DOCSLIB.ORG

Case No. 1:07-Cv-953 PLLC; JULIE MANLY, M.D.; THERESA ARICO, R.N.; TARA LEVICY, R.N.; the CITY of DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case No. 1:07-Cv-953 PLLC; JULIE MANLY, M.D.; THERESA ARICO, R.N.; TARA LEVICY, R.N.; the CITY of DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL B UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RYAN McFADYEN; MATTHEW WILSON; and BRECK ARCHER, Plaintiffs, v. DUKE UNIVERSITY; DUKE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; AARON GRAVES; ROBERT DEAN; LEILA HUMPHRIES; PHYLLIS COOPER; WILLIAM F. GARBER, II; JAMES SCHWAB; JOSEPH FLEMING; JEFFREY O. BEST; GARY N. SMITH; GREG STOTSENBERG; ROBERT K. STEEL; RICHARD H. BRODHEAD, Ph.D.; PETER LANGE, Ph.D.; TALLMAN TRASK, III, Ph.D.; JOHN BURNESS; LARRY MONETA, Ed.D.; VICTOR J. DZAU, M.D.; ALLISON HALTOM; KEMEL DAWKINS; SUZANNE WASIOLEK; STEPHEN BRYAN; MATTHEW DRUMMOND; DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; PRIVATE DIAGNOSTIC CLINIC, Case No. 1:07-cv-953 PLLC; JULIE MANLY, M.D.; THERESA ARICO, R.N.; TARA LEVICY, R.N.; THE CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL B. NIFONG; PATRICK BAKER; STEVEN CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; STEPHEN MIHAICH; BEVERLY COUNCIL; JEFF LAMB; MICHAEL RIPBERGER; LAIRD EVANS; JAMES T. SOUKUP; KAMMIE MICHAEL; DAVID W. ADDISON; MARK D. GOTTLIEB; BENJAMIN W. HIMAN; LINWOOD WILSON; RICHARD D. CLAYTON; DNA SECURITY, INC.; RICHARD CLARK; and BRIAN MEEHAN, Ph.D. Defendants. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1 Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-WWD Document 136 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 448 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY OF THE ACTION ....................................................................................... 2 THE PARTIES .................................................................................................................. 4 I. THE PLAINTIFFS ........................................................................................................ 4 II. THE DEFENDANTS ................................................................................................... 4 A. Duke University Defendants .............................................................. 4 B. City of Durham Defendants ............................................................. 17 C. DNASI Defendants .......................................................................... 27 JURISDICTION & VENUE ........................................................................................... 30 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................... 31 I. THE SECRET: THIS WAS THE DUKE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S CASE ...........................................................................................................31 A. The Duke Police Department Had the Primary Responsibility to Investigate Mangum’s False Accusations ............ 31 B. The University’s False-Helplessness Message ................................ 33 C. The Duke Police Department’s Established Practice of Taking Exclusive Responsibility for Investigating Crimes Reported in its Primary Jurisdiction ................................................. 35 D. At All Times, the Duke Police Department Had a Realistic Opportunity to Prevent the Harms Done to Plaintiffs, But Instead ‘Turned a Blind Eye’ to the Plainly Obvious Violations of Plaintiffs’ Rights, and Did Nothing ........................... 41 II. ORIGINS OF THE DUKE-DURHAM CONSPIRACY: THE “ZERO- TOLERANCE FOR DUKE STUDENTS” POLICY ................................. 41 A. Duke-Durham Policy to Target Duke Students for Disproportionate Enforcement of the Criminal Laws ...................... 42 B. Duke and Durham Publicly Condone and Ratify the Targeting of Duke Students ............................................................. 45 i Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-WWD Document 136 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 448 III. “ZERO-TOLERANCE FOR DUKE STUDENTS”: AN ESTABLISHED POLICY AND PRACTICE IN THE FALL OF 2005 ....................................................................................................... 46 A. The Consortium’s Warrantless Raids of Duke Students’ Homes ...............................................................................................46 B. In One Weekend, Consortium Agents Charged Roughly 200 Duke Students Without Admissible Evidence ................................. 49 C. Duke Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Ratified the Warrantless Raids, and Initiated Cumulative Prosecution of the Students Within the University’s Disciplinary System ......... 51 D. Durham Judge Declares the Warrantless Raids and Interrogations of Duke Students Illegal ........................................... 53 E. Police Misconduct and Student Abuse Escalates and Turns Violent Through the Fall of 2005, Culminating in the Investigation of Mangum’s False Allegations ................................. 54 F. Gottlieb’s Raid of 203 Watts ............................................................ 57 G. Sarvis Ratifies and Condones the Escalating Police Abuse of Duke Students .................................................................................. 63 IV. THE GOTTLIEB DOSSIER .................................................................................... 64 A. M.D. Gottlieb ................................................................................... 64 B. Duke and Durham Receive Notice that Gottlieb is Dangerous to the Welfare of Duke Students .................................... 65 C. Shortly After the Gottlieb Dossier Was Delivered, Sgt. Gottlieb Was Transferred Off the Patrol Beat .................................. 67 D. Gottlieb’s Replacement: Sgt. John Shelton ...................................... 67 E. Captain Sarvis Ratified and Condoned Gottlieb’s Abuses From His Post in Internal Affairs ..................................................... 68 F. Duke University Officials Ratify and Condone Gottlieb’s Abuses and Reveal that the University was an Author of the Zero-Tolerance for Duke Students Policy ........................................ 69 V. IN FEBRUARY, 2006, DUKE UNIVERSITY ASSUMED PRIMARY POLICE JURISDICTION OVER 610 N. BUCHANAN AND A RAFT OF NEARBY PROPERTIES ALONG DUKE’S EAST CAMPUS .......................................................................................... 70 ii Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-WWD Document 136 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 448 VI. THE FIRST 48 HOURS ........................................................................................... 71 A. Overwhelming Evidence that Mangum was not Assaulted at 610 N. Buchanan is Amassed in the First 48 Hours of Mangum’s False Accusation ............................................................ 71 B. The “Anonymous” 911 Call ............................................................. 75 VII. THE FIRST INVESTIGATION: GOTTLIEB’S REPLACEMENT, SERGEANT SHELTON, AND INVESTIGATOR JONES CONCLUDE MANGUM’S CLAIMS ARE FABRICATIONS ................. 76 A. Sgt. J.C. Shelton Responds to Pittman’s 911 Call ........................... 76 B. On the Drive Away from 610 N. Buchanan: Evidence of Psychosis .......................................................................................... 78 C. Kroger Security Guard, Angel Altmon: ‘Ain’t No Way.’ ............... 78 D. Mangum’s Bizarre Behavior Meets the Criteria for Emergency Involuntary Commitment .............................................. 80 E. Angel Altmon: Ain’t No Way. ......................................................... 81 VIII. MANGUM NODS ‘RAPE’ ................................................................................... 82 A. Mangum’s Involuntary Commitment Proceedings .......................... 82 B. Mariecia Smith ................................................................................. 82 C. Alycia Wright, R.N. ......................................................................... 83 D. Officer Barfield ................................................................................ 84 IX. ADDITIONAL OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE GATHERED DURING MANGUM’S 11 HOURS AT DUMC ON MARCH 14, 2006................................................................................. 86 A. Sgt. Shelton Questions Mangum, and She Recants ......................... 86 B. Officer Gwen Sutton’s Interview of Mangum ................................. 87 C. Durham Police Determine that 610 N. Buchanan is in the Duke Police Department’s Jurisdiction and the Case is Transferred to Duke Police Investigators ......................................... 88 D. Duke Police Department Initiates Its Investigation ......................... 90 E. Inv. B. Jones Interviews Mangum .................................................... 93 iii Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB-WWD Document 136 Filed 02/23/10 Page 4 of 448 F. The Clinical and Forensic Medical Evidence Collected at DUMC Corroborates Mangum’s Recantation and Adds to the Already Overwhelming Proof That Mangum was Lying .......... 94 X. MARCH 15TH: ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF MANGUM’S FRAUD EMERGES AT UNC HOSPITALS ........................................... 100 A. New Hospital, New Story, New Motive ........................................ 100 B. Evidence Emerges of Mangum’s Long History of Mental Illness and Addictions .................................................................... 101 XI. THE BODY OF EVIDENCE AMASSED IN THE FIRST 48 HOURS PROVED MANGUM’S RAPE CLAIM WAS A HOAX ........................ 102 XII. THE SECOND INVESTIGATION (MARCH 16 – 21): DUKE UNIVERSITY DEFENDANTS AND DURHAM POLICE COLLABORATE TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATORS OF A GANG RAPE THAT DID NOT HAPPEN .................................... 107 A. Gottlieb “Adopts” the Case ............................................................ 107 B. Gottlieb’s First Investigative Act Was to Stigmatize the Plaintiffs in the Eyes of the Community by Falsely Asserting That a Rape Had, In Fact, Occurred
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Durham Police Department 2011 Annual Report
    Durham Police Department 2011 Annual Report Table of Contents of Contents Table Table of Contents Message from Police Chief Jose L. Lopez Sr. Pages 4-5 Police Department’s Six Performance Measures 1) Overall Part 1 Index Crime Page 6 a. Crime Statistics Page 6 b. Index Crime Breakdown Page 6 c. 10-Year Part 1 Crime Trends Page 6 2) Violent Crime Pages 7-14 a. Violent Crime Statistics Page 7 b. Violent Crime Initiatives/Highlights Page 8 c. Significant 2011 Violent Crime Arrests Pages 9-14 3) Property Crime Pages 15-18 a. Property Crime Statistics Page 15 b. Property Crime Initiatives/Highlights Pages 16-17 c. Significant 2011 Property Crime Arrests Page 18 4) Clearance Rates Page 19 5) Priority 1 Call Responses Page 20 6) Staffing Levels Page 20 Part 2 Crime Statistics Page 21 Juvenile Crime Statistics Page 22 Part 1 Domestic Violence Statistics Page 23 Bull’s Eye – Fourth Year Report Page 24 Traffic Fatalities/Top 10 Accident Locations Page 25 Traffic Safety Initiatives Page 26 Warrant Squad Page 27 Special Operations Division (SOD) Activities Page 28 Operation Medicine Drop Page 28 Federal Task Force Activities Pages 29-30 Firearms Page 31 K-9 Unit Page 32 Durham Police Department 2011 Annual Report 2 Table of Contents Table Table of Contents (Cont) Forensics Page 33 Recruiting Pages 34-35 Other Enforcement Initiatives Page 36 New Equipment – In-Car Cameras/Cab Car Page 37 Facilities Plan Page 38 Crime Prevention Activities Pages 39-44 1) Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) Page 39 2) Mental Health Outreach Program (MHOP) Pages 39-40 3) Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) Page 41 4) Police Athletic League (PAL) Page 42 5) Other Crime Prevention Activities Page 43 6) National Night Out Page 44 Peace Officers Memorial Service Page 45 Promotions Page 46 Awards Pages 47-48 Employees of the Month Pages 49-52 Above and Beyond Page 53 Durham Police Department 2011 Annual Report 3 Message from the Chief the Chief from Message Message from Durham Police Chief Jose L.
    [Show full text]
  • Fortis SE-S2642ACD.MAG
    STATE OF NORTH CAROL OF THE WAKE COUNTY CAROLINA STATE BA Plaintiff, AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT, v. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF DISCIPLINE MICHAEL B. NIFONG, Attorney, Defendant. The Hearing Committee on its own motion pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) enters the following Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of Discipline in order to correct a factual mistake in Findings of Fact Paragraph 43 of its original Order in this cause, and to add an additional Conclusion of Law (b): A hearing in this matter was conducted on June 12 through June 16, 2007, before a Hearing Committee composed of F. Lane Williamson, Chair, and members Sharon B. Alexander and R. Mitchel Tyler. Plaintiff, the North Carolina State Bar, was represented by Katherine E. Jean, Douglas J. Brocker, and Carmen K. Hoyme. Defendant, Michael 3. Nifong, was represented by attorneys David B. Freedman and Dudley A. Witt. Based upon the admissions contained in the pleadings and upon the evidence presented at the hearing, this Hearing Committee makes, by clear, cogent and convincing evidence, the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiff, the North Carolina State Bar, is a body duly organized under the laws of North Carolina and is the proper party to bring this proceeding under the authority granted it in Chapter 84 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar (Chapter 1 of Title 27 of the North Carolina Administrative Code). 2. Defendant, Michael B. Nifong, (hereinafter "Nifong"), was admitted to the North Carolina State Bar on August 19, 1978, and is, and was at all times referred to herein, an attorney at law licensed to practice in North Carolina, subject to the laws of the State of North Carolina, the Rules and Regulations of the North Carolina State Bar and the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Suing the Prosecutor Jonathan Van Patten, University of South Dakota School of Law
    University of South Dakota School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Jonathan Van Patten 2010 Suing the Prosecutor Jonathan Van Patten, University of South Dakota School of Law Available at: https://works.bepress.com/jonathan_vanpatten/3/ SUING THE PROSECUTOR JONATHAN K. VAN PATTENt The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous. He can have citizens investigated and, if he is that kind ofperson, he can have this done to the tune of public statements and veiled or unveiled intimations. Or the prosecutor may choose a more subtle course and simply have a citizen's friends interviewed The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sidedpresentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and heldfor trial. He may dismiss the case before trial, in which case the defense never has a chance to be heard. Or he may go on with a public trial. If he obtains a conviction, the prosecutor can still make recommendations as to sentence, as to whether the prisoner should get probation or a suspendedsentence, and after he is put away, at whether he is a fit subject for parole. While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficentforces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, 1 he is one of the worst. I. THE PROBLEM The capacity to do great good is accompanied by a corresponding capacity to do great evil.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DAVID F. EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; READE SELIGMANN, PETITIONERS v. CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID S. RUDOLF KANNON K. SHANMUGAM RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE Counsel of Record & FIALKO CHRISTOPHER N. MANNING 225 East Worthington JAMES M. MCDONALD Avenue #200 LUKE MCCLOUD Charlotte, NC 28203 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 Twelfth Street, N.W. RICHARD D. EMERY Washington, DC 20005 ILANN M. MAAZEL (202) 434-5000 EMERY CELLI [email protected] BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY LLP 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019 QUESTION PRESENTED Whether police officers who conspire with a prosecu- tor to fabricate evidence for subsequent use are immune from liability as a matter of law by virtue of the conspir- ing prosecutor’s decision to use the evidence. (I) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioners are David F. Evans; Collin Finnerty; and Reade Seligmann. Respondents are the City of Durham, North Carolina; David Addison; Patrick Baker; Steven W. Chalmers; Beverly Council; Mark Gottlieb; Benjamin Himan; Ronald Hodge; Jeff Lamb; Michael Ripberger; and Lee Russ. (II) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Lacrosse Case and the Blogosphere
    07__JOHNSON__CONTRACT PROOF.DOC 11/18/2008 11:42:21 AM THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE AND THE BLOGOSPHERE KC JOHNSON* I INTRODUCTION On December 28, 2006, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong filed his initial response to the North Carolina State Bar grievance committee’s complaint that he had unethically withheld exculpatory DNA evidence in the Duke lacrosse case. Nifong concluded his missive with a swipe at the blogosphere: A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals—most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina—have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s www.friendsofdukeuniversity.blogspot.com/, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent.)1 A few months earlier, the District Attorney had similarly complained about the blogosphere. Asked in June 2006 by Newsweek reporter Susannah Meadows to comment on the mounting evidence of actual innocence, Nifong replied, “I have seen quite a bit of media speculation (and it is even worse on the blogs) that either starts from a faulty premise or builds to a demonstrably false conclusion. That is not my fault.”2 Nifong was hardly the only prominent figure associated with the case who read the blogs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System Dan Subotnik
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System Dan Subotnik Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation Subotnik, Dan (2012) "The Duke Rape Case Five Years Later: Lessons for the Academy, the Media, and the Criminal Justice System," Akron Law Review: Vol. 45 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol45/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Subotnik: The Duke Rape Case 10- SUBTONIK_MACRO.DOCM 10/12/2012 3:01 PM THE DUKE RAPE CASE FIVE YEARS LATER: LESSONS FOR THE ACADEMY, THE MEDIA, AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Dan Subotnik∗ If engagement is the first step in healing, then the second is pure unadulterated struggle. We will never achieve racial healing if we do not confront one another, take risks. say all the things we are not supposed to say in mixed company.
    [Show full text]
  • Fantastic Allegations Defending the Police Supervisors in the Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits Tricia Shields Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe &A
    Fantastic Allegations Defending the Police Supervisors in the Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits Tricia Shields Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP [email protected] Introduction: On March 25, 2006, a story that would soon consume the community and fascinate the nation appeared on the front page of the local newspapers in Raleigh and Durham, North Carolina. Both reported that a young woman – an exotic dancer – had been raped and sodomized by three members of the Duke University lacrosse team, when performing at a party. The dancer was described as the mother of two and a student at North Carolina Central University, a historically African American university in Durham. A neighbor reported that he had seen the woman and another dancer entering the house where the party was held, and when she left a short time later, he heard a man yell at her, "’Thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt.' " Samiha Khanna, Dancer Gives Details of Ordeal, News & Observer, March 25, 2006, at A1. In the following weeks, protests, vigils, and rallies were held on the Duke and NC Central campuses. The lacrosse season was cancelled, and the coach forced to resign. The national media descended onto Durham, where District Attorney Michael Nifong stepped into the limelight, making dozens of inflammatory statements about the case and the players. Nifong subsequently recused himself from the prosecution amidst a State Bar proceeding that resulted in his disbarment, was convicted of criminal contempt for failing to turn over critical evidence in the case, and filed for bankruptcy. Three players were indicted, but were ultimately declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General.
    [Show full text]
  • Race to Injustice 00 Seigel Cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page Ii 00 Seigel Cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page Iii
    00 seigel cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page i Race to Injustice 00 seigel cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page ii 00 seigel cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page iii Race to Injustice Lessons Learned from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case Edited by Michael L. Seigel Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00 seigel cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page iv Copyright © 2009 Michael L. Seigel All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Race to injustice : lessons learned from the Duke lacrosse rape case / Michael L. Seigel. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59460-514-7 (alk. paper) 1. Malicious prosecution--North Carolina--Durham--History. 2. Criminal investigation--North Carolina--Durham--History. 3. Rape--North Carolina-- Durham--History. 4. Nifong, Michael Byron. 5. Criminal investigation-- North Carolina--Durham. 6. Discrimination in criminal justice administration--United States. 7. Campus violence--United States. 8. Col- lege students--United States--Alcohol use. I. Seigel, Michael L. II. Title. KFN7977.R33 2008 364.15'32092--dc22 2008043688 Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 www.cap-press.com Printed in the United States of America 00 seigel cx2 11/19/08 3:03 PM Page v Contents Preface xiii Acknowledgments xix Part One Introduction Chapter One · The Facts and Only the Facts Robert J. Luck & Michael L. Seigel 3 Durham and Duke Before the Storm 3 March 13, 2006, and the Morning After 4 The Investigation and Indictment 9 The Prosecutor and the Press 13 The Response of Duke’s Administration and Faculty 17 About the Truth 22 Epilogue 26 Part Two Lessons Learned about College Campuses Chapter Two · Faculty Reactions, Contentious Debate, and Academic Freedom Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • Evans V. Chalmers, 703 F.3D 636 Client/Matter: -None- Search Terms: Evans V
    User Name: Kimberly Rehberg Date and Time: Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:24:00 PM EST Job Number: 59852254 Document (1) 1. Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 Client/Matter: -None- Search Terms: Evans v. Chalmers, 703 F.3d 636 Search Type: Natural Language Narrowed by: Content Type Narrowed by Cases -None- | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2018 LexisNexis Kimberly Rehberg Caution As of: January 21, 2018 9:24 PM Z Evans v. Chalmers United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit September 18, 2012, Argued; December 17, 2012, Decided No. 11-1436, No. 11-1438, No. 11-1453, No. 11-1458, No. 11-1460, No. 11-1465 Reporter 703 F.3d 636 *; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25660 ** STEVEN CHALMERS; RONALD HODGE; LEE RUSS; DAVID F. EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; READE BEVERLY COUNCIL; JEFF LAMB; MICHAEL SELIGMANN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STEVEN W. RIPBERGER, Defendants-Appellants, and DUKE CHALMERS; BEVERLY COUNCIL; RONALD HODGE; UNIVERSITY; DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH JEFF LAMB; MICHAEL RIPBERGER; LEE RUSS; SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED; RICHARD BRODHEAD; PATRICK BAKER, Defendants-Appellants, and CITY PETER LANGE; LARRY MONETA; JOHN BURNESS; OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MARK GOTTLIEB; TALLMAN TRASK; SUZANNE WASIOLEK; MATTHEW BENJAMIN HIMAN; DAVID ADDISON; MICHAEL DRUMMOND; AARON GRAVES; ROBERT DEAN; NIFONG; LINWOOD WILSON; STEPHEN MIHAICH; TARA LEVICY; THERESA ARICO; J. WESLEY DNA SECURITY, INCORPORATED; RICHARD COVINGTON; KATE HENDRICKS; VICTOR DZAU; CLARK; BRIAN MEEHAN, Defendants.DAVID F. CITY OF DURHAM; LINWOOD WILSON; MARK EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; READE SELIGMANN, GOTTLIEB; BENJAMIN HIMAN; STEPHEN MIHAICH; Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH DAVID ADDISON; MARSHA COVINGTON, Executrix of CAROLINA; MARK GOTTLIEB; BENJAMIN HIMAN; the Estate of John Wesley Covington, DAVID ADDISON, Defendants-Appellants, and Defendants.RYAN MCFADYEN; MATTHEW WILSON; MICHAEL NIFONG; LINWOOD WILSON; STEVEN W.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveling Felony Charges at Prosecutors for Withholding Evidence
    LEVELING FELONY CHARGES AT PROSECUTORS FOR WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE Jodi Nafzger* ABSTRACT This Article addresses the intersection of the rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8. Brady requires prosecutors to automatically disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession to the defense. ABA Model Rule 3.8 requires a prosecutor in a criminal case “to make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense.” The ABA issued a formal opinion in 2009 which concluded that the prosecutor’s ethical duty under 3.8 is broader in scope than the constitutional requirements under Brady. ABA Comm’n on Ethics & Prof’s Responsibility, Formal Op. 09-454, 1 (2009). Essentially, Brady requires a determination that the evidence would likely produce a different outcome at trial (materiality), but the ethical rule requires disclosure without regard to the impact at trial. In short, Brady and Rule 3.8 impose different standards on prosecutors. The intersection of these principles leads to inefficient and sometimes unjust results. The Article briefly examines, state-by-state, how often and under what circumstances prosecutors face disciplinary action for failure to disclose information and California's state law imposing felony charges on prosecutors for withholding evidence. The Article draws attention to the national conversation and concern centered on prosecutorial misconduct and highlights a number of elected prosecutