told Sergeant Shelton that she had not been raped at all. During the same visit to
Duke Medical Center, Mangum told Durham Police Officer G.D. Sutton that she
had been raped by five men, each of whom penetrated her with his penis at some
point during the attack. Both of these accounts contradicted her claims to Duke
medical personnel. Indeed, Durham Police officers at Duke Medical Center were
so convinced that Mangum’s rape claim was a hoax that they were overheard
stating that if any charges were brought relating to the party, they would not
exceed misdemeanor assault.
67.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including the various inconsistencies and
- 17 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 23 of 155
Page 24
contradictions in Mangum’s accounts and the conclusions of Durham Police
officers present at Duke Medical Center, yet willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in
their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
68.
Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including the various inconsistencies and contradictions in Mangum’s
accounts and the conclusions of Durham Police officers present at Duke Medical
Center, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly
negligent with respect to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their
rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
4.
The Medical Examinations of Mangum Further Contradict Her
Claims
69.
The rape examination that Duke medical personnel performed on Mangum on the
morning of March 14, 2006 was intended to document all physical evidence that
might constitute proof of a sexual assault and to gather all forensic evidence of
potentially sexual or violent contact. Among other things, Duke medical
personnel collected Mangum’s clothes, took oral, vaginal, and rectal swabs, and
collected samples of Mangum’s hair, blood, and skin cells for later forensic
analysis.
- 18 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 24 of 155
Page 25
70.
As confirmed in a report issued by the North Carolina Attorney General, this
examination produced no physical or medical evidence consistent with either rape
or the traumatic assault Mangum had claimed.
71.
Though Mangum reported being upset and in excruciating pain, her heart rate,
respiratory rate, and blood pressure were all normal.
72.
Notwithstanding her claims of a brutal sexual assault, the medical examination
identified no vaginal or anal bruising, tears, or bleeding. Instead, medical
personnel noted only “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls,” an observation that is
entirely consistent with Mangum having engaged in intercourse with multiple
different partners prior to the party—none of whom was a Duke lacrosse player—
as established by Jarriel Johnson’s witness statement and DNA testing conducted
by DSI and Meehan.
73.
The observation of “diffuse edema of the vaginal walls” is also consistent with
Mangum’s admission to Durham Police that she had performed, using a vibrator,
for a couple in a hotel room shortly before the lacrosse party.
74.
Upon information and belief, the observation of “diffuse edema of the vaginal
walls” is also consistent with a yeast infection.
75.
At the end of Mangum’s Duke Medical Center examination, officers from the
Durham Police Department took custody of the rape kit items collected by Duke
medical personnel. On March 27, 2006, the rape kit evidence was placed in the
custody of the crime lab of the State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”).
- 19 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 25 of 155
Page 26
76.
Subsequent forensic analysis by the SBI crime lab found no evidence that
Mangum was assaulted or any evidence that would otherwise corroborate her
claims. In particular, the SBI crime lab found no evidence of semen or sperm on
any of the samples, including those taken from Mangum’s mouth, vagina, and
anus. Defendant Nifong, disturbed by the SBI lab report, began to shop for
another opinion.
77.
Subsequent forensic analysis by Defendants DSI and Meehan also revealed that
the various rape kit items collected from Mangum contained DNA from at least
four unidentified males—none of whom was a Duke lacrosse player. These
results corroborated witness statements that Mangum was having intercourse with
multiple different partners in the hours and days before she arrived at 610 N.
Buchanan.
78.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including the medical and scientific evidence
that further refuted Mangum’s claims, yet they willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in
their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
79.
Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and Defendants Clark,
Meehan, and DSI also were aware of these facts, including the medical and
scientific evidence that further refuted Mangum’s claims, yet they willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to
- 20 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 26 of 155
Page 27
this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge the three
innocent Duke lacrosse players.
B.
The Initial Durham Police Investigation
1.
Gottlieb Takes Over the Investigation
80.
On March 14, 2006, responsibility for investigating Mangum’s rape claim was
assigned to Investigator B. Jones. On or about March 15, 2006, Jones concluded
that there was no evidence to proceed with a criminal investigation and that the
file would be closed.
81.
At that point, however, Durham Police did not close the investigation, but instead
reassigned the investigation to Defendant Mark Gottlieb.
82.
Upon information and belief, Gottlieb was known to supervisory officials in the
City of Durham and the Durham Police Department as having a history of
selective and malicious prosecution, false arrest, excessive use of force,
manufacturing of evidence, and filing of false police reports against students at
Duke University. Upon information and belief, Gottlieb was so notorious in his
dislike of Duke students that he had even been reassigned from covering the
Trinity Park neighborhood around Duke University because of his prior
misconduct and abhorrent record with respect to Duke students. The house where
the party occurred, 610 N. Buchanan, is located in Trinity Park.
- 21 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 27 of 155
Page 28
83.
Nevertheless, on March 15, 2006, Gottlieb was put in charge of the investigation,
which Durham Police officials knew related to a party attended by Duke students
in Trinity Park.
84.
On or about March 16, 2006, Gottlieb assigned Defendant Benjamin Himan to
assist him on the investigation. Himan was a rookie investigator who had started
in the Investigations Department of the Durham Police only two months earlier, in
January 2006. Upon information and belief, supervisory officials in the Durham
Police Department were aware of Himan’s inexperience, but allowed him to work
on the investigation, supervised by the known “Duke hater,” Gottlieb.
2.
Kim Pittman Tells Police that Mangum’s Claims Are a “Crock”
85.
Even after Gottlieb took over the investigation, Durham Police found nothing to
corroborate any rape claim, and abundant evidence to further confirm the initial
conclusions of Durham Police officers that Mangum was lying.
86.
On March 20, 2006, Defendant Himan spoke with Tammy Rose of Angels Escort
Service. Rose identified Pittman as the second dancer who performed with
Mangum at 610 N. Buchanan. Rose added that she had already spoken to Pittman
about Mangum’s rape claim, and that Pittman had told her that there had been no
such assault.
87.
On March 20, 2006, Himan called Pittman, who confirmed that she had heard
about Mangum’s allegations of sexual assault, that they were a “crock,” and that
there was no opportunity for the alleged assault to have occurred. Upon
- 22 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 28 of 155
Page 29
information and belief, notwithstanding all of the evidence that already showed
Mangum was lying, Gottlieb instructed Himan to summon Pittman to their
Durham Police station and to arrest her on an outstanding warrant if she did not
recant her prior statement that Mangum was lying.
88.
Upon information and belief, Gottlieb took these actions with the intent to obstruct
justice and to tamper with a witness who had provided evidence that the three
Duke lacrosse players were innocent and that Mangum had made false claims.
89.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of Pittman’s confirmation that Mangum was lying and the
resulting attempts to intimidate her into recanting that position, yet they willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating
Plaintiffs’ innocence and the misconduct underlying the investigation in their rush
to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
90.
Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of
Pittman’s confirmation that Mangum was lying and the resulting attempts to
intimidate her into recanting that position, yet they willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence
demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence and the misconduct underlying the
investigation in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
- 23 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 29 of 155
Page 30
3.
Mangum Fails To Describe or Identify the Plaintiffs
91.
On or about March 16, 2006, Gottlieb and Himan interviewed Mangum. During
this interview, they learned that Mangum was an exotic dancer who performed at a
club called “Platinum” in Hillsborough, North Carolina, and also an “independent
contractor” who worked on occasion through Angels Escort Service.
92.
Mangum also provided Gottlieb and Himan with what she claimed were the
physical descriptions of the (now) three men who purportedly had raped her.
According to Himan’s contemporaneous notes, Mangum’s descriptions did not
match the three Plaintiffs. For example, Mangum described “Matt” as “heavy
set,” with a “short hair cut,” weighing 260-270 lbs; she described “Adam” as a
“short,” “white male,” with “red cheeks,” “fluffy” brown hair, and “a chubby
face”; and she described “Brett” as “chubby.”
93.
On March 16 and 21, 2006, Durham Police Investigator R.D. Clayton showed
Mangum a series of photographic arrays, each containing six pictures of Duke
lacrosse players (the “March Photo Arrays”). In all, Mangum was shown a total of
36 pictures of Duke lacrosse players, including Evans and Seligmann, and
Mangum said that she could not identify any of those players as her alleged
assailants.
94.
On March 16, Clayton showed Mangum the array containing Seligmann’s
photograph. Mangum said she was 70% sure she recognized Seligmann from his
photograph, but stated that she could not remember exactly where she saw him at
- 24 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 30 of 155
Page 31
the party. Notably, Mangum did not claim that Seligmann was one of the men
who purportedly assaulted her.
95.
Clayton did not show Mangum any pictures of Evans or Finnerty on March 16.
96.
On March 21, Clayton twice showed Mangum the array containing Evans’s
photograph. Each time, Mangum failed to identify anyone in the array. Notably,
Mangum did not identify Evans at all, and she certainly did not claim that Evans
was one of the men who purportedly assaulted her.
97.
Clayton never showed Mangum a picture of Finnerty during any of the March
Photo Arrays. This was because Finnerty did not match any of the descriptions
that Mangum had provided of her purported assailants.
98.
During the March Photo Arrays, Clayton showed Mangum a picture of another
Duke lacrosse player, Brad Ross. When shown Ross’s picture, Mangum told
Clayton that she was 100% confident that she had seen Ross at the party at 610 N.
Buchanan. As Durham Police would later confirm, however, Ross was nowhere
near 610 N. Buchanan during the party, but instead was in Raleigh, North
Carolina, on the campus of North Carolina State University.
99.
Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately
indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to
charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
- 25 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 31 of 155
Page 32
100. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly
negligent with respect to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their
rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
4.
Mangum Continues To Contradict Herself
101. Mangum continued to contradict her various, already-inconsistent accounts of the
alleged rape in subsequent statements that she provided to Durham Police,
including in an interview with Gottlieb and Himan on March 16, 2006, and a
written statement she provided to Gottlieb and Himan on April 6, 2006.
102. As the following chart illustrates, Mangum could not keep her story straight even
after she had settled on a “final” version of the alleged events of the morning of
March 14. Instead, Mangum continued to change critical details about the alleged
attack, including, for example: (a) the purported sexual acts that each of her
alleged assailants performed during the claimed rape; (b) the identity of the
purported “bachelor” who was supposedly getting married the next day; (c) the
identity of the assailant who supposedly told her, “Sweetheart, you can’t leave [the
bathroom]”; (d) whether the names “Adam,” “Brett,” and “Matt” were actual
names or aliases used by the purported assailants; and (e) whether Kim Pittman
was an aider and abetter, a passive witness, or herself a victim of the purported
rape:
- 26 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 32 of 155
Page 33
Examples of Contradictions in Mangum’s Subsequent Accounts
March 14
Examination
(Final Version)
March 16
Interview
(Gottlieb/Himan)
April 6 Written
Statement
Adam’s
Role
Rape: anal
Rape: oral
Rape: oral
Brett’s Role
No rape
Rape: anal/vaginal
Rape: anal/vaginal
Matt’s Role
Rape: oral/vaginal
Rape: anal/vaginal;
choked Mangum
Rape: anal/vaginal;
hit Mangum in face
“Bachelor”
Matt
--
Adam
“Sweetheart,
you can’t
leave.”
Adam
Adam
Matt
Names or
Aliases?
Actual names
(“Dan” was an alias,
used by Matt)
Actual names
Aliases
(“Adam” was an alias,
used by Dan)
Pittman’s
Role
Assisted in rape;
robbed Mangum
Passive bystander
Victim
103. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including these additional contradictions in
Mangum’s various accounts, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately
indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to
charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
104. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including these additional contradictions in Mangum’s various accounts, yet
willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with
respect to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge
the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
- 27 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 33 of 155
Page 34
5.
Mangum’s Prior History of False Rape Allegations
105. On or about April 28, 2006, Defendants Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan learned that
Mangum had several years earlier made a remarkably similar allegation—that she
had been the victim of a purported gang rape by three men—while she lived in
Creedmoor, N.C., and that Mangum had ultimately declined to pursue her
allegations with the Creedmoor Police Department.
106. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson
were aware of these facts, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately
indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to
charge Evans and to sustain their prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann.
107. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly
negligent with respect to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their
rush to charge Evans and to sustain their prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann.
6.
Evans and Other Lacrosse Captains Cooperate Fully with Police
108. Mangum’s rape claims were further belied by the immediate, complete, and total
cooperation of Plaintiff Evans and the other two lacrosse players who lived at 610
N. Buchanan in response to a March 16, 2006 search warrant executed by
Defendants Gottlieb and Himan and other members of the Durham Police.
109. After Durham Police served the warrant, Evans and Zash denied that any attack
had occurred, and offered whatever assistance they could provide to clear things
- 28 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 34 of 155
Page 35
up. Daniel Flannery, the third resident of 610 N. Buchanan, arrived approximately
30 minutes after the search began, and also offered his full cooperation.
110. Evans, Zash, and Flannery did not contest the warrant, offered to help the officers
find items identified in the warrant, and when asked, readily agreed to accompany
Himan and Gottlieb to the station for interviews.
111. Evans, Zash, and Flannery voluntarily did everything that Himan and Gottlieb
asked of them. Moreover, none of them asked to speak with an attorney or
otherwise demonstrated any reluctance to cooperate.
112. Evans, Zash, and Flannery accompanied the officers to the station house, where
they submitted to hours of isolated interviews during which they were cooperative,
truthful, and declined counsel in an effort to assist in what the officers represented
was an honest pursuit of the truth.
113. Evans, Zash, and Flannery provided separate, detailed, and mutually consistent
accounts of the events on March 13 and 14. Each denied that Mangum had been
assaulted at any time while she was at 610 N. Buchanan.
114. Himan and Gottlieb kept Evans, Zash, and Flannery in the station house until
approximately 2:00 a.m. on March 17, 2006, at which point the officers asked
them to submit to a “Sexual Assault Suspect Kit” to rule them out as suspects.
Each agreed. Evans, Flannery, and Zash also offered to take a lie detector test, but
Himan and Gottlieb refused their offers.
- 29 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 35 of 155
Page 36
115. Himan transported Evans, Zash, and Flannery to Duke Medical Center, where they
were examined for evidence of scratches or other injuries consistent with an
attack, and provided DNA and hair samples.
116. The Duke medical investigators who examined Evans, Zash, and Flannery found
no evidence to support Mangum’s allegations.
117. Himan finally released Evans, Zash, and Flannery at about 4:05 a.m. on March 17,
2006, roughly eleven hours after the search warrant was executed.
118. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including the three co-captains’ immediate,
complete and voluntary cooperation with Himan and Gottlieb, yet willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to this evidence indicating Plaintiffs’
innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
119. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including the three co-captains’ immediate, complete and voluntary
cooperation with Himan and Gottlieb, yet willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence
indicating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke
lacrosse players.
7.
The Lacrosse Team Cooperates with the Non-Testimonial Order
120. On March 22 and 23, 2006, Gottlieb and Himan, in conjunction with the District
Attorney’s Office and Durham Police attorney Toni Smith, filed for and received a
- 30 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 36 of 155
Page 37
Non-Testimonial Order (“NTO”) directing that all white members of the Duke
lacrosse team provide DNA samples, submit to physical examinations, and allow
themselves to be photographed.
121. In support of that application, the District Attorney’s Office represented that “the
DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons, and
show conclusive evidence as to who the suspects are in the alleged violent attack
upon this victim.”
122. Each member of the Duke lacrosse team cooperated fully with the NTO, without
objection, providing DNA samples, submitting to examinations for injuries, and
allowing himself to be photographed.
123. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and
Wilson were aware of these facts, including the lacrosse team’s complete and total
cooperation with the NTO procedure, yet willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent to this evidence indicating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their
rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
124. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including the lacrosse team’s complete and total cooperation with the NTO
procedure, yet willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly
negligent with respect to this evidence indicating Plaintiffs’ innocence in their
rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
- 31 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 37 of 155
Page 38
C.
Nifong Takes Over the Durham Police Investigation
1.
Nifong’s Broken Promise Not To Run for Election
125. In April 2005, Defendant Michael Nifong was appointed to the post of Interim
District Attorney for the Fourteenth Prosecutorial District of North Carolina by
Governor Michael Easley.
126. In accepting the appointment to Interim District Attorney, Nifong promised
Governor Easley that he would not run for election.
127. By March 2006, Nifong had already broken his promise and decided to run for
election. Upon information and belief, Nifong would not have obtained full
vesting of his pension if he had lost the 2006 election and had to leave the District
Attorney’s Office.
128. In March 2006, Nifong was engaged in a hotly-contested political campaign in his
first effort to be elected to the position of District Attorney. He was facing
formidable competition in his own party’s primary election from two other
candidates, including a highly-regarded former assistant district attorney named
Freda Black, whom Nifong had fired upon being appointed District Attorney.
2.
Durham Police Officials Put Nifong in Charge
129. On or about March 24, 2006, Nifong learned of the investigation into Mangum’s
allegations.
130. Nifong immediately recognized that the investigation, and any subsequent
prosecution, would garner significant media attention, and that he was in a
- 32 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 38 of 155
Page 39
position to exploit Mangum’s high-profile, racially-charged rape allegation for his
personal political gain. As Nifong would later tell his campaign manager, the
Duke lacrosse case provided him with “millions” of dollars in free advertising.
131. On or about March 24, 2006, Nifong contacted Durham Police officials, who upon
information and belief included the Supervisory Defendants, and they agreed that
Nifong would direct the police investigation.
132. Upon information and belief, in March 2006, Durham Police officials—including
the Supervisory Defendants—knew that it was unprecedented for a district
attorney to direct a police investigation, that Nifong at the time was engaged in a
hotly-contested election campaign, and that by assuming primary responsibility for
the police investigation Nifong would be in a position to exploit Mangum’s high-
profile, racially-charged rape allegation for his personal political gain.
Nevertheless, these Defendants ignored these extraordinary circumstances and the
inherent conflict of interest by agreeing that Nifong would direct the police
investigation into Mangum’s allegations.
133. On or about March 24, 2006, Defendant Lamb instructed Gottlieb and Himan that
they should take their direction from Nifong regarding the investigation, rather
than the usual Durham Police chain of command, and that they should also report
to senior command staff in Durham Police on the investigation’s progress.
134. Upon information and belief, Nifong continued to direct the Durham Police
investigation of Mangum’s allegations until January 12, 2007, when Nifong
- 33 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 39 of 155
Page 40
recused himself for conflict of interest after the North Carolina bar had charged
him with ethics violations relating to the investigation and prosecution of the
Plaintiffs.
135. Nifong assigned Defendant Linwood Wilson, an investigator with the District
Attorney’s Office, to coordinate with Gottlieb and Himan with respect to the
police investigation. Upon information and belief, this was an unprecedented
assignment for Wilson, who like other investigators in the District Attorney’s
Office, had served only limited roles, such as scheduling witnesses and serving
subpoenas. Moreover, upon information and belief, Wilson had a record of
misconduct while working as a private investigator.
3.
Nifong’s Awareness of the Absence of Evidence To Charge the
Three Innocent Duke Lacrosse Players
136. On or about the morning of March 27, 2006, Nifong met with Gottlieb and Himan
to receive a briefing on what they had learned in their investigation (the “March 27
Briefing”).
137. Upon information and belief, during the March 27 Briefing, Gottlieb and Himan
proceeded to detail the extraordinary evidence of innocence and the fatal defects in
Mangum’s claims, including, for example, the numerous contradictions and
inconsistencies in Mangum’s accounts of events, the fact that Pittman had called
Mangum’s rape claim a “crock,” that Mangum had already viewed several photo
arrays and failed to identify any of her purported attackers, and that the three
- 34 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 40 of 155
Page 41
lacrosse team captains had voluntarily cooperated with police and denied that the
alleged attack occurred. Upon information and belief, Himan conveyed to Nifong
that Mangum was not credible.
138. During or immediately after the March 27 Briefing, Nifong responded to Gottlieb
and Himan, “You know, we’re f*cked.” Nifong’s vulgar, but candid, admission
revealed that even Nifong recognized at an early stage that there was no basis to
charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
D.
Defendants’ Refusals to Consider Exculpatory Evidence
139. Notwithstanding their knowledge of actual innocence and the numerous
inconsistencies and contradictions in Mangum’s versions of events, Defendants
repeatedly refused to meet with defense attorneys who offered to provide evidence
of Plaintiffs’ innocence on repeated occasions prior to the April 17 and May 15
Indictments.
140. On or about April 6, 2006, for example, Evans’s attorney, Joseph Blount Cheshire
V, sent a letter to Nifong offering to produce Evans for a meeting to continue
Evans’s full cooperation with the investigation. Nifong refused to meet with
either Cheshire or Evans.
141. Prior to the return of the April 17 Indictments, Seligmann’s attorney, Kirk Osborn,
also contacted Nifong to inform him that he had critical alibi evidence, including
telephone records, an eyewitness, and photographs from an ATM machine, to
establish that Seligmann was not at 610 N. Buchanan during the time Mangum
- 35 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 41 of 155
Page 42
claimed to have been attacked. Nifong similarly refused to meet with Osborn or
Seligmann and rebuffed their statements regarding Seligmann’s innocence.
142. Nifong also refused to meet with other attorneys representing the innocent Duke
lacrosse players, notwithstanding repeated requests for such meetings, prior to the
return of the April 17 Indictments.
143. It is virtually unheard of that a responsible, ethical district attorney would refuse to
receive evidence of innocence tendered by counsel for a putative defendant prior
to seeking an indictment.
E.
Defendants’ Extrajudicial Efforts To Manufacture Indictments of the
Three Innocent Duke Lacrosse Players
1.
The False and Inflammatory Public Statements by Nifong and
the Durham Police
a.
The Nifong Statements
144. At the time of the March 27 Briefing, the investigation had already started to
attract media attention, and Nifong was scheduled to commence a series of
televised and print interviews within hours of the March 27 Briefing with
members of the local and national news media regarding the investigation.
145. At the time of the March 27 Briefing, Nifong was less than six weeks away from
his contested primary election, and he was trailing in the polls.
146. Notwithstanding the substance of the March 27 Briefing, or his immediate
conclusion that “we’re f*cked,” Nifong proceeded in the following hours and days
to provide nearly 100 interviews to the news media in which he variously stated,
- 36 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 42 of 155
Page 43
among other things, that he had “no doubt” that three members of the Duke
lacrosse team had engaged in a vicious and racially-motivated gang rape, and that
the Duke lacrosse team was a gang of “hooligans” who had not cooperated with
authorities, but instead, had engaged in a “stone wall of silence” (the “Nifong
Statements”).
147. Examples of Nifong’s false and malicious public statements include the following:
a.
On or around March 24, 2006, Nifong accused the Duke lacrosse team
of obstructing justice and erecting a “wall of silence.”
b.
On or around March 27, 2006, Nifong told ABC News that in “this case,
where you have the act of rape—essentially a gang rape—is bad enough
in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial epithets against the
victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable . . . . The contempt
that was shown to the victim, based on her race, was totally
abhorrent . . . . My guess is that some of this stonewall of silence that
we have seen may crumble once charges start to come out.”
c.
On or around March 27, 2006, Nifong told NBC News that: “The
information that I have does lead me to conclude that a rape did
occur . . . . I’m making a statement to the Durham community and, as a
citizen of Durham, I am making a statement for the Durham community.
This is not the kind of activity we condone, and it must be dealt with
quickly and harshly.”
- 37 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 43 of 155
Page 44
d.
On or around March 28, 2006, Nifong asserted that all members of the
lacrosse team who declined to implicate other members in the assault
were “covering up for a bunch of hooligans.”
e.
On or around March 28, 2006, in an interview with the New York Times,
Nifong declared that: “The thing that most of us found so abhorrent, and
the reason I decided to take it over myself, was the combination of
gang-like rape activity accompanied by the racial slurs and general
racial hostility. There are three people who went into the bathroom with
the young lady, and whether the other people there knew what was
going on at the time, they do now and have not come forward. I’m
disappointed that no one has been enough of a man to come forward.
And if they would have spoken up at the time, this may never have
happened.”
f.
On a similar theme, on or around March 28, 2006, Nifong told the
Associated Press: “We’re talking about a situation where, had
somebody spoken up and said ‘Wait a minute, we can’t do this,’ this
incident might not have taken place.”
g.
On or around March 29, 2006, Nifong continued his string of racially
inflammatory and conclusory statements of guilt, telling the press: “The
circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of
- 38 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 44 of 155
Page 45
the things that were done . . . It makes a crime that is, by nature, one of
the most offensive and invasive even more so.”
h.
In an interview with Fox News on or around March 29, 2006, Nifong
declared: “There’s no doubt in my mind that she was raped and
assaulted in this location.”
i.
On or around March 29, 2006, Nifong reiterated this view on MSNBC’s
Abrams Report, telling his interviewer: “I am convinced that there was a
rape, yes sir . . . The circumstances of the case are not suggestive of the
alternative explanation that has been suggested by some of the members
of the situation. There is evidence of trauma in the victim’s vaginal area
that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital. And
her general demeanor was suggestive of the fact that she had been
through a traumatic situation.”
j.
On or around March 29, 2006, Nifong told CNN: “It just seems like a
shame that they are not willing to violate this seeming sacred sense of
loyalty to team for loyalty to community.”
k.
On or around March 30, 2006, Nifong was quoted in USA Today
promising to pursue the case regardless of “the feeling that Duke
students’ daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew
the right people.”
- 39 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 45 of 155
Page 46
l.
Nifong even had the audacity to attack the lacrosse team members’
decisions to consult counsel, telling CBS’s Early Show: “The lacrosse
team, clearly, has not been fully cooperative . . . I think that their
silence is a result of advice with counsel.”
m.
On or around March 29, 2006, the Duke lacrosse captains, including
Evans, issued a statement in which they stated, among other things:
“The DNA results will demonstrate that these allegations are absolutely
false.” On March 30, 2006, Nifong responded to this statement by
telling the media, including Plaintiffs’ own university newspaper, the
Duke Chronicle: “The statements that [the team] makes are inconsistent
with the physical evidence in this case. . . . They don’t want to admit to
the enormity of what they’ve done.”
n.
On or around March 31, 2006, Nifong asked ESPN why lacrosse team
members were so “unwilling to tell us what, in their words, did take
place that night? . . . And one would wonder why one needs an attorney
if one was not charged and had not done anything wrong.”
o.
On or around April 12, 2006, Nifong stated at a public forum for
Democratic Party candidates for District Attorney: “The reason that I
took this case is because this case says something about Durham that
I’m not going to let be said. . . . I’m not going to allow Durham’s view
- 40 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 46 of 155
Page 47
in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke
raping a black girl in Durham.”
148. On March 30, 2006, Evans’s defense attorney, Joe Cheshire, sent a letter to Nifong
expressing his concern that Nifong’s public statements prejudged the guilt of
lacrosse team members and objecting to Nifong’s false claims that Plaintiffs and
other lacrosse team members had refused to cooperate with the investigation.
Cheshire expressed his further concern that Nifong’s conduct had already
adversely affected Evans’s constitutional rights, and urged Nifong to refrain from
further public statement.
149. Rather than adjust his conduct, Nifong expanded the scope of his public attack.
On or about March 30, 2006, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation’s
crime lab finished its analysis of evidence gathered as part of the rape kit. That
analysis revealed no fibers, foreign hairs, blood, semen, sperm, or other forensic
evidence supporting Mangum’s allegations. Since Mangum had stated that her
attackers had not used condoms and had ejaculated inside her, this was a complete
repudiation of her rape claim.
150. Even though Nifong knew that this evidence further established that Mangum’s
rape charges were a lie, he did not drop the case. Instead, he actually commenced
a new series of public statements intended to convince the public, which was not
yet aware that Mangum had claimed that no condoms were used, that the DNA
- 41 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 47 of 155
Page 48
results would probably come back negative. Examples of these additional Nifong
Statements include the following:
a.
On or about April 11, 2006, Nifong told the Charlotte Observer that “I
would not be surprised if condoms were used . . . Probably an exotic
dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex.”
b.
During an appearance on MSNBC’s Abrams Report on or around March
31, 2006, Nifong again suggested that “If a condom were used, then we
might expect that there would not be any DNA evidence recovered
from, say, a vaginal swab.”
c.
In a public forum hosted by North Carolina Central University—the
school that Mangum claims to have attended—on April 11, 2006,
Nifong summarized his intention to prosecute regardless of what the
evidence proved. He promised that “My presence here means this case
is not going away,” dismissed the absence of forensic evidence, and
endorsed the view that absence of such evidence “doesn’t mean nothing
happened—it just means nothing was left behind.”
151. During this period, Nifong told his then-campaign manager that the media
coverage of the investigation and the Nifong Statements had provided his
campaign with millions of dollars of free advertising.
- 42 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 48 of 155
Page 49
152. The Nifong Statements were made in violation of the North Carolina Revised
Rules of Professional Conduct, and had direct and foreseeable consequences for
the criminal process instituted against the Plaintiffs.
153. The Nifong Statements foreclosed any objective search for truth, and committed
Durham Police, acting under Nifong’s direct supervision, to arrest three Duke
lacrosse players. Moreover, the Nifong Statements, made in the context of
Nifong’s ongoing political campaign, also compromised his office, making him a
partisan advocate of legal conclusions that, while unsupported by the facts, he
could not abandon for fear of losing face and the upcoming primary election.
154. The Nifong Statements also inflamed the public, including those who would
eventually serve on the grand juries that indicted Plaintiffs, by marking the
Plaintiffs as violent sex offenders whose guilt was already established beyond
doubt.
155. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of the
substance of the March 27 Briefing, of Nifong’s conclusion to Gottlieb and Himan
that “we’re f*cked,” and of the Nifong Statements that immediately followed the
March 27 Briefing. Nevertheless, the Supervisory Defendants, who already were
aware of Nifong’s hotly-contested election campaign, continued to allow Nifong
to have primary responsibility for the police investigation and to have Durham
Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that investigation.
- 43 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 49 of 155
Page 50
b.
The Durham Police Statements
156. The Nifong Statements were entirely consistent with similarly false and
inflammatory statements made by other members of the Durham Police.
157. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant
Ronald Hodge was the Deputy Chief of Police and the second-highest-ranking
official in the Durham Police Department.
158. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant
David Addison was assigned by the Supervisory Defendants to serve as an official
Durham Police spokesperson.
159. Beginning on March 24, 2006, Addison and Hodge made a series of public
statements in which they, like Nifong, stated falsely that Mangum had been
brutally assaulted by members of the Duke lacrosse team and that the members of
the lacrosse team were obstructing justice (the “Durham Police Statements”). At
the times they made these statements, Addison and Hodge knew or should have
known that they were false.
160. Examples of Addison’s and Hodge’s false and malicious statements include the
following
a.
On or about March 24, 2006, Addison told a reporter for WRAL TV:
“You are looking at one victim brutally raped. If that was someone
else’s daughter, child, I don’t think 46 would be a large enough number
to figure out exactly who did it.”
- 44 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 50 of 155
Page 51
b.
On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told reporters from CBS and
ABC News that a “brutal rape” occurred at 610 N. Buchanan.
c.
On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Durham Herald-Sun that
when Durham Police served the search warrant at 610 N. Buchanan on
March 16, 2006, the Duke lacrosse players who lived there had refused
to cooperate.
d.
On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Durham Herald-Sun that
there was “really, really strong physical evidence” of a crime.
e.
On or about March 25, 2006, Addison told the Raleigh News &
Observer that an attack had occurred, that some or all of the Duke
lacrosse players knew about it, and that the players should stop
obstructing the investigation and come forward to provide evidence.
Addison repeated these statements to the Durham Herald-Sun, ABC
News, and WRAL TV on or about March 25, 26, and 28, 2006.
f.
On or about March 28, 2006, Addison colluded with Himan and
Durham Crimestoppers to produce a “Wanted” poster, which he caused
to be disseminated in and around the campus of Duke University. The
flier stated that:
On Monday, March 13, 2006 about 11:00pm, the Duke University
Lacrosse Team solicited a local escort service for entertainment. The
victim was paid to dance at the residence located at 610 Buchanan.
- 45 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 51 of 155
Page 52
The Duke Lacrosse Team was hosting a party at the residence. The
victim was sodomized, raped, assaulted and robbed. This horrific
crime sent shock waves throughout our community. Durham Police
needs your assistance in solving this case. We are asking anyone
who has any information related to this case, please contact Inv.
Himan at 560-4582 x229.
Information can also be provided anonymously through Durham
Crimestoppers at 683-1200 or by email to
david.addison@durhamnc.gov (Please use an anonymous email
account). Durham Crimestoppers will pay cash for any information
which leads to an arrest in this case.
g.
In subsequent days, Addison, acting with the approval of senior
command officers in the Durham Police Department, and pursuant to
existing Department policy and custom, colluded with Himan and
Durham Crimestoppers to produce different versions of this same
“Wanted” poster.
h.
On or about April 11, 2006, Hodge was interviewed by MSNBC while
attending the public forum at North Carolina Central University with
Nifong. When asked if Durham Police had a strong case against Duke
lacrosse players, Hodge told MSNBC, “I don't think we would be here if
it wasn’t.”
161. The Durham Police Statements also had direct and foreseeable consequences for
the criminal process instituted against David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade
Seligmann.
- 46 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 52 of 155
Page 53
162. The Durham Police Statements foreclosed any objective search for truth and
committed Durham Police to arrest three Duke lacrosse players. The Durham
Police Statements also inflamed the public, including those who would eventually
serve on the grand juries that indicted Plaintiffs, by marking the Plaintiffs as
violent sex offenders whose guilt was already established beyond doubt.
163. Upon information and belief, Addison made each of these statements while under
the supervision and with the approval of the Supervisory Defendants, and he was
acting pursuant to existing Department policy and custom. Upon information and
belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of Addison’s statements and did
not retract them, remove Addison from his position, or reprimand him.
2.
The Initial DNA Testing Further Confirms Mangum Is Lying
164. Because Mangum had alleged that none of her attackers used condoms, and that
all three had ejaculated inside of her, Defendants knew that DNA testing would be
critically important to confirming or disproving Mangum’s already inconsistent
claims. Defendants also knew that, based on Mangum’s allegations, they would
have to exclude as suspects any Duke lacrosse players whose DNA was not found
on the rape kit items collected on March 14, 2006.
165. Indeed, in the application for the NTO, dated on or about March 22, 2006, the
District Attorney’s Office represented that “the DNA evidence requested will
immediately rule out any innocent persons, and show conclusive evidence as to
who the suspects are in the alleged violent attack upon this victim.”
- 47 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 53 of 155
Page 54
166. On or about April 7, 2006, Nifong appeared on MSNBC’s Abrams Report and
stated: “Under any circumstances, the first step is to determine whether or not
there is DNA that can be identified, foreign to the victim, and then once we get
past that stage, we could then compare any DNA that was found.”
167. On or about December 15, 2006, Defendant Meehan of DSI testified that he knew
that the process of excluding potential DNA donors is “the best way to approach
this work.” This, of course, makes perfect sense where, as here, Mangum had
alleged that each of her purported attackers engaged in acts that should have left
behind DNA, had they actually occurred.
168. On or about March 27, 2006, Durham Police delivered the rape kit items and DNA
samples collected from the white lacrosse players to Agent Rachel Winn in the
Serology Section of the State Bureau of Investigation (“SBI”) crime lab in
Raleigh.
169. On or about March 28, 2006, Agent Winn examined the vaginal smears, oral
smears, rectal smears, and panties from the rape kit. Agent Winn determined that
none of these items showed the presence of semen, blood, or saliva, as one would
have expected if Mangum’s account of the purported rape had been truthful.
170. Roughly 24 hours later, on or about March 29, 2006, SBI crime lab personnel
notified Nifong that they had examined the items from the rape kit and were
unable to find any semen, blood, or saliva on any of the rape kit items.
- 48 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 54 of 155
Page 55
171. On or about March 30, 2006, Mr. Nifong spoke with Agent Jennifer Leyn in the
DNA section of the SBI crime lab about the status of the SBI lab’s testing of
evidentiary items in the case.
172. Ultimately, the SBI lab concluded that no DNA from any of the players was found
on the accuser’s rape kit items or clothing; that DNA from one of the residents of
610 N. Buchanan was found on a towel in the house; and that DNA from another
resident of 610 N. Buchanan was found on the floor in one of the bathrooms in the
house. Nifong provided Plaintiffs with the SBI lab’s final report containing these
findings on April 10, 2006.
173. The news of the SBI’s exculpatory findings did not deter Nifong from making
additional public statements accusing white Duke lacrosse players of rape.
Instead, Nifong immediately began to tailor his comments to imply that condoms
had been used, even though Mangum had always alleged that her accusers had not
used condoms and that they had ejaculated inside of her.
a.
For example, on March 31, 2006, after his conversation with Agent
Leyn of the SBI lab, Nifong stated to a reporter for MSNBC, “[I]f a
condom were used, then we might expect that there would not be any
DNA evidence recovered from, say, a vaginal swab.”
b.
On or about April 11, 2006, Nifong told the Charlotte Observer: “I
would not be surprised if condoms were used. . . . Probably an exotic
dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex.”
- 49 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 55 of 155
Page 56
c.
On or about April 11, 2006, Nifong stated at the North Carolina Central
University public forum that the absence of DNA evidence “doesn’t
mean nothing happened—it just means nothing was left behind.”
174. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of the
results of the SBI’s testing and Nifong’s subsequent comments regarding
purported condom use, which were flatly at odds with Mangum’s own accounts of
the alleged rape. Nevertheless, the Supervisory Defendants continued to allow
Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police investigation and to have
Durham Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that investigation.
3.
The Conspiracy to Manufacture False Identifications
a.
The April Photo Array
175. With the news of the SBI’s DNA test results, Nifong and the Durham Police,
including Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants, knew that they had no
evidence to corroborate Mangum’s various inconsistent and contradictory
accounts of the alleged rape and that DNA testing actually disproved her claims.
176. Undeterred, however, these Defendants conspired to manufacture evidence of an
“identification” of three Duke lacrosse players in order to charge them with rape.
177. These Defendants knew that Mangum had already failed to identify any of her
alleged assailants in the March Photo Arrays, which included 36 photographs of
Duke lacrosse players, including Evans and Seligmann. Moreover, Durham Police
had not even included Finnerty’s photograph in the March Photo Arrays because
- 50 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 56 of 155
Page 57
he did not match any of the descriptions that Mangum had provided of her
purported assailants.
178. Moreover, at the time of the March Photo Arrays, Durham Police considered
Evans to be a suspect because he lived at 610 N. Buchanan, yet Mangum had
twice failed to recognize Evans at all in the March Photo Arrays, let alone claim
that he was one of her purported assailants.
179. On or about March 31, 2006, one day after Nifong had spoken with SBI personnel
about the negative DNA results, Nifong met with Gottlieb and Himan to plan a
new identification procedure. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan agreed that instead of
a standard photo array, Gottlieb would show Mangum an array consisting solely of
photographs of all white Duke lacrosse players, without any non-suspects
(“fillers”), and they agreed that the procedure would be videotaped for use in
future criminal proceedings.
180. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan designed and conducted this suggestive procedure
with the intention that the identifications it produced would be used to obtain
indictments and convictions of three Duke lacrosse players. Nifong, Gottlieb, and
Himan intended that Mangum would select three Duke lacrosse players who
attended the party, and that those players would subsequently be indicted on rape
charges.
181. Later on or about the afternoon of March 31, Gottlieb briefed Defendants Lamb
and Ripberger about the proposed identification procedure (the “April Photo
- 51 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 57 of 155
Page 58
Array”). Upon information and belief, Lamb, Ripberger, and the other
Supervisory Defendants approved the proposed April Photo Array, and Gottlieb
and Himan set about to prepare the new photo array for Mangum.
b.
Defendants Replace a Written Lineup Policy Intended To
Protect the Innocent with a New Lineup Crafted to
Ensure False Identifications
182. On or about February 1, 2006, Durham Police implemented a written policy
governing witness identification procedures, General Order No. 4077. General
Order No. 4077 was implemented in order to conform to the recommendations of
the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission, which were endorsed by the
Education and Training Committee of the North Carolina Criminal Justice
Education and Training Standards Commission, after several high-profile
instances where suggestive and otherwise improper identification procedures
resulted in deprivations of constitutional rights.
183. General Order No. 4077 requires, among other things, that
a.
Photo arrays must be conducted by an independent administrator, rather
than the Durham Police personnel involved in the investigation.
b.
There should not be anyone present for the array procedure who knows
the identity of any suspects in the array.
c.
At least five fillers must be included for each suspect in the array, and
each array should begin with a filler.
- 52 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 58 of 155
Page 59
d.
Each filler must resemble the witness’s description of the alleged
perpetrator in significant features such as “face, profile, height, weight,
build, posture, gait, specific articles of clothing, etc.”
e.
Where there is an inadequate description of the perpetrator, or a suspect
whose appearance differs from the description of the perpetrator, each
filler must resemble the suspect in significant features such as “face,
profile, height, weight, build, posture, gait, specific articles of clothing,
etc.”
f.
Durham Police should avoid reusing the same fillers in multiple arrays
shown to the same witness.
184. The April Photo Array developed by Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan, and approved
and ratified by the Supervisory Defendants and other City of Durham officials,
constituted a violation and/or a change in Durham Police policy from numerous
requirements of General Order No. 4077 that had been implemented to prevent
deprivations of constitutional rights. For example:
a.
The April Photo Array was conducted by Gottlieb, who was directly
involved in the investigation, rather than an independent administrator.
b.
Gottlieb knew the identity of Evans and other suspects in the array.
c.
Gottlieb and Himan included no fillers in the array, and the array did not
begin with a filler.
- 53 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 59 of 155
Page 60
d.
The array thus did not include fillers who resembled Mangum’s
description of the alleged perpetrators in significant features such as
“face, profile, height, weight, build, posture, gait, specific articles of
clothing, etc.”
e.
The array thus did not include fillers who resembled the suspects in
significant features such as “face, profile, height, weight, build, posture,
gait, specific articles of clothing, etc.”
f.
The array included many of the same Duke lacrosse players who had
already been included in the March Photo Arrays, including Evans and
Seligmann.
g.
Moreover, Gottlieb signaled to Mangum that there were no fillers in the
array, instructing her that the array consisted entirely of individuals who
were believed to have attended the party at 610 N. Buchanan.
185. Notwithstanding that the April Photo Array violated various requirements of
General Order No. 4077, the Supervisory Defendants and other City of Durham
officials approved and ratified the April Photo Array.
186. On April 4, 2006, Gottlieb conducted the April Photo Array with Mangum.
Gottlieb began by telling Mangum that every photograph she would be shown was
of an individual who attended the party at 610 N. Buchanan.
- 54 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 60 of 155
Page 61
187. By being told that there were no fillers in the array, Mangum was thus informed
that she could not “fail” the identification procedure by identifying an individual
who was not at the party. All she had to do was pick three people—any three
people—from the array.
188. The April Photo Array was, in the words of defense attorneys, “a multiple choice
test with no wrong answers.” As Durham City Council member Eugene Brown
would later describe it, “this was like shooting fish in a barrel.”
189. Mangum identified Reade Seligmann during the April Photo Array, claiming she
was “100%” certain that Seligmann was the one who “made me perform oral sex.”
190. Mangum identified Collin Finnerty during the April Photo Array, claiming she
was “100%” certain that Finnerty was the “second one” to “put his penis in my
anus and my vagina.”
191. Mangum again failed to provide a positive identification of David Evans during
the April Photo Array. When shown Evans’s picture, Mangum was expressionless
for roughly 45 seconds, then stated that Evans “looks like one of the guys who
assaulted me sort [of],” except that her assailant had a mustache, and ultimately
stated that she was only “90%” certain that Evans was one of the men who
purportedly assaulted her.
- 55 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 61 of 155
Page 62
c.
Mangum Continues To Contradict Herself
Notwithstanding the Rigged Photo Array
192. Mangum’s performance during the April Photo Array cast further doubt on her
credibility because, for example:
a.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum claimed that she was 100%
certain that Reade Seligmann was one of her purported assailants, and
that she was 90% certain that David Evans was one of the other two
purported assailants, except that her purported assailant had a mustache.
Yet, during the March Photo Arrays, Mangum said she was only 70%
sure she recognized Seligmann and could not remember exactly where
she saw him at the party, and she was unable to identify Evans’s
photograph either of the two times she looked at it.
b.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum claimed that Reade Seligmann
was the purported assailant who “made me perform oral sex.” But in
her March 16 interview with Gottlieb and Himan, Mangum had claimed
that this assailant was named “Adam,” whom Mangum described as
“short” with “red cheeks,” “fluffy hair” that is “brown,” and a “chubby
face.” By contrast, Reade Seligmann is a tall, white male with dark hair
who was 6’ 1” and weighed 215 pounds.
c.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum claimed that Collin Finnerty
was the purported assailant who was the “second one” to “put his penis
- 56 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 62 of 155
Page 63
in my anus and my vagina.” But in her March 16 interview, Mangum
had claimed that this assailant was named “Matt,” whom Mangum
described as “heavy set” with a “short hair cut” and weighing 260 to
270 pounds. By contrast, Collin Finnerty is tall and skinny (6’5”, 230
pounds) with reddish hair.
d.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum claimed that a fourth lacrosse
player resembled the purported third attacker (“Brett”). She did not
claim that any of the Plaintiffs resembled Brett during the April Photo
Array.
e.
Evans did not have a mustache in March 2006. He never had one.
f.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum again identified lacrosse players
whom Durham Police knew were not at the party at 610 N. Buchanan.
Mangum claimed she saw Brad Ross standing outside the house talking
to the other dancer, but Durham Police knew that Ross was at North
Carolina State University in Raleigh during the party. Mangum also
claimed she saw Chris Loftus sitting in the living room or master
bedroom, but Durham Police knew that Loftus was instead in his dorm
room with his girlfriend at the time of the party, having entered the
dorm using his card reader at 10:59 p.m.
- 57 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 63 of 155
Page 64
g.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum failed to identify three lacrosse
players whom she had purported to identify during the March Photo
Arrays, including Fred Krom, Nick O’Hara, and Kevin Mayer.
h.
During the April Photo Array, Mangum purported to identify numerous
lacrosse players whom she had failed to identify during the March Photo
Arrays, including William Woolcott, Matt Wilson, Adam Langley, Glen
Nick, Eric Henkelmen, Dan Flannery, Peter Lamade, John Walsh, Ben
Koesterer, Josh Covelski, and Kyle Dowd.
193. Upon information and belief, Defendants Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson
were aware of these facts, including the contradictions and inconsistencies raised
by Mangum’s supposed identifications during the April Photo Array, yet willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to this evidence of Plaintiffs’
innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
194. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants also were aware of these
facts, including the contradictions and inconsistencies raised by Mangum’s
supposed identifications during the April Photo Array, yet willfully ignored and/or
were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence of
Plaintiffs’ innocence in their rush to charge the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players.
195. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs
were indicted and arrested pursuant to legal process.
- 58 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 64 of 155
Page 65
4.
The DNA Conspiracy
a.
Nifong and the Durham Police Shop for a New DNA
Expert and Retain DSI
196. On or about April 4, 2006, Nifong met with Durham Police Investigator Michelle
Soucie and instructed her to locate a private laboratory to conduct additional DNA
testing.
197. At Nifong’s direction, Soucie contacted Defendant Meehan of Defendant DSI, a
private laboratory in Burlington, North Carolina. Meehan said that his lab could
perform Y-chromosome, or Y-STR DNA testing, which is more sensitive than the
autosomal DNA testing performed by the SBI crime lab.
198. Meehan also told Soucie that DSI was so interested in becoming involved in the
investigation that DSI would be willing to cut its standard prices for this testing.
199. Later that day, Soucie told Nifong about the substance of her conversations with
Meehan.
200. The next day, April 5, 2006, the District Attorney’s Office sought and obtained an
order from Judge Ronald Stephens to allow for the transfer of the rape kit items to
DSI for Y-chromosome DNA testing. In doing so, the District Attorney’s Office
told the Court:
Tests conducted by the S.B.I. laboratory failed to reveal the presence of
semen on swabs from the rape kit or the victim’s underwear. In cases
without semen present, it is sometimes possible to extract useful DNA
- 59 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 65 of 155
Page 66
samples for comparison purposes using a technique known as Y STR. This
technique isolates cells containing a Y chromosome from the entire sample,
which must have been contributed by a male person. The S.B.I. laboratory
is not equipped to conduct Y STR DNA analysis. DNA Security is a
private laboratory in Burlington, North Carolina that can conduct Y STR
DNA analysis and has agreed to undertake this analysis in an expedited
manner.
201. On April 6, 2006, the rape kit items and reference DNA samples for Crystal
Mangum and the lacrosse players were all transferred from Agent Leyn back to
Durham Police CSI Angela Ashby, who transferred them to DSI.
b.
DSI’s Testing Excludes All of the Duke Lacrosse Players
from the Rape Kit Items with 100% Certainty
202. On April 7, 2006, DSI produced sperm-fraction and non-sperm (epithelial)
fraction DNA extractions from the panties, cheek scrapings, oral swabs, vaginal
swabs, and rectal swabs contained in the rape kit, assigning them item numbers
specific to that lab.
203. On April 7, 2006, DSI also performed seratic PSA presumptive tests for the
presence of semen on the rape kit items, all of which were negative.
204. On April 8, 9, and 10, 2006, DSI performed analyses of the rape kit items that
resulted in the exclusion with 100% certainty of all members of the lacrosse team,
including the three innocent Plaintiffs, as possible donors of DNA found on the
- 60 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 66 of 155
Page 67
rape kit items. Specifically, DSI reached the following conclusions with respect to
the rape kit items:
a.
On Item 15780, the epithelial fraction of Stain D from the rape kit
panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males.
With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their
teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom
reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were
excluded as sources of that DNA material.
b.
On Item 15767, the sperm fraction of Stain A from the rape kit panties,
DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males. With 100%
scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the
Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples
had been obtained during the investigation were excluded as sources of
that DNA material.
c.
On Item 15776, the sperm fraction from the rectal swab, DSI identified
DNA characteristics from at least one male. With 100% scientific
certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their teammates on the Duke
lacrosse team, and all others from whom reference DNA samples had
been obtained during the investigation were excluded as the source of
that DNA material.
- 61 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 67 of 155
Page 68
d.
On Item 15777, the epithelial fraction of Stain A from the rape kit
panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least four males.
With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their
teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom
reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were
excluded as sources of that DNA material.
e.
On Item 15778, the epithelial fraction of Stain B from the rape kit
panties, DSI identified DNA characteristics from at least two males.
With 100% scientific certainty, the three innocent Plaintiffs, their
teammates on the Duke lacrosse team, and all others from whom
reference DNA samples had been obtained during the investigation were
excluded as sources of that DNA material.
c.
The April 10 Meeting
205. On or about April 10, 2006, Nifong, Himan, and Gottlieb met with Meehan and
Defendant Clark, who upon information and belief is the president and controlling
shareholder of DSI, at DSI’s offices in Burlington (the “April 10 Meeting”).
During the April 10 Meeting, Meehan orally reported the results of all analyses
conducted by DSI to date, including the results summarized above, which
demonstrated that several men contributed DNA to the various items in Mangum’s
rape kit, but excluded with 100% certainty any of the Duke lacrosse players as
contributors of DNA on the rape kit items. These Defendants were thus on notice
- 62 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 68 of 155
Page 69
of these DNA results demonstrating Plaintiffs’ actual innocence at the time they
sought the indictments of Seligmann and Finnerty on April 17, 2006, and Evans
on May 15, 2006.
206. Indeed, rather than concluding the investigation of the Duke lacrosse players after
the April 10 Meeting, Nifong, Himan, Gottlieb, Clark, and Meehan began to
consider ways in which these exculpatory results could be concealed and
obfuscated in a subsequent prosecution of three Duke lacrosse players on rape
charges.
207. Ultimately, Nifong, Himan, Gottlieb, Clark, and Meehan conspired to conceal and
obfuscate these exculpatory results. Among other things, these Defendants agreed
not to take any notes memorializing the substance of their discussions, so as to
hide exculpatory evidence from the three innocent Duke lacrosse players to be
charged.
208. Nifong, Meehan, Clark, DSI, Himan, and Gottlieb conspired and acted to conceal
and obfuscate the exculpatory DNA results, knowing that if those results came to
light, they would prevent an indictment or conviction of any Duke lacrosse player
they falsely charged. Indeed, the intended and actual effect of this conspiracy was
to facilitate an indictment and prosecution of the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players, while concealing by omission the true results of DNA testing, which
established Plaintiffs’ actual innocence.
- 63 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 69 of 155
Page 70
209. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of the
substance of the April 10 Meeting, including the results of DSI’s testing and the
illicit agreement to conceal the exculpatory results of DSI’s testing, yet in their
rush to charge and convict the three innocent Duke lacrosse players, they willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to
this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence and the misconduct underlying
the investigation. Moreover, the Supervisory Defendants continued to allow
Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police investigation, to have Durham
Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that investigation, and to
have Gottlieb and Himan continue to participate in that investigation.
d.
The April 17 Indictments of Collin Finnerty and Reade
Seligmann
210. On April 17, 2006, Nifong successfully obtained a grand jury indictment against
Collin Finnerty for first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense, and kidnapping.
211. On April 17, 2006, Nifong successfully obtained a grand jury indictment against
Reade Seligmann for first-degree rape, first-degree sex offense, and kidnapping.
212. Nifong sought and obtained the April 17, 2006 indictments of Finnerty and
Seligmann (the “April 17 Indictments”) in order to deprive the two innocent Duke
lacrosse players of their civil rights and to assure his own election to the position
of District Attorney.
- 64 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 70 of 155
Page 71
213. Upon information and belief, Gottlieb and Himan each provided inculpatory
testimony before the grand jury that returned the April 17 Indictments, despite
actual knowledge of Finnerty’s and Seligmann’s innocence, in order to deprive the
two innocent Duke lacrosse players of their civil rights and to facilitate Nifong’s
election to the office of District Attorney for the City of Durham.
214. Two weeks after the April 17 Indictments, on May 2, 2006, Nifong won the
Democratic primary, beating Freda Black by three percentage points.
215. In February 2007, two individuals, identifying themselves as two of the grand
jurors who voted to return the April 17 Indictments, spoke to ABC News. Each of
the grand jurors stated that they only learned of Mangum’s multiple inconsistent
accounts of the alleged rape, including her recantation of the rape allegation, from
the media long after they were asked to return the April 17 Indictments.
According to ABC News, one of the grand jurors said:
“I don’t know for sure whether she was raped, you know, because of
everything that came out. I’m not sure, to tell you the truth. . . .
What do you mean you’re not sure whether you got raped or not?
That didn’t add up.”
According to ABC News, the other grand juror said:
“Knowing what I know now and all that’s been broadcast on the
news and in media, I think I would have definitely made a different
decision. . . . It [Mangum’s recantation] raised a lot of doubt.”
- 65 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 71 of 155
Page 72
216. Of course, Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants knew long
before the April 17 Indictments were returned that Mangum had recanted her rape
allegation to Officer Shelton at Duke Medical Center on March 14, 2006, and that
she had provided multiple inconsistent, contradictory, and demonstrably false
accounts of the alleged attack. Nevertheless, upon information and belief, Nifong,
Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants agreed not to provide this
information to the grand jury that returned the April 17 Indictments.
217. Moreover, upon information and belief, Gottlieb, Himan, and Nifong agreed in
advance of the April 17 Indictments that they would mislead the grand jury as to
the nature of the evidence concerning Finnerty and Seligmann and not reveal to
the grand jury the evidence of Finnerty’s and Seligmann’s actual innocence.
218. Indeed, when Himan was first told of the decision to seek indictments of Finnerty
and Seligmann, his initial response was, “With what?” Moreover, upon
information and belief, Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan knew that they lacked any
proof that Seligmann had even attended the party at 610 N. Buchanan.
219. Upon information and belief, Defendants Lamb, Ripberger, and the other
Supervisory Defendants were informed of the lack of evidence against Finnerty
and Seligmann, and the overwhelming evidence of their actual innocence, yet in
their rush to charge these innocent Duke lacrosse players, they willfully ignored
and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to the
evidence of Finnerty’s and Seligmann’s innocence and the misconduct underlying
- 66 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 72 of 155
Page 73
the investigation. Moreover, the Supervisory Defendants continued to allow
Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police investigation, to have Durham
Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that investigation, and to
have Gottlieb and Himan continue to participate in that investigation.
220. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ conduct, Finnerty and
Seligmann suffered deprivations of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North
Carolina Constitution.
e.
The April 21 Meeting
221. On April 21, 2006, four days after the April 17 Indictments were returned against
the two innocent Duke lacrosse players, Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan met again
with Meehan and Clark at DSI’s offices in Burlington (the “April 21 Meeting”).
222. During the April 21 Meeting, Meehan reported that:
a.
DNA from at least four different men was found on the items in the rape
kit. Every single one of the Duke lacrosse players, including Finnerty,
Seligmann, and Evans, was excluded as a possible contributor of this
DNA because none of their DNA profiles matched or were consistent
with any of the DNA found on the rape kit items.
b.
DNA found on Mangum’s vaginal swab was consistent with the DNA
profile of Mangum’s boyfriend, Matthew Murchison.
- 67 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 73 of 155
Page 74
c.
DNA on a composite swab taken from several fingernail specimens
found in David Evans’s garbage can was “consistent” with the DNA of
David Evans and at least 14 other men whose DNA information was
contained in a DSI database.
d.
DNA on a swab taken from a fingernail found on a computer at 610 N.
Buchanan was consistent with the DNA profile of lacrosse player Kevin
Coleman.
223. Rather than moving to dismiss the charges against Finnerty and Seligmann and
concluding the investigation of the remaining Duke lacrosse players, these
Defendants again continued to obstruct justice and agreed to conceal and
obfuscate this exculpatory evidence. Specifically, these Defendants agreed that
DSI would produce a written report that would purport to be a final report of the
results of all DNA testing conducted by DSI, but that this report would omit the
exculpatory results of DSI’s testing, including the fact that none of the players’
DNA profiles matched or were consistent with any of the DNA found on the rape
kit items. Moreover, as part of the conspiracy, these Defendants agreed that there
would be no report or notes memorializing the substance of their discussions
regarding the exculpatory DNA testing during the April 21 Meeting.
224. Nifong, Meehan, Clark, DSI, Himan, and Gottlieb conspired and acted to fabricate
this false and misleading report, and to conceal and obfuscate the exculpatory
DNA evidence, knowing that the false and misleading report would become part
- 68 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 74 of 155
Page 75
of the criminal process. Indeed, the intended and actual effect of this illicit
agreement was to fabricate a false and misleading “final” report of DNA testing
that would sustain the prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann, and support and
sustain the indictment and prosecution of Evans, while concealing by omission the
true results of DNA testing, which further established Plaintiffs’ actual innocence.
225. The conduct of DSI, Clark, and Meehan violated numerous internal and
professional standards of conduct relating to scientific testing, yet they willfully
ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to
these violations in their rush to assist Nifong and the Durham Police with securing
charges against Evans and sustaining the prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann.
226. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of the
substance of the April 21 Meeting, including the results of DSI’s testing and the
illicit agreement to conceal the exculpatory results of DSI’s testing, yet in their
rush to charge Evans and to sustain the prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann,
they willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent
with respect to this evidence of actual innocence and the misconduct underlying
the investigation. Moreover, the Supervisory Defendants continued to allow
Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police investigation, to have Durham
Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that investigation, and to
have Gottlieb and Himan continue to participate in that investigation.
- 69 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 75 of 155
Page 76
f.
The May 12 Meeting and the May 12 Report
227. On May 12, 2006, Nifong returned to DSI with Himan for another meeting with
Dr. Meehan and Defendant Clark to discuss the results of all of the lab’s testing
(the “May 12 Meeting”).
228. During the May 12 Meeting, Meehan provided Nifong with a ten-page report that
he and DSI had prepared regarding DNA testing (the “May 12 Report”).
229. Defendants understood and agreed that the May 12 Report would be provided to
the Plaintiffs and the court under the knowingly false pretense that it represented
the final report of DSI’s work and contained all of DSI’s findings with respect to
DNA testing.
230. In keeping with the conspiracy, the May 12 Report used a limited reporting
formula that Nifong, Meehan, Clark, Gottlieb, and Himan had agreed upon to
conceal the entirety of DSI’s findings. Specifically, the May 12 Report only
reported on a DNA result if it matched or was consistent with one of the
individuals who had provided a reference sample for testing purposes—e.g.,
Mangum’s boyfriend and the Duke lacrosse players. The May 12 Report
intentionally omitted the DNA results that matched or were consistent with the
multiple unidentified men who had not provided any reference specimens for
comparison (the “multiple unidentified males”).
231. Meehan would later admit, under oath and during cross-examination, that the use
of this reporting formula and language was “inappropriate,” that it violated DSI
- 70 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 76 of 155
Page 77
and industry custom and practice, and that it did not clearly convey the entirety of
DSI’s findings.
232. DSI, Meehan, and Clark’s use of this limited reporting formula—which was the
product of an intentional agreement with Nifong, Himan, Gottlieb, and the
Durham Police—concealed the complete results of “any examinations or tests
conducted by” DSI, and it specifically concealed the existence of the exculpatory
evidence as underscoring the Duke lacrosse players’ actual innocence.
233. The limited reporting formula also violated the standard protocols of DSI itself,
which—like North Carolina’s open-file discovery laws, the FBI’s DNA Quality
Assurance Audit Standard 11.1.2, and the accreditation standards of the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board—require
the disclosure of the results of all DNA tests in any report produced by the lab.
Nevertheless, DSI, Clark, and Meehan willfully ignored and/or were deliberately
indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to these violations in their rush to
assist Nifong and the Durham Police with securing charges against Evans and
sustaining the prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann.
234. On May 12, 2006, Nifong provided the misleading May 12 Report to Plaintiffs.
Applying the intentionally limited reporting formula, DSI’s May 12 Report stated
the results of only three of DSI’s comparison analyses, and intentionally and
deceptively concluded that Evans might have been one of the three otherwise
unidentified males whose DNA characteristics were found on fingernails taken out
- 71 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 77 of 155
Page 78
of his bathroom trash can on March 16, 2006. The May 12 Report did not report
at all and intentionally excluded the conclusions that neither Evans nor Finnerty
nor Seligmann was one of the multiple unidentified males whose DNA was found
on the various rape kit items.
235. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants knew or should have
known about the substance of the May 12 Meeting and the May 12 Report,
including the fact that the May 12 Report intentionally concealed and obfuscated
the exculpatory results of DSI’s testing, yet they willfully ignored and/or were
deliberately indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this evidence
demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence and the misconduct underlying the
investigation in their rush to support an indictment of Evans and to sustain the
prosecutions of Finnerty and Seligmann. Moreover, the Supervisory Defendants
continued to allow Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police
investigation, to have Durham Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct
of that investigation, and to have Gottlieb and Himan continue to participate in
that investigation.
g.
The May 15 Indictment of David Evans
236. On May 15, 2006, three days after receiving the intentionally fraudulent May 12
Report, which Nifong knew to be misleading, Nifong used it to cause a grand jury
indictment to be returned against David Evans for first-degree rape, first-degree
sexual offense, and kidnapping (the “May 15 Indictment”).
- 72 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 78 of 155
Page 79
237. Nifong sought and obtained the May 15 Indictment, despite knowledge of Evans’s
actual innocence, in order to make good on his pre-election public statements and
deprive an innocent Duke lacrosse player of his civil rights.
238. Upon information and belief, Himan testified before the grand jury that issued the
May 15 Indictment, despite knowledge of Evans’s actual innocence, in order to
deprive an innocent Duke lacrosse player of his civil rights.
239. As in the case of the April 17 Indictments, upon information and belief, Gottlieb,
Himan, and Nifong agreed in advance of the May 15 Indictment that they would
mislead the grand jury as to the evidence concerning Evans and not reveal to the
grand jury the evidence of Evans’s actual innocence.
240. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ conduct, Evans suffered
deprivations of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.
F.
Post-Indictment Efforts To Conceal Defendants’ Misconduct and
Obstruct Justice
241. After the April 17 and May 15 Indictments, several of the Defendants engaged in
further misconduct intended to conceal their earlier illicit actions, and to attempt to
further deprive the Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by continuing to retrain
Plaintiffs’ liberty, deprive them of due process and a fair trial, and ultimately
convict the three innocent Duke lacrosse players on charges that these Defendants
knew to be false.
- 73 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 79 of 155
Page 80
242. These Defendants’ goal was to sustain the prosecutions and ultimately to convict
the three innocent Duke lacrosse players by, among other things, concealing the
DNA conspiracy that had resulted from the April 10, April 21, and May 12
Meetings, and the conspiracy to manufacture false identifications in the April
Photo Array; to intimidate potential defense witnesses into providing false
testimony, recanting exculpatory testimony, or remaining silent; and to fabricate
new evidence to conceal the inconsistencies and contradictions by Mangum.
1.
The Arrest and Intimidation of Alibi Witnesses
243. Defendants’ initial efforts to fabricate evidence occurred within days of the April
17 Indictments. On or about April 19, 2006, the media began to publish
conclusive alibi evidence collected by Reade Seligmann that demonstrated that he
was nowhere near 610 N. Buchanan during the time that Mangum alleged she had
been raped. This evidence included time-stamped photographs, cell phone
records, his Duke entry card records, and an affidavit from a taxicab driver named
Moezeldin Ahmad Elmostafa stating that he picked up Seligmann from the Trinity
Park neighborhood just after midnight on March 14, 2006, and that he drove
Seligmann to an ATM machine, a fast-food restaurant, and Seligmann’s dormitory
during the time that Mangum claimed she was being raped at 610 N. Buchanan.
244. At Nifong’s direction, Himan interviewed Elmostafa on April 24, 2006.
Elmostafa provided Himan with a written statement in which he again confirmed
Seligmann’s alibi.
- 74 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 80 of 155
Page 81
245. Himan reported the substance of the April 24 interview to Nifong, who
immediately directed his investigator, Defendant Linwood Wilson, to investigate
Elmostafa in an attempt to find information that would either discredit Elmostafa
or force him to recant Seligmann’s alibi.
246. When Wilson discovered an uncleared 2003 arrest warrant relating to a shoplifting
prosecution of one of Elmostafa’s taxicab passengers, Nifong ordered Wilson,
Gottlieb, and Himan to arrest Elmostafa on the warrant if he did not recant
Seligmann’s alibi.
247. On May 9, 2006, Wilson contacted Himan to state that Nifong wanted to know
when Elmostafa would be arrested. Himan assured Wilson that Elmostafa would
be arrested the next day.
248. On May 10, 2006, Himan and Clayton went to Elmostafa’s home and asked if he
wanted to change his story about Seligmann’s alibi. When Elmostafa said that he
would not recant Seligmann’s alibi, Himan and Clayton proceeded to inform
Elmostafa that they had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, placed Elmostafa in
handcuffs, and took him into custody.
249. After Elmostafa was arrested, the officers again asked him whether he wanted to
change his previous statement exonerating Seligmann. Elmostafa refused.
250. As punishment for Elmostafa’s refusal to recant his truthful statement, Nifong
directed that Elmostafa be prosecuted on larceny charges relating to the 2003
warrant.
- 75 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 81 of 155
Page 82
251. On or about May 11, 2006, despite his direct involvement in this witness
tampering, Nifong provided an interview to the News & Observer in which he
flatly lied about the circumstances of Elmostafa’s arrest. Notwithstanding his own
directive that Elmostafa be asked again about Seligmann’s alibi, Nifong stated, “I
would be very surprised if the officers even thought about using that as an
opportunity to ask him something.” Nifong also claimed that the 2003 warrant for
Elmostafa’s arrest was discovered during a routine rundown of information about
witnesses in the case, when Nifong knew that it had resulted from his specific
instructions that Wilson target Elmostafa specifically.
252. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of these
facts—including Elmostafa’s unequivocal support of Seligmann’s alibi, Nifong’s
directive to get Elmostafa to change his story using the 2003 warrant, and
Nifong’s misrepresentations to the public about the circumstances of Elmostafa’s
arrest—yet in their rush to charge Evans and sustain the indictments of Finnerty
and Seligmann, they willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent or
grossly negligent with respect to this evidence demonstrating the misconduct
underlying the investigation. Moreover, the Supervisory Defendants continued to
allow Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police investigation, and to
have Durham Police look to Nifong for direction as to the conduct of that
investigation.
- 76 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 82 of 155
Page 83
253. This was not the first instance in which Defendants attempted to obstruct justice
and to deprive Plaintiffs’ of their constitutional rights by tampering with alibi
witnesses who contradicted Mangum’s allegations.
254. As noted above, in her initial call with Himan on March 20, 2006, Pittman
unequivocally stated that Mangum’s rape allegations were a “crock” and that
Pittman had been with Mangum for virtually the entire night.
255. Thereafter, Himan—using a similar technique to the one applied against
Elmostafa—located an outstanding warrant against Pittman for an alleged parole
violation, and provided it to Gottlieb and Clayton, who took Pittman into custody.
Upon information and belief, these actions were taken at the direction or with the
knowledge or approval of the Supervisory Defendants, or the Supervisory
Defendants were willfully ignorant, deliberately indifferent, or grossly negligent
with respect to these actions.
256. Upon information and belief, Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan, acting individually and
in concert, engaged in obstruction of justice and witness tampering by telling
Pittman that if she changed her categorical denial and timeline of events, she
would be given a deal on her parole violation.
257. On or about March 22, 2006, Pittman provided a formal written statement in
which she recanted her initial statement that no assault occurred and her
unequivocal conclusion that Mangum’s allegations were a “crock.”
- 77 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 83 of 155
Page 84
258. Thereafter, Pittman was released on very favorable bail terms recommended by
the District Attorney’s Office.
259. Nifong also attempted to intimidate Duke lacrosse players who denied that a crime
had occurred by publicly threatening to bring aiding and abetting charges against
any lacrosse players who attended the party at 610 N. Buchanan.
260. The intended effect of Nifong’s comments was to chill any Duke lacrosse player
from denying the charges that Nifong intended to bring against three of that
player’s teammates, by threatening him with criminal prosecution.
261. On or about April 13, 2006, Gottlieb and Himan also attempted to intimidate other
Duke lacrosse players by traveling to Duke University, entering student
dormitories without a warrant, and attempting to conduct “ambush” interviews of
players known to be represented by counsel.
262. Upon information and belief, in or around May 2006, Defendants Nifong, Wilson,
Lamb, Gottlieb, and Himan, acting at the direction of the Supervisory Defendants
and other senior officials in the City of Durham, attempted to intimidate and
discredit Sergeant Shelton by subjecting him to an internal investigation,
accusations of unprofessional conduct, and threats of disciplinary action for
reporting Mangum’s recantation of her rape claim while at Duke Medical Center
on March 13.
263. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware of these
facts—including the attempts to intimidate Pittman and the other Duke lacrosse
- 78 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 84 of 155
Page 85
players—yet in their rush to charge and sustain the indictments of the three
innocent Duke lacrosse players, they willfully ignored and/or were deliberately
indifferent or grossly negligent with respect to this additional evidence
demonstrating the misconduct underlying the investigation. Moreover, the
Supervisory Defendants continued to allow Nifong to have primary responsibility
for the police investigation, to have Durham Police look to Nifong for direction as
to the conduct of that investigation, and to have Gottlieb and Himan continue to
participate in the investigation.
2.
Gottlieb’s Phony “Supplemental Case Notes”
264. Gottlieb took no contemporaneous notes of the interview of Mangum on March
16, 2006. In July 2006, however—after defense filings revealed numerous
inconsistencies and contradictions in Mangum’s accounts and the documents
included in the State’s discovery production—Gottlieb created an after-the-fact
“report” of all of his purported activities in the investigation, including the March
16 interview with Mangum, which he titled his “Supplemental Case Notes.” The
Supplemental Case Notes were provided to the Defendants on July 17, 2006.
265. Gottlieb’s Supplemental Case Notes were an intentional fabrication in an attempt
to cover up inconsistencies and contradictions in Mangum’s actual statements
regarding the incident.
266. For example, in order to explain Mangum’s bizarre behavior and inconsistent
accounts, Gottlieb concocted a phony story and put words into Mangum’s mouth
- 79 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 85 of 155
Page 86
to support it. Gottlieb wrote that Mangum purportedly had told him that she began
to feel funny after consuming a drink provided to her at the party—falsely
suggesting she had been given a “mickey.”
267. In addition, in order to conceal the disparities between Mangum’s actual
description of her alleged attackers during the March 16 interview and the
Plaintiffs, Gottlieb simply invented a new account that Mangum had purportedly
given during the March 16 interview. Unlike the descriptions memorialized in
Himan’s contemporaneous notes, however, Gottlieb’s descriptions were
manufactured to fit Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann:
a.
“W/M, young, blonde hair, baby faced, tall and lean”;
b.
“W/M, medium height (5’8”+ with Himan’s build), dark hair medium
build, and had red (rose colored) cheeks”;
c.
(c) “W/M, 6+ feet, large build, with dark hair.”
268. A comparison of Himan’s contemporaneous notes with Gottlieb’s post-Indictment
version demonstrates the disparities in the two accounts:
Himan’s Notes
Gottlieb’s “Supplemental Case Notes”
“Adam”: white male, short,
red cheeks, fluffy hair,
brown, chubby face.
W/M, medium height (5’8”+) medium
build, dark hair, red (rose colored)
cheeks.
“Matt” : heavy set, short
hair cut, 260lbs to 270lbs.
W/M, 6+ feet, large build, with dark hair.
“Brett”: Chubby
W/M, young, blonde hair, baby faced, tall
and lean.
- 80 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 86 of 155
Page 87
269. Upon information and belief, as part of their ongoing obstruction of justice and
deprivation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, certain of the Defendants provided
Gottlieb’s Supplemental Case Notes to the media in an attempt to maintain public
support for the prosecution.
3.
Additional False Public Statements
270. Defendants continued to make false public statements in an attempt to continue
their conspiracy, to cover up their own wrongdoing, and to maintain the
inflammatory atmosphere that their prior false public statements had created
against the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
271. On May 3, 2006, for example, Nifong publicly insinuated that Plaintiffs’ attorneys
were strategically disclosing DNA test results. Nifong did not reveal that he
himself had already entered into an illicit agreement to conceal the exculpatory
results of DSI’s testing. Nifong stated:
“My guess is that there are many questions that many people are asking that
they would not be asking if they saw the results. . . . They’re not things that
the defense releases unless they unquestionably support their positions. . . ..
So the fact that they’re making statements about what the reports are
saying, and not actually showing the reports, should in and of itself raise
some red flags.”
272. In addition, in a June 13, 2006, email to a Newsweek reporter that was
subsequently published, Nifong stated that “None of the ‘facts’ I know at this
- 81 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 87 of 155
Page 88
time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the
opinion that I expressed initially.” Nifong did not mention any of the exculpatory
DNA evidence that he and other Defendants had conspired to conceal and
successfully omitted from the May 12 Report, or the conspiracy to manufacture
false identifications of the Plaintiffs in the April Photo Array.
4.
Defendants’ Misrepresentations About the DNA Evidence
273. No later than April 10, 2006, Defendants had in their possession an oral report
from Meehan that DSI’s testing had revealed the existence of DNA from multiple
unidentified males on Mangum’s rape kit items, and excluded with 100% certainty
all of the Duke lacrosse players, including the Plaintiffs, as contributors of the
DNA found on those items.
274. Defendants not only concealed this evidence in order to obtain the April 17 and
May 15 Indictments of the three innocent Duke lacrosse players, but succeeded in
concealing it for nearly seven months, affirmatively representing to defense
counsel and the Superior Court of Durham County that Nifong was aware of no
other exculpatory evidence or DNA testing in the case. Even when Defendants
finally disclosed the exculpatory facts, they did not do so in a recognizable form,
but rather, attempted to bury the exculpatory results as unsummarized raw data
scattered across nearly 2,000 pages of documents in a willful attempt to obfuscate
the results from Plaintiffs and the court, to obstruct justice, and to cover up their
own wrongdoing.
- 82 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 88 of 155
Page 89
275. On May 18, 2006, Nifong served various discovery materials on defense counsel
for the Plaintiffs, in connection with a hearing in the case on that same day. These
materials included another copy of the May 12 Report. None of the discovery
materials that Nifong produced on May 18 included any of the underlying data or
information concerning DSI’s testing and analysis, and certainly did not include
any documentation or information indicating the presence of DNA from multiple
unidentified males on the rape kit items. Moreover, Nifong did not provide in the
discovery materials any written or recorded memorializations of the substance of
Dr. Meehan’s oral statements made during the April 10, April 21, and May 12
Meetings concerning the results of all of DSI’s tests and examinations, including
the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items
(“memorializations of Dr. Meehan’s oral statements”).
276. At the same time he served the discovery materials, Nifong also served and filed
with the Court written responses to the Plaintiffs’ initial discovery requests, in
which he falsely stated that “The State is not aware of any additional material or
information which may be exculpatory in nature with respect to the Defendant.”
In his written discovery responses, Nifong falsely stated that the Plaintiffs had
received all of the reports of the experts whom the State intended to call in the
case, Meehan and another employee of DSI.
277. Yet, at the time he made these representations to the Superior Court and to the
Plaintiffs in his written discovery responses, Nifong was aware of the existence of
- 83 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 89 of 155
Page 90
DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items. He was aware that
DSI’s written report did not reveal the existence of this evidence. And he was
aware that he had not provided the Plaintiffs with memorializations of Dr.
Meehan’s oral statements regarding the existence of this evidence.
278. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that the representations contained in Nifong’s May
18 written discovery responses were intentional misrepresentations and intentional
false statements of material fact to opposing counsel and to the Superior Court.
279. At the May 18, 2006 hearing, the Honorable Ronald Stephens, Superior Court
Judge presiding, asked Nifong if he had provided the Plaintiffs with all discovery
materials.
280. In response to Judge Stephens’ inquiry, Nifong falsely stated: “I’ve turned over
everything I have.”
281. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong’s response to Judge Stephens’s
question was a misrepresentation and a false statement of material fact.
282. On June 19, 2006, Nifong issued a press release to representatives of Newsweek in
which he stated, “None of the ‘facts’ I know at this time, indeed, none of the
evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed
initially.”
- 84 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 90 of 155
Page 91
283. Nifong’s statement to Newsweek was a misrepresentation and a false statement of
material fact intended to harm Plaintiffs in the court of public opinion and with the
prospective jury pool.
284. On June 19, 2006, counsel for the Plaintiffs requested various materials from
Nifong, including a report or written statement of the meetings between Nifong
and Meehan to discuss the DNA test results. This request was addressed at a
hearing before Judge Stephens on June 22, 2006.
285. During the June 22, 2006 hearing, Nifong stated in open court that, other than
what was contained in the May 12 Report, all of his communications with Meehan
were privileged “work product.” Nifong falsely stated to Judge Stephens that the
sum total of his meeting with Meehan was, “We received the reports, which
[defense counsel] has received, and we talked about how we would likely use that,
and that’s what we did.”
286. At the time Nifong made these representations to Judge Stephens on June 22,
Nifong knew that he had discussed with Meehan on three occasions the existence
of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kits items, which evidence
was not disclosed in DSI’s written report, and that Dr. Meehan’s statements to him
revealing the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kits
items were not privileged work product but, rather, were evidence of actual
innocence that should have been provided to the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players then under indictment and awaiting trial.
- 85 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 91 of 155
Page 92
287. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong’s representations to Judge Stephens at
the June 22, 2006 hearing were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false
statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel.
288. During the June 22 hearing, Judge Stephens entered an Order directing Nifong to
provide Collin Finnerty and later all the Plaintiffs with among other things, all
“results of tests and examinations, or any other matter or evidence obtained during
the investigation of the offenses alleged to have been committed by the defendant”
and statements of any witnesses taken during the investigation, with oral
statements to be reduced to written or recorded form.
289. To cover up his misconduct and that of the other Defendants, Nifong did not
provide the Plaintiffs with all “results of tests and examinations, or any other
matter or evidence obtained during the investigation of the offenses alleged to
have been committed by the defendant” and did not provide the three innocent
Duke lacrosse players with statements of any witnesses taken during the
investigation, with oral statements reduced to written or recorded form.
290. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong did not comply with Judge Stephens’
June 22 Order.
291. On August 31, 2006, the Plaintiffs collectively filed a Joint Omnibus Motion to
Compel Discovery seeking, among other things, the complete file and all
- 86 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 92 of 155
Page 93
underlying data regarding DSI’s work and the substance of any discoverable
comments made by Meehan during the April 10, April 21, and May 12 Meetings
with Nifong, Himan, and Gottlieb. The Joint Omnibus Motion was addressed by
the Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior Court Judge presiding, at a hearing
on September 22, 2006.
a.
The September 22 Hearing
292. At the September 22 hearing, counsel for the Plaintiffs specifically stated in open
court that they were seeking the results of any tests finding any additional DNA on
Mangum, even if that DNA did not match any of the Plaintiffs or other individuals
who provided known reference specimens.
293. In response to a direct question from Judge Smith, Nifong falsely stated that the
May 12 Report not only encompassed all tests performed by DSI, but everything
discussed at the April 10, April 21, and May 12 meetings. The following
exchange occurred immediately thereafter on the Plaintiffs’ request for
memorializations of Meehan’s oral statements:
Judge Smith: “So you represent there are no other statements from Dr.
Meehan?”
Mr. Nifong: “No other statements. No other statements made to me.”
294. At the time Nifong made these false representations to Judge Smith, he was aware
that Meehan had told him in their meetings about the existence of overwhelming
exculpatory evidence, namely the DNA from multiple unidentified males on the
- 87 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 93 of 155
Page 94
rape kit items, he was aware that he had not provided the Plaintiffs with a written
or recorded memorialization of Meehan’s statements, and he was aware that the
existence of that DNA was not revealed in DSI’s written report.
295. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong’s statements and response to Judge
Smith at the September 22 hearing were intentional misrepresentations and
intentional false statements of material fact to the Court and to opposing counsel.
296. On September 22, 2006, Judge Smith ordered Nifong to provide the Plaintiffs with
the complete files and underlying data from both the SBI and DSI by October 20,
2006.
297. On October 19, 2006, counsel for Evans faxed Nifong a proposed order reflecting
Judge Smith’s September 22 ruling. The proposed order stated, in paragraph 4,
“Mr. Nifong indicated that he did not discuss the facts of the case with Dr.
Meehan and that Dr. Meehan said nothing during [the April 10, April 21, and May
12 Meetings] beyond what was encompassed in the final report of DSI, dated May
12, 2006. The Court accepted Mr. Nifong’s representation about those meetings
and held that there were no additional discoverable statements by Dr. Meehan for
the State to produce.”
298. On October 24, 2006, Nifong responded by letter to defense counsel’s October 19,
2006 letter and proposed order. In his response, Nifong identified two changes he
believed were appropriate to two portions of the proposed order, made no mention
- 88 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 94 of 155
Page 95
of any changes to paragraph 4, and wrote that “the proposed order seems
satisfactory” and “seems to reflect with acceptable accuracy the rulings of Judge
Smith on September 22.”
299. Nifong’s October 24 letter was an intentional misrepresentation and an intentional
omission of material fact to opposing counsel.
300. On October 27, 2006, Nifong provided 1,844 pages of underlying documents and
materials from DSI to the Plaintiffs pursuant to the September 22, 2006 Order, but
he did not provide them with a complete written report from DSI setting forth the
results of all of its tests and examinations, including the existence of DNA from
the multiple unidentified males, or any written or recorded memorializtions of Dr.
Meehan’s oral statements.
301. After approximately 100 hours of review and complex analysis of the underlying
data provided to them on October 27, defense counsel for the Plaintiffs determined
that DSI’s written report did not include the results of DNA tests performed by
DSI and that DSI had found DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit
items and that such results were not included in DSI’s written report.
302. On December 13, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert
DNA Analysis, detailing their discovery of the existence of DNA from multiple
unidentified males on the rape kit items and explaining that this evidence had not
been included DSI’s written report. The motion did not allege any attempt or
agreement to conceal the potentially exculpatory DNA evidence or test results.
- 89 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 95 of 155
Page 96
The Motion to Compel Discovery: Expert DNA Analysis was addressed by the
Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior Court Judge presiding, at a hearing on
December 15, 2006.
b.
The December 15 Hearing
303. At the December 15 hearing, both in chambers and again in open court, Nifong
falsely stated or implied to Judge Smith that he was unaware of the existence of
DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items until he received the
December 13 motion and that he was unaware that the results of any DNA testing
performed by DSI had been excluded from DSI’s written report. Nifong falsely
stated to Judge Smith in open court: “The first I heard of this particular situation
was when I was served with these reports—this motion on Wednesday of this
week.”
304. In an opinion dated July 11, 2007, the Disciplinary Hearing Commission of the
North Carolina State Bar found that Nifong’s representations that he was unaware
of the existence of DNA from multiple unidentified males on the rape kit items
and/or that he was unaware of the exclusion of such evidence from DSI’s written
report, were intentional misrepresentations and intentional false statements of
material fact to the Superior Court and to opposing counsel.
305. During the December 15 hearing, Dr. Meehan testified under oath to the following
statements:
- 90 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 96 of 155
Page 97
a.
Meehan discussed with Nifong at the April 10, April 21, and May 12
meetings the results of all tests conducted by DSI to date, including the
overwhelming exculpatory finding of at least four unidentified males’
DNA on the rape kit items;
b.
Meehan and Nifong discussed and agreed that “we would only disclose
or show on our report those reference specimens that matched evidence
items”;
c.
DSI’s report did not set forth the results of all tests and examinations
DSI conducted in the case, but was instead limited to only some results;
d.
The limited report was the result of “an intentional limitation” arrived at
between Meehan and Nifong “not to report on the results of all
examinations and tests” that DSI performed;
e.
The failure to provide all test and examination results purportedly was
based on privacy concerns; and
f.
Meehan would have prepared a report setting forth the results of all of
DSI’s tests and examinations if he had been asked to do so by Nifong or
other representatives of the State of North Carolina at any time after
May 12, 2006.
306. Even after Meehan confessed to the DNA conspiracy in open court at the
December 15 hearing, Nifong continued to attempt to misrepresent his
- 91 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 97 of 155
Page 98
involvement in the months-long concealment and obfuscation of the exculpatory
results, stating to a representative of the news media: “[W]e were trying to, just as
Dr. Meehan said, trying to avoid dragging any names through the mud but at the
same time his report made it clear that all the information was available if they
wanted it and they have every word of it.”
5.
Further Efforts To Reshape the Factual Record After the
December 15 Hearing, Including Additional Witness Tampering
307. Even after Meehan confessed to the conspiracy to conceal the exculpatory forensic
evidence and to manufacture a deliberately incomplete DNA report, certain
Defendants continued to attempt to reshape the factual record in order to maintain
the prosecution of the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
308. On December 21, 2006, days after Meehan’s testimony, Wilson conducted an
unwitnessed, unsupervised interview of Mangum the sole purpose of which was to
revive the prosecution by persuading Mangum to alter her statements to conform
to the revelations regarding the lack of Plaintiffs’ DNA on the rape kit items.
Upon information and belief, Wilson did so at Nifong’s direction and with
Nifong’s approval.
309. By conducting this interview without a witness, Wilson violated standing Durham
Police polices that required at least two officers at every witness interview.
310. During this interview, Wilson claimed that Mangum contradicted critical elements
of her earlier statements. In particular, Wilson claimed, Mangum recanted her
- 92 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 98 of 155
Page 99
allegations that she had been raped and that one or more of her alleged assailants
had ejaculated in her vagina or anus during the course of the alleged assault.
According to Wilson, however, Mangum still maintained she was assaulted, and
for the first time alleged that she may have been penetrated with a foreign object.
311. Wilson also claimed that Mangum provided new eyewitness identifications of the
Plaintiffs during this interview, based on the same photographs that were used in
the tainted April Photo Array. Wilson deliberately brought these photographs with
him for the purpose of manufacturing new “identifications” of the three innocent
Duke lacrosse players, after the players’ attorneys had made known that they
would be moving to suppress the identifications made during the April Photo
Array. Wilson would later falsely claim that he inadvertently brought the
photographs with him to the interview, and that Mangum “happened” to see them
and identify the Plaintiffs.
312. Even with Wilson’s obvious and repugnant coaching, Mangum provided yet
another account of the evening of March 13-14. This, too, was contradicted by the
other evidence.
313. Despite Mangum’s cajoled “recantation,” her implausible new accusations, and
the overwhelming evidence of innocence, Nifong did not dismiss the prosecution.
Instead, he dismissed only the charge of first degree rape, and continued to
prosecute Plaintiffs on the remaining sexual assault and kidnapping charges in a
- 93 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 99 of 155
Page 100
desperate attempt to continue the prosecution of the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players.
G.
The North Carolina Attorney General and State Bar Conclude that the
Plaintiffs Are Innocent
314. In December 2006, Nifong received notice that an ethics complaint had been filed
against him with the North Carolina State Bar for violations of the North Carolina
Revised Rules of Professional Conduct based on his conduct during the
investigation and prosecution of Plaintiffs.
315. On January 12, 2007, Nifong had no choice but to recuse himself from the
prosecution of the Plaintiffs and referred their cases to the North Carolina
Attorney General. At that point, Nifong was no longer in a position to control the
conspiracy, to obstruct justice, and to maintain the baseless prosecution of the
three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
316. The Attorney General conducted an intensive, independent investigation of the
three cases, which included pursuing the documented inconsistencies in
Mangum’s accounts, examining all of the DNA evidence, and inviting and
reviewing exculpatory evidence from the Plaintiffs.
317. On April 11, 2007, the Attorney General dismissed all of the remaining charges
against the three innocent Duke lacrosse players.
318. In his public statement announcing the decision to dismiss, the Attorney General
described the investigation conducted by State officials and declared that “these
- 94 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 100 of 155
Page 101
cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious
allegations.”
319. Specifically, the Attorney General concluded that Nifong, Durham Police, and
other Defendants conspicuously failed to confront Mangum with both the
contradictions among her initial inconsistent accounts of events on March 14,
2006, and the contradictions raised by the physical and documentary evidence.
320. The Attorney General also concluded that Nifong, Durham Police, and other
Defendants failed to make a serious assessment of Mangum’s credibility in light of
these contradictions, Mangum’s admitted use of alcohol and prescription drugs,
and Mangum’s psychiatric history.
321. The Attorney General concluded that Ms. Mangum’s credibility was suspect, her
various inconsistent allegations were incredible and were contradicted by other
evidence in the case, and that credible and verifiable evidence demonstrated that
the three innocent Duke lacrosse players could not have participated in an attack
during the time it was alleged to have occurred.
322. Based on its findings that no credible evidence supported the allegation that the
crimes occurred, the Attorney General declared that Reade Seligman, Collin
Finnerty, and David Evans were innocent of all charges in the Duke Lacrosse case.
The cases against the three innocent Duke lacrosse players were dismissed on
April 11, 2007.
- 95 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 101 of 155
Page 102
323. The Attorney General noted that “a lot of people need to apologize” for what
happened to the Plaintiffs.
324. On June 16, 2007, Nifong was disbarred by the North Carolina bar for his actions
relating to the investigation and prosecution of Plaintiffs. In announcing the
hearing committee’s decision, committee chair F. Lane Williamson stated, “This
matter has been a fiasco. There’s no doubt about it.” Williamson added, “We
acknowledge the actual innocence of the defendants, and there’s nothing here that
has done anything but support that assertion.”
325. On July 11, 2007, the North Carolina bar issued the committee’s written opinion
announcing Nifong’s disbarment. Among other things, the committee found that
“[Nifong’s] conduct was, at least, a major contributing factor in the exceptionally
intense national and local media coverage the Duke Lacrosse case received and in
the public condemnation heaped upon the Duke Defendants,” who “experienced
heightened public scorn and loss of privacy while facing very serious criminal
charges of which the Attorney General of North Carolina ultimately concluded
they were innocent.”
326. On August 31, 2007, Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt by the
Superior Court for Durham County (Honorable Osmond W. Smith III, Superior
Court Judge presiding) for his false and misleading statements at the September 22
hearing. Judge Smith sentenced Nifong to a symbolic one day in jail, explaining
that “If what I impose, with regard to Mr. Nifong, would make things better or
- 96 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 102 of 155
Page 103
different for what’s already happened, I don’t know what it would be or how I
could do it.”
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI
in their individual capacities)
327. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-326 above.
328. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI are “persons,” as that
term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
329. Under color of state law, Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and
DSI, acting individually and in concert, initiated and continued criminal
prosecutions against each of the Plaintiffs on charges of first-degree rape, first-
degree sexual assault, and kidnapping.
330. There was no probable cause for any of the criminal prosecutions of the Plaintiffs.
331. Each of the criminal prosecutions terminated in favor of the Plaintiffs.
332. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI’s actions were
malicious and evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate
indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
333. As result of these wrongful prosecutions, Plaintiffs were seized and deprived of
their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
- 97 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 103 of 155
Page 104
334. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
335. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI
in their individual capacities)
336. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-335 above.
337. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI are “persons,” as that
term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
338. Under color of law, Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI,
acting individually and in concert, concealed evidence of Plaintiffs’ actual
innocence.
339. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI conspired to develop a
“limited reporting protocol” that was, in reality, intended to conceal and obfuscate
evidence of Plaintiffs’ innocence from the Plaintiffs, their attorneys, and the
courts.
- 98 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 104 of 155
Page 105
340. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI knowingly and
intentionally concealed critical exculpatory DNA evidence and expert reports to
which Plaintiffs were entitled under standing court orders, the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, and North Carolina law.
341. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI continued to conceal
the exculpatory DNA evidence until October 2006, when these Defendants then
attempted to cloak it by producing it in snippets scattered across nearly 2,000
pages of raw scientific data.
342. These Defendants’ decision to bury this evidence under the piles of unfiltered data
was calculated to perpetuate their concealment of that evidence.
343. In addition, Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI
intentionally withheld notes and memorializations of Meehan’s oral reports of the
results of DSI’s testing, to which Plaintiffs were entitled under standing court
orders, North Carolina law, and the Fourteenth Amendment.
344. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI’s actions evidenced a
reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights.
345. As a result of these Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights
under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
- 99 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 105 of 155
Page 106
346. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
347. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the criminal proceedings
initiated and sustained by Defendants.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI
in their individual capacities)
348. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-347 above.
349. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI are “persons,” as that
term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
350. Acting under color of law, Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and
DSI, individually and in concert, conspired to produce a false and misleading
DNA report that they understood and agreed would be falsely misrepresented as
the “final” results of all DNA testing by DSI, and that would be used in the
criminal proceeding instituted against Plaintiffs.
351. Under color of law, Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson, acting individually and
in concert, abused their authority and positions as law enforcement officers to
intimidate defense witnesses in an effort to force them to alter their accounts of
- 100 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 106 of 155
Page 107
events on March 13 and 14, 2006, in order to obtain false statements that they
could use in the criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs and/or to prevent those
witnesses from testifying in defense of the Plaintiffs.
352. Under color of law, Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan, acting individually and in
concert, manipulated photographic arrays and identification procedures in direct
violation of written Durham Police procedures in order to secure false witness
identifications, knowing that those identifications would be used in the criminal
proceedings instituted against Plaintiffs.
353. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI’s actions evidenced a
reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights
354. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, each of the Plaintiffs was deprived of his
rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
355. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
356. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
- 101 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 107 of 155
Page 108
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MAKING FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Nifong, Hodge, and Addison in their individual capacities)
357. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1-356 above.
358. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison are “persons,” as that term is used in the text of 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
359. Beginning in March 2006 and December 2007, Nifong, Hodge, and Addison made
various public statements, including the Nifong and Durham Police Statements,
that were of and concerning the Plaintiffs and the investigation and prosecution of
Mangum’s allegations.
360. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison made their respective public statements, including
the Nifong and Durham Police Statements, under color of law.
361. In his public statements, including the Nifong Statements, Nifong falsely stated,
among other things, that:
a.
Three members of the Duke lacrosse team had committed a vicious,
racially-motivated gang rape;
b.
Mangum had identified Plaintiffs as her assailants;
c.
There was “no doubt” a rape occurred;
d.
Other members of the Duke lacrosse team aided and abetted the alleged
gang rape;
- 102 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 108 of 155
Page 109
e.
Plaintiffs and other members of the Duke lacrosse team were “a bunch
of hooligans” engaged in a “stonewall of silence”;
f.
None of the members of the lacrosse team “has been enough of a man to
come forward.”
g.
The absence of DNA results could be explained by condom use during
the alleged assault;
h.
None of the facts that Nifong knew as of June 19, 2006 raised any doubt
that a rape might not have occurred; and
i.
Based on the results of the DNA testing, there was no question that a
rape occurred.
362. In their public statements, including the Durham Police Statements, Hodge and
Addison falsely stated, among other things, that members of the Duke lacrosse
team had committed a brutal gang rape and robbery at 610 N. Buchanan, that
Plaintiffs and other members of the Duke lacrosse team were obstructing the
investigation by failing to come forward and provide evidence, and that Durham
Police had developed a strong case against Plaintiffs.
363. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison’s false statements, including the Nifong and Durham
Police Statements, were published through the local, national, and international
media, conveying these false statements to an audience of hundreds of millions of
people.
- 103 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 109 of 155
Page 110
364. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison’s false statements, including the Nifong and Durham
Police Statements, were intended to inflame the Durham community and grand
jury pool against the Plaintiffs and other Duke lacrosse players, and to
compromise the fairness of subsequent judicial proceedings.
365. Nifong’s, Hodge’s, and Addison’s actions evidenced a reckless and callous
disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
366. As a result of Nifong’s, Hodge’s, and Addison’s false public statements, Plaintiffs
were seized and deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
367. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
368. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(MONELL V. DEP’T OF SOCIAL SERVS., 436 U.S. 658 (1977))
(Against the Supervisory Defendants in their official capacities, Nifong in his official
capacity with respect to Durham Police, and the City of Durham)
369. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-368 above.
- 104 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 110 of 155
Page 111
370. Nifong, the Supervisory Defendants, the City of Durham are “persons,” as that
term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
A.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority for Durham Police
Approved the Unconstitutional Conduct of Their Subordinates.
371. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the
City of Durham having final policymaking authority for Durham Police had
contemporaneous knowledge through the chain of command that Nifong and
Durham Police officers were conducting manipulative identification procedures
that violated constitutional standards, intimidating witnesses who had information
about Plaintiffs’ innocence, concealing evidence of Plaintiffs’ innocence,
fabricating false evidence, and making false public statements regarding Plaintiffs
and the Duke lacrosse team.
372. It would have been plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that such conduct
would lead to deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
373. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the
City of Durham and the Durham Police nevertheless agreed to, approved, and
ratified this unconstitutional conduct by Nifong and their subordinates in Durham
Police.
374. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these policy decisions, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
- 105 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 111 of 155
Page 112
B.
Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Permitting
Officers to Publish Premature Conclusions of Criminality and Guilt.
375. Addison, acting in his official capacity as spokesman of the Durham Police
Department, pursuant to established custom or policy, and with the acquiescence
or approval of the Supervisory Defendants, made a series of public statements
expressing the Department’s official conclusion that Mangum had been raped,
sexually assaulted, and kidnapped by members of the Duke lacrosse team.
376. In addition, Addison repeatedly expressed the Department’s official view that
Plaintiffs and other members of the Duke lacrosse team were obstructing justice
by failing to confess their knowledge of, or involvement in, the alleged assault.
377. Addison, acting pursuant to established customs or policies of the City of Durham
and the Durham Police Department, with the acquiescence or approval of
Chalmers, Hodge, Lee and other policymaking officials in the Durham Police
Department, and in his official capacity as coordinator of Durham Crimestoppers,
caused the publication of a series of “Wanted” posters that contained
inflammatory and conclusory allegations of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping
against members of the Duke lacrosse team.
378. Hodge himself, in his capacity as Deputy Chief of Police and the second-highest-
ranking official in the Durham Police Department, stated publicly that the Durham
Police had a strong case against members of the Duke lacrosse team.
- 106 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 112 of 155
Page 113
379. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the custom or policy allowing Durham
Police officials to publish premature official conclusions of criminality and guilt,
Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
C.
Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Targeting Duke
University Students for Harassment Through Selective and Improper
Enforcement of the Criminal Laws.
380. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the
City of Durham and the Durham Police established a policy or custom
encouraging Durham Police officers to target Duke University students for
selective enforcement of the criminal laws.
381. It would have been plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that such conduct
would lead to deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. Indeed, upon
information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants were aware that Gottlieb had
attempted to effectuate this policy by engaging in selective and malicious
prosecution, excessive use of force, manufacturing of false evidence, and filing of
false police reports against Duke University students, yet they consistently failed
to take adequate or meaningful steps to discipline Gottlieb, correct his behavior, or
terminate his employment.
382. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this policy decision, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
- 107 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 113 of 155
Page 114
D.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Nifong.
383. On or about March 24, 2006, the Supervisory Defendants and, upon information
and belief, other officials with final policymaking authority in the City of Durham
and the Durham Police agreed that Nifong would direct the Durham Police
investigation into the allegations of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping made by
Crystal Mangum.
384. Before and after Nifong was given authority to direct the Durham Police
investigation, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials with final
policymaking authority in the City of Durham and the Durham Police had actual
or constructive knowledge that Nifong did not have the experience or training to
direct a complex criminal investigation; that he was in the midst of a hotly-
disputed election campaign; that he had a history of explosive, irrational, and
unstable behavior; that his political ambition was driving his personal engagement
with the investigation; and that he had made statements committing the
investigation to a determinate outcome.
385. In these circumstances, adequate scrutiny of Nifong’s character, conduct, and
background would have made it plainly obvious to a reasonable policymaker that
the decision to permit him to direct this investigation would lead to deprivations of
Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
- 108 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 114 of 155
Page 115
386. Nevertheless, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of
Durham and the Durham Police Department allowed Nifong to direct the
investigation knowing, or with deliberate indifference to the likelihood, that their
decision would result in violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
387. After Nifong was allowed to direct the investigation, the Supervisory Defendants
and other officials with final policymaking authority in the City of Durham and
the Durham Police had actual or constructive knowledge that Nifong had
authorized and/or personally engaged in decisions from which it would have been
plainly obvious to a reasonable supervisory official that violations of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights inevitably would occur, including the deviation from the
procedures otherwise required under General Order No. 4077, the conspiracy to
fabricate and conceal DNA evidence during the April 10, April 21, and May 12
Meetings, the intimidation of defense witnesses, and the Nifong Statements.
Nevertheless, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of
Durham and the Durham Police Department took no corrective action and instead
continued to permit Nifong to direct the Durham Police investigation and
continued to direct Durham Police to report to Nifong, knowing or with reckless
disregard or deliberate indifference to the likelihood that their decision would
result in further violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
- 109 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 115 of 155
Page 116
388. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these policy decisions, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
E.
Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Gottlieb.
389. Upon information and belief, as of March 13, 2006, Gottlieb had a documented
history of selective and malicious prosecution, excessive use of force,
manufacturing of false evidence, and filing of false police reports in his dealings
with Duke University students.
390. The Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City of Durham and the
Durham Police Department consistently failed to take adequate or meaningful
steps to discipline Gottlieb, correct his behavior, or terminate his employment.
391. By these omissions, these officials endorsed and ratified Gottlieb’s
unconstitutional conduct, established a custom or practice of targeting Duke
University students for harsh or disproportionate treatment, or established a
custom and practice of failing to correct the unconstitutional conduct of Durham
Police officers.
392. In these circumstances, it would have been plainly obvious to a reasonable
policymaker that the decision to place Gottlieb in a lead position on this
investigation would lead to deprivations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
- 110 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 116 of 155
Page 117
393. Despite this evidence, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the City
of Durham and the Durham Police Department, assigned Gottlieb to lead the
investigation knowing, or with deliberate indifference to the likelihood, that their
decision would result in violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
394. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this official action, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
F.
After Being Given Final Policymaking Authority over the Durham
Police Investigation, Nifong Directed Officers to Engage in
Constitutional Violations.
395. On or about March 24, 2006, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials with
final policymaking authority in the City of Durham and the Durham Police
Department agreed that Nifong would direct the Durham Police investigation into
the allegations of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping made by Mangum.
396. On or about March 24, 2006, Defendant Lamb instructed Gottlieb and Himan that
they should take their direction from Nifong regarding their investigation, rather
than the usual Durham Police chain of command, and that they should also report
to senior command staff on the investigation’s progress.
397. By agreeing that Nifong would direct the investigation, and by instructing Durham
Police personnel to take direction from Nifong instead of the usual chain of
command, the Supervisory Defendants, the City of Durham, and the Durham
Police Department delegated to Nifong final policymaking authority over the
- 111 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 117 of 155
Page 118
investigative procedures implemented by the Durham Police Department and the
Durham Police personnel involved in the investigation.
398. Acting in this capacity, Nifong used his delegated authority to implement a series
of investigative policies and actions that included, among other things, the
manufacturing of a false and misleading DNA report, the suppression of
exculpatory DNA evidence, the intimidation of witnesses, and the manipulation of
witness identification procedures.
399. Nifong implemented these policies and actions with knowledge or deliberate
indifference to the likelihood that they would result in violations of Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights.
400. Upon information and belief, the Supervisory Defendants and other officials in the
City of Durham and the Durham Police nevertheless ratified these investigative
policies and actions implemented by Nifong.
401. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these investigative policies and
actions, Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
* * *
402. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of each of the foregoing constitutional
deprivations caused by policymaking officials, customs and practices, and policies
in the City of Durham and the Durham Police Department, Plaintiffs have suffered
- 112 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 118 of 155
Page 119
economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of privacy,
loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
403. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: SUPERVISORY VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against the Supervisory Defendants in their individual capacities)
404. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-403 above.
405. The Supervisory Defendants are “persons,” as that term is used in the text of 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
A.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Supervise the Investigation
Resulted in Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights.
406. On or about March 24, 2006, Nifong, with the acquiescence or approval of the
Supervisory Defendants assumed direct responsibility for the police investigation
into allegations of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping made by Crystal Mangum.
407. On or about March 24, 2006, the Supervisory Defendants ordered Addison,
Gottlieb, Himan and officers involved in the investigation to report directly to
Nifong, but required that they continue to provide information about the
investigation to their chain of command.
- 113 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 119 of 155
Page 120
408. During the course of the subsequent investigation, Nifong, Gottlieb, Wilson, and
Himan, individually and in concert, engaged in a number of investigative abuses,
including intimidation of witnesses, manufacturing of false evidence, suppression
of exculpatory evidence, and manipulation of witness identification procedures.
409. The Supervisory Defendants knew, or should have known, about these abuses and
failed to take meaningful preventative or remedial action.
410. The Supervisory Defendants’ actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard
for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
411. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, Plaintiffs
were deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
412. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
413. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
- 114 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 120 of 155
Page 121
B.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Control and Supervise
Gottlieb Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights.
414. Upon information and belief, by March 2006, Gottlieb had a demonstrated history
of antagonism against students at Duke University, marked by numerous incidents
of excessive use of force, malicious prosecution, and manufacturing of evidence.
415. The Supervisory Defendants knew or should have known about Gottlieb’s history,
but failed to take meaningful remedial action.
416. In light of Gottlieb’s history, the Supervisory Defendants acted recklessly or with
deliberate indifference when they put him in a position to lead the investigation
into Mangum’s allegations.
417. The Supervisory Defendants’ actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard
for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
418. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these acts and omissions, Plaintiffs
were deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
419. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
420. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
- 115 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 121 of 155
Page 122
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
C.
The Supervisory Defendants’ Failures to Train, Control, and Supervise
Addison Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights.
421. In March 2006, Addison was the official spokesperson of the Durham Police
Department and the coordinator of the Durham Crimestoppers program.
422. Prior to placing him in this role, and during the pendency of his tenure in that role,
the Supervisory Defendants demonstrated reckless or callous indifference to the
rights of potential criminal suspects by failing to provide Addison with adequate
training regarding the legal and constitutional dimensions of his position.
423. During his tenure as spokesperson and Crimestoppers’ coordinator, Addison
demonstrated a consistent pattern of publishing statements expressing premature
conclusions of guilt and illegality.
424. The Supervisory Defendants demonstrated reckless or callous indifference to the
rights of potential criminal suspects by failing to take meaningful action to correct
this conduct.
425. In March and April 2006, Addison, acting in his role as spokesman for the
Durham Police Department and as coordinator of Durham Crimestoppers,
published a series of inflammatory statements expressing the Department’s official
conclusion that Crystal Mangum had been raped, sodomized, sexually assaulted,
and kidnapped by members of the Duke lacrosse team. In addition, Addison
- 116 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 122 of 155
Page 123
repeatedly expressed the Department’s official view that Plaintiffs and other
members of the Duke lacrosse team were obstructing justice by failing to confess
their knowledge of or involvement in the alleged assault on Crystal Mangum.
426. The Supervisory Defendants knew or should have known about these statements,
but demonstrated reckless disregard or deliberate indifference by failing to take
prompt and meaningful preventative or remedial action.
427. To the contrary, Hodge himself publicly stated that Durham Police had a strong
case against members of the Duke lacrosse team at a time when he knew or should
have known that such a statement was false.
428. The Supervisory Defendants’ actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard
for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
429. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the Supervisory Defendants’ failures
to train and supervise Addison, Plaintiffs were deprived of their rights under the
Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
430. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
431. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
- 117 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 123 of 155
Page 124
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity; Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan,
Wilson, and DSI in their individual and official capacities; Nifong in his official capacity
with respect to Durham Police; and the Supervisory Defendants, in their individual and
official capacities)
432. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-431 above.
433. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, DSI, and the
Supervisory Defendants are “persons,” as that term is used in the text of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
434. Under color of state law, Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan,
Wilson, DSI, and the Supervisory Defendants conspired and entered into express
and/or implied agreements, understandings, or meetings of the minds among
themselves to deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by charging and
prosecuting the three innocent Duke lacrosse players on charges of rape, sexual
assault, and kidnapping, which these Defendants knew were not supported by
probable cause.
435. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, DSI, and the
Supervisory Defendants willfully participated in this illegal objective by various
means, with the intent to further some purpose of the conspiracy, including, for
example:
- 118 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 124 of 155
Page 125
a.
publishing false and inflammatory public statements regarding
Plaintiffs;
b.
manufacturing and approving the phony “identification” of Plaintiffs
during the April Photo Array;
c.
entering into the aforementioned DNA conspiracy to fabricate and
conceal the results of DSI’s findings;
d.
intimidating alibi and other defense witnesses, including Moezeldin
Elmostafa, Kim Pittman, Sergeant John Shelton, and the other innocent
Duke lacrosse players;
e.
agreeing to make false and materially incomplete statements to the
grand juries that returned the April 17 and May 15 Indictments;
f.
fabricating additional false evidence after the April 17 and May 15
Indictments, such as Gottlieb’s “Supplemental Case Notes” and
Wilson’s December 2006 “interview” of Mangum; and
g.
making false statements to the Superior Court of Durham County and
the Plaintiffs’ defense counsel in an effort to conceal the unlawful
conspiracy.
436. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, DSI, and the
Supervisory Defendants’ actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for,
and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
- 119 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 125 of 155
Page 126
437. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
438. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
439. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE)
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity and in his official capacity with respect to
Durham Police; Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, the Supervisory
Defendants, and DSI in their individual and official capacities; and the City of Durham)
440. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-439 above.
441. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, the Supervisory
Defendants, DSI, and the City of Durham are “persons,” as that term is used in 42
U.S.C. § 1985.
442. Under color of state law, Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan,
Wilson, the Supervisory Defendants, DSI, and the City of Durham conspired and
entered into express and/or implied agreements, understandings, or meetings of the
- 120 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 126 of 155
Page 127
minds among themselves for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing and
defeating the due course of justice in the State of North Carolina, with the intent to
deny Plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws.
443. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, the Supervisory
Defendants, DSI, and the City of Durham’s actions evidenced a reckless and
callous disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional
rights.
444. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
445. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
446. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
- 121 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 127 of 155
Page 128
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(WITNESS TAMPERING)
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity and in his official capacity with respect to
Durham Police; Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, and the Supervisory Defendants in their
individual and official capacities; and the City of Durham)
447. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-446 above.
448. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, the Supervisory Defendants, and the City of
Durham are “persons,” as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
449. Under color of state law, Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, the Supervisory
Defendants, and the City of Durham conspired and entered into express and/or
implied agreements, understandings, or meetings of the minds among themselves
for the purpose of deterring alibi and other defense witnesses—including
Moezeldin Elmostafa, Kim Pittman, Sergeant John Shelton, and members of the
Duke lacrosse team—by force, intimidation, and threat from attending the
Superior Court of Durham County and testifying freely, fully, and truthfully to
matters that these Defendants knew were, or would be, pending therein.
450. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, the Supervisory Defendants, and the City of
Durham’s actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate
indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
451. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
- 122 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 128 of 155
Page 129
452. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
453. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity and in his official capacity with respect to
Durham Police; Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, the Supervisory
Defendants, and DSI in their individual and official capacities; and the City of Durham)
454. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-453 above.
455. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, DSI, the Supervisory
Defendants, and the City of Durham are “persons,” as that term is used in 42
U.S.C. § 1985.
456. Under color of state law, Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan,
Wilson, DSI, the Supervisory Defendants, and the City of Durham conspired and
entered into express and/or implied agreements, understandings, or meetings of the
minds among themselves for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly,
Plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws and of their equal privileges and
immunities under the laws.
- 123 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 129 of 155
Page 130
457. Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, DSI, the Supervisory
Defendants, and the City of Durham’s actions evidenced a reckless and callous
disregard for, and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
458. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
459. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
460. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DURHAM POLICE)
(Against the Supervisory Defendants in their individual and official capacities
and the City of Durham)
461. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-460 above.
462. The Supervisory Defendants and the City of Durham are “persons,” as that term is
used in 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
- 124 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 130 of 155
Page 131
463. The Supervisory Defendants, Durham Police Department, and the City of Durham
had prior knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be committed by Defendants
Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI.
464. The Supervisory Defendants, Durham Police Department, and the City of Durham
had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the wrongs
conspired to be committed by Defendants Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb,
Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI, and which by reasonable diligence could have
been prevented, but they neglected and/or refused to exercise such power.
465. As a direct and proximate result of the neglect and/or refusal of the Supervisory
Defendants, Durham Police Department, and the City of Durham to prevent or to
aid in preventing the commission of the wrongs conspired to be committed by
Defendants Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI,
the Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.
466. The Supervisory Defendants, Durham Police Department, and the City of
Durham’s actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for, and deliberate
indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
467. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
- 125 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 131 of 155
Page 132
468. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
469. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DNA SECURITY)
(Against Clark, Meehan, and DSI in their individual and official capacities)
470. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-469 above.
471. Clark, Meehan, and DSI are “persons,” as that term is used in 42 U.S.C. § 1986.
472. Clark, Meehan, and DSI had prior knowledge of the wrongs conspired to be
committed by Defendants Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, and DSI.
473. Clark, Meehan, and DSI had the power to prevent or aid in preventing the
commission of the wrongs conspired to be committed by Defendants Nifong,
Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, and DSI, and which by reasonable diligence
could have been prevented, but they neglected and/or refused to exercise such
power.
474. As a direct and proximate result of the neglect and/or refusal of Clark, Meehan,
and DSI to prevent or to aid in preventing the commission of the wrongs conspired
- 126 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 132 of 155
Page 133
to be committed by Defendants Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, and DSI,
the Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages as alleged herein.
475. Clark, Meehan, and DSI’s actions evidenced a reckless and callous disregard for,
and deliberate indifference to, Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
476. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of this conspiracy, Plaintiffs were
deprived of their rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
477. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have
suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of
privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
478. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain
counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and
incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity; Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan,
Wilson, and DSI in their individual and official capacities; and Nifong in his official
capacity with respect to Durham Police)
479. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-478 above.
- 127 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 133 of 155
Page 134
480. Beginning on March 14, 2006, Nifong, Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Hodge,
Meehan, Wilson, and DSI, acting individually and in concert, instituted or
participated in the institution of criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs.
481. These proceedings were not supported by probable cause and were terminated in
Plaintiffs’ favor on April 11, 2007.
482. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI demonstrated malice,
spite, ill-will, and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by conspiring to
manufacture and by manufacturing false and misleading expert reports with the
knowledge that these reports would be used to advance and perpetuate the criminal
process against Defendants.
483. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson demonstrated malice, spite, ill-will, and
wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by conspiring to manufacture and by
manufacturing false and misleading investigative reports with the knowledge that
these reports would be used to advance and perpetuate the criminal process against
Defendants.
484. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI further demonstrated
malice, spite, ill-will, and wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by attempting to
hide exculpatory DNA evidence in hundreds of pages of raw data rather than
disclosing Meehan and DSI’s distilled findings and conclusions.
485. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson demonstrated malice, spite, ill-will, and
wanton disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by intimidating Kimberly Pittman and
- 128 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 134 of 155
Page 135
attempting to intimidate Moezeldin Elmostafa and Sergeant John Shelton with the
purpose of altering their statements exonerating Plaintiffs.
486. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan demonstrated malice, spite, ill-will, and wanton
disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by manipulating witness identification procedures in
order to perpetuate the criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs.
487. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison demonstrated malice, spite, ill-will, and wanton
disregard for Plaintiffs’ rights by making repeated false, inflammatory, and
misleading statements regarding the Duke lacrosse team and the Plaintiffs.
488. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were
unreasonably and unlawfully subjected to indictment and criminal prosecution.
489. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of being subjected to prosecution,
Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of
liberty, loss of privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations.
490. As a further consequence of being subjected to prosecution, Plaintiffs were
required to retain counsel to represent them in protracted criminal proceedings,
and incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
- 129 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 135 of 155
Page 136
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity; Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and
DSI in their individual and official capacities; and Nifong in his official capacity with
respect to Durham Police)
491. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-490 above.
492. Between March 14, 2006 and April 11, 2007, Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan,
Meehan, Wilson, and DSI, acting individually and in concert, engaged in acts that
attempted to and did prevent, obstruct, impede, and hinder public and legal justice
in the State of North Carolina.
493. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI engaged in this
obstruction of justice by conspiring to manufacture and by manufacturing false
and misleading expert reports with the knowledge that these reports would be used
to advance and perpetuate the criminal process against Defendants.
494. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson engaged in this obstruction of justice by
conspiring to manufacture and by manufacturing false and misleading
investigative reports with the knowledge that these reports would be used to
advance and perpetuate the criminal process against Defendants.
495. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI engaged in this
obstruction of justice by attempting to hide exculpatory DNA evidence in
hundreds of pages of raw data rather than disclosing Meehan and DSI’s distilled
findings and conclusions.
- 130 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 136 of 155
Page 137
496. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson engaged in this obstruction of justice by
intimidating Kimberly Pittman and attempting to intimidate Moezeldin Elmostafa
and Sergeant John Shelton with the purpose of altering their statements
exonerating Plaintiffs.
497. Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan engaged in this obstruction of justice by
manipulating witness identification procedures in order to perpetuate the criminal
proceedings against Plaintiffs.
498. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs were
unreasonably and unlawfully subjected to an indictment and criminal prosecution
that were sustained by Defendants’ continuing unlawful actions.
499. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of being subjected to this obstruction of
justice, Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma,
loss of liberty, loss of privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their
reputations.
500. As a further consequence of being subjected to prosecution, Plaintiffs were
required to retain counsel to represent them in protracted criminal proceedings,
and incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants.
- 131 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 137 of 155
Page 138
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND
CONSPIRACY
(Against Nifong in his individual capacity; Addison, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Hodge,
Meehan, Wilson, and DSI in their individual and official capacities; and Nifong in his
official capacity with respect to Durham Police)
501. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-500 above.
502. Nifong, Clark, Gottlieb, Himan, Meehan, Wilson, and DSI acted individually and
in concert to manufacture inculpatory evidence and to conceal exculpatory
evidence for the purpose of perpetuating a criminal action against Plaintiffs falsely
charging them with rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping—charges that were
calculated to shame, to humiliate, and to produce public condemnation of the
Plaintiffs.
503. Nifong, Hodge, and Addison repeatedly made false, insulting, offensive, and
inflammatory statements about Plaintiffs and other members of the Duke lacrosse
team calculated to shame, to humiliate, and to produce public condemnation of the
Plaintiffs.
504. Nifong, Gottlieb, Himan, and Wilson, acting individually and in concert,
intimidated witnesses and manipulated witness identification procedures with the
intention of perpetuating criminal proceedings against Plaintiffs.
505. In combination with conduct described above, these actions evidenced a pattern of
extreme and outrageous behavior pursued with the intent to cause Plaintiffs to
suffer severe emotional distress.
- 132 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 138 of 155
Page 139
506. Defendants’ conduct had the direct and foreseeable consequence of marking
Plaintiffs as violent criminals and racists in the minds of hundreds of millions of
people.
507. Defendants’ conduct had the further consequence of making Plaintiffs and other
members of the Duke lacrosse team into public pariahs, subjecting them to
extreme and sustained public obloquy, causing them to endure death threats,
taunts, and insults, and subjecting them to assaults by the local, national, and
international media.
508. Despite Plaintiffs’ exoneration, Defendants’ conduct will continue to have
deleterious effects on Plaintiffs, who will forever be associated with the false
allegations advanced by Defendants and repeatedly publicized by Nifong, Hodge,
and Addison.
509. As a result of Defendants’ intentional and outrageous conduct, Plaintiffs have
suffered and continue to suffer from emotional and mental conditions generally
recognized and diagnosed by trained professionals.
510. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of those conditions, Plaintiffs have
suffered, and continue to suffer, disabling emotional, mental, and physical harm.
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE
(Against Addison, Gottlieb, Himan, and Hodge in their individual and official capacities,
and the City of Durham)
511. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-510 above.
- 133 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 139 of 155
Page 140
512. At the time of the Durham Police Statements described above, Addison and Hodge
each owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care with respect to his public statements
concerning the investigation of Mangum’s claims.
513. At the time of the events alleged above, Gottlieb and Himan owed Plaintiffs a duty
to use due care with respect to the investigation of Mangum’s allegations.
514. At the time they made their respective Durham Police Statements, Addison and
Hodge each knew or should have known that such statements were false and
inflammatory and likely to cause Plaintiffs harm.
515. At the time Gottlieb and Himan committed the acts and omissions alleged above,
they knew or should have known that they violated or departed from Durham
Police policies and procedures, violated or departed from professional standards of
conduct, violated constitutional rights, and were likely to cause Plaintiffs harm.
516. In committing the aforementioned acts and/or omissions, Addison, Gottlieb,
Himan, and Hodge negligently breached said duties to use due care, which directly
and proximately resulted in the injuries and damages to the Plaintiffs as alleged
herein.
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING,
TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE
(Against the Supervisory Defendants in their individual and official capacities,
and the City of Durham)
517. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-516 above.
- 134 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 140 of 155
Page 141
518. At the time of the events alleged above, each of the Supervisory Defendants, and
the City of Durham owed Plaintiffs a duty to use due care in the hiring, training,
supervision, discipline, and retention of Durham Police personnel, including the
personnel involved in the investigation of Mangum’s claims.
519. The Supervisory Defendants negligently supervised Defendant Gottlieb by failing
to discipline him and instead assigning him to the police investigation into
Mangum’s allegations notwithstanding prior allegations of Gottlieb’s misconduct
with respect to students attending Duke University.
520. The Supervisory Defendants negligently supervised Defendant Himan by
assigning him to the police investigation into Mangum’s allegations,
notwithstanding Himan’s lack of prior experience in major felony investigations.
521. The Supervisory Defendants negligently supervised Defendants Addison, Gottlieb,
and Himan, failed to provide them with proper training, and failed to outline
proper procedure to them in various respects relating to the appropriate conduct of
criminal investigations, including by way of example:
a.
the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;
b.
the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation;
c.
the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;
d.
the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal
investigation or proceeding;
- 135 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 141 of 155
Page 142
e.
prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;
f.
the standards for police reports, investigator’s notes, and other reports of
investigations, including the timely and truthful preparation of such
documents;
g.
the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific
testing or other services in connection with a police investigation; and
h.
the standards for probable cause.
522. The Supervisory Defendants further negligently supervised Gottlieb and Himan by
ignoring evidence demonstrating the misconduct underlying the investigation, and
instead continuing to allow Nifong to have primary responsibility for the police
investigation, ordering Gottlieb and Himan to look to Nifong for direction as to the
conduct of that investigation, and having Gottlieb and Himan continue to serve on
that investigation.
523. The Supervisory Defendants further negligently supervised Addison by ignoring
the false and inflammatory Addison Statements, failing to retract such statements,
failing to reprimand Addison for such statements, and failing to remove Addison
from his role as a spokesperson for the Durham Police Department. To the
contrary, Hodge joined Addison by publicly stating that Durham Police had a
strong case.
- 136 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 142 of 155
Page 143
524. In committing the aforementioned acts or omissions, each Supervisory Defendant
negligently breached said duty to use due care, which directly and proximately
resulted in the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DURHAM
POLICE
(Against Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants in their individual and official
capacities, and the City of Durham)
525. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-524 above.
526. Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants acted individually and in concert
to manufacture false evidence and to conceal the evidence of Plaintiffs’ innocence
for the purpose of charging and prosecuting the three innocent Duke lacrosse
players on charges of rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping, which charges they
knew or reasonably believed were false and unsupported by probable cause.
527. Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants’ conduct subjected Plaintiffs to
public obloquy, made them pariahs in their communities, and forced them to
endure harsh media scrutiny.
528. Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants’ conduct violated or departed
from Durham Police policies and procedures, including General Order No. 4077.
529. Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory Defendants were negligent in engaging in
this conduct, from which it was reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs would suffer
emotional and psychological harm.
- 137 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 143 of 155
Page 144
530. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Gottlieb, Himan, and the Supervisory
Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from
diagnosable emotional and mental conditions causing disabling emotional, mental,
and physical harm.
NINTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DURHAM
POLICE (DURHAM POLICE STATEMENTS)
(Against Addison and the Supervisory Defendants in their individual and official
capacities, and the City of Durham)
531. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-530 above.
532. Addison and the Supervisory Defendants acted individually and in concert to
publish false and inflammatory statements accusing Plaintiffs of criminal conduct,
including rape, sexual assault, kidnapping, aiding and abetting, and obstruction of
justice, ignoring the evidence of Plaintiffs’ innocence and that no crime had been
charged, let alone occurred.
533. Addison and the Supervisory Defendants acted individually and in concert to
publish false and inflammatory statements accusing Plaintiffs of refusing to
cooperate with the police investigation into Mangum’s claims, ignoring the
evidence of Evans’s and the other captains’ complete and total cooperation with
the search warrant at 610 N. Buchanan and subsequent interviews and medical
testing, and the entire Duke lacrosse team’s total cooperation with the NTO
procedure.
- 138 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 144 of 155
Page 145
534. Addison and the Supervisory Defendants’ conduct subjected Plaintiffs to public
obloquy, made them pariahs in their communities, and forced them to endure
harsh media scrutiny.
535. Addison and the Supervisory Defendants were negligent in engaging in this
conduct, from which it was reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs would suffer
emotional and psychological harm.
536. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Addison and the Supervisory
Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from
diagnosable emotional and mental conditions causing disabling emotional, mental,
and physical harm.
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENCE BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS
(Against Clark and Meehan in their individual and official capacities, and DSI)
537. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-536 above.
538. At the time of the events alleged above, Clark, Meehan, and DSI owed Plaintiffs a
duty of due care with respect to their involvement in the police investigation of
Mangum’s claims.
539. In April 2006, Clark, Meehan, and DSI agreed to omit exculpatory findings that
resulted from their scientific testing of Mangum’s rape kit items from DSI’s report
of the results of its scientific testing relating to the investigation.
- 139 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 145 of 155
Page 146
540. In April and May 2006, Clark, Meehan, and DSI acted individually and in concert
to produce the May 12 Report that misstated the purported results of DSI’s
scientific testing relating to the investigation of Mangum’s claims and omitted
exculpatory findings that resulted from their scientific testing of Mangum’s rape
kit items.
541. DSI’s acts and omissions failed to comply with DSI’s internal protocols, Federal
Bureau of Investigation standards, and regulations governing accredited DNA
testing facilities.
542. At the time the May 12 Report was produced, Clark, Meehan, and DSI knew, or
should have known, that these acts and omissions would result in the filing and
prosecution of serious criminal charges against the Plaintiffs.
543. In September 2006, Clark, Meehan, and DSI were ordered by the Superior Court
of Durham County to disclose all evidence relating to the testing of samples
gathered from Mangum and the rape kit items.
544. In response to that order, Clark, Meehan, and DSI released roughly 2,000 pages of
raw data, but failed to signal the presence of DNA from four unidentified males in
samples taken from the rape kit items, a conclusion that required hundreds of
hours of study to determine from the raw data they produced.
545. At the time they produced this raw data, Clark, Meehan, and DSI knew, or should
have known, that the concealment of their exculpatory findings would prolong the
prosecution of the Plaintiffs.
- 140 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 146 of 155
Page 147
546. In committing the aforementioned acts and omissions, Clark, Meehan, and DSI
negligently breached their aforementioned duties to use due care, which directly
and proximately resulted in the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as alleged
herein.
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING,
TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY THE DNA SECURITY
DEFENDANTS
(Against Clark and Meehan in their individual and official capacities, and DSI)
547. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-546 above.
548. At the time of the events alleged above, Clark and Meehan held supervisory
positions at DSI.
549. At the time of the events alleged above, Clark, Meehan, and DSI owed Plaintiffs a
duty to use due care with respect to the scientific testing described above.
550. Clark and DSI negligently hired, supervised, and retained Meehan, failed to
provide Meehan with proper training and discipline, and failed to outline proper
procedure to Meehan with respect to the preparation and issuance of reports of
scientific testing conducted by DSI in a criminal investigation.
551. Clark, Meehan, and DSI negligently hired, supervised, and retained the DSI
personnel assisting Meehan in the scientific testing and preparation of the May 12
Report described above, failed to provide them with proper training, and failed to
outline proper procedure to them with respect to the preparation and issuance of
reports of scientific testing conducted by DSI in a criminal investigation.
- 141 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 147 of 155
Page 148
552. In committing the aforementioned acts or omissions, each of Clark, Meehan, and
DSI negligently breached said duty to use due care, which directly and
proximately resulted in the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS
(Against Clark and Meehan in their individual and official capacities, and DSI)
553. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-552 above.
554. Clark, Meehan, and DSI acted individually and in concert to manufacture false
evidence and to conceal the evidence of Plaintiffs’ innocence for the purpose of
charging and prosecuting the three innocent Duke lacrosse players on charges of
rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping, which charges they knew or reasonably
believed were false and unsupported by their own scientific testing.
555. Clark, Meehan, and DSI’s conduct subjected Plaintiffs to public obloquy, made
them pariahs in their communities, and forced them to endure harsh media
scrutiny.
556. Clark, Meehan, and DSI’s conduct violated DSI’s internal protocols, Federal
Bureau of Investigation standards, and accreditation rules governing DNA testing
facilities.
557. Clark, Meehan, and DSI were negligent in engaging in this conduct, from which it
was reasonably foreseeable that Plaintiffs would suffer emotional and
psychological harm.
- 142 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 148 of 155
Page 149
558. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of Clark, Meehan, and DSI’s conduct,
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from diagnosable emotional and
mental conditions causing disabling emotional, mental, and physical harm.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
559. WHEREFORE, to redress the injuries proximately and directly caused by
Defendants’ conduct as stated in Paragraphs 1-558 above, and to prevent the
substantial risk of irreparable injury to other persons in the City of Durham as a
result of the policies, customs, practices, and supervisory misconduct alleged
herein, Plaintiffs hereby request the following relief:
a.
the issuance of an Order and Permanent Injunction (“Permanent
Injunction”) that:
i. appoints an independent monitor (the “Monitor”), to be determined
by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham
Police Department for a period of ten (10) years, and who shall
report to the Court on an annual basis regarding Defendants’
compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the Permanent
Injunction;
ii. authorizes the Monitor to establish, review, and enforce all policies
applicable to the management of the Durham Police Department;
iii. provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all
Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police;
- 143 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 149 of 155
Page 150
iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee,
composed of three members selected by the Court, which shall
review and hear publicly complaints of misconduct by Durham
residents against Durham Police personnel and make
recommendations to the Monitor as to discipline or innocence;
v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar
procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether
formal or informal, and/or of suspects or “witnesses,” conform to the
provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape;
vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested
by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney’s Office
include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data
generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be
provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance;
vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training,
based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current
and new personnel (the “Remedial Training”) on the following
matters:
1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;
2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open
investigation;
- 144 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 150 of 155
Page 151
3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;
4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal
investigation or proceeding;
5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;
6. the standards for police reports, investigator’s notes, and
other reports of investigations, including the timely and
truthful preparation of such documents;
7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide
scientific testing or other services in connection with a police
investigation; and
8. the standards for probable cause;
viii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from issuing any press
releases, written statements, posters, flyers, or other materials
intended for publication relating to a Durham Police investigation,
whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham
Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first
obtaining the approval of the Monitor;
ix. enjoins the Durham Police Department from making any oral public
statements relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether
directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police
- 145 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 151 of 155
Page 152
personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first
obtaining the approval of the Monitor as to the substance of the
statement;
x. enjoins the Durham Police Department from serving any arrest
warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal
investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the
approval of the Monitor;
xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any
supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District
Attorney’s Office;
xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy
requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence
when testifying before a grand jury.
xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of
Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and
from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of
students of Duke University;
xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor,
Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration
of the Permanent Injunction; and
- 146 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 152 of 155
Page 153
xv. enjoins DSI and Meehan from providing any reports of DNA or
other scientific testing, or providing any expert testimony, in any
court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, for a period of ten (10)
years;
b.
damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for
constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical
harm, emotional trauma, loss of privacy, and loss of reputation; loss of
education; and expenses associated with defending against the criminal
proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants’ unlawful conduct;
c.
damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish Defendants for
outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice that recklessly and
callously disregarded and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’
constitutional rights, to discourage them from engaging in similar
conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from
engaging in similar misconduct;
d.
an award of attorneys’ fees, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1988(b);
e.
an award for reasonable and customary costs, expenses, and interest
incurred in pursuit of this action; and
f.
whatever additional relief the Court may deem proper.
- 147 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 153 of 155
Page 154
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all claims so triable.
Dated: October 5, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
By: ___/s/ Charles Davant IV_____________
Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr.*
Robert M. Cary*
Christopher N. Manning*
Charles Davant IV (N.C. Bar #28489)
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel. (202) 434-5000
Email cmanning@wc.com
Email cdavant@wc.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
David F. Evans and Collin Finnerty
(* motion for special appearance
to be filed forthwith)
-and-
RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO
By: ___/s/ David S. Rudolf_____________
David S. Rudolf (N.C. Bar #8587)
312 West Franklin Street
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Tel. (919) 967-4900
Email dsrudolf@rwf-law.com
- 148 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 154 of 155
Page 155
BARRY C. SCHECK, ESQ.
Barry C. Scheck*
Attn: Elizabeth Vaca
100 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
Tel. (212) 364-5390
Email bcsinnocence@aol.com
(* motion for special appearance
to be filed forthwith)
EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF &
ABADY LLP
Richard D. Emery*
75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Tel. (212) 763-5000
Fax. (212) 763-5001
Email remery@ecbalaw.com
(* motion for special appearance
to be filed forthwith)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Reade Seligmann
- 149 -
Case 1:07-cv-00739 Document 1 Filed 10/05/2007 Page 155 of 155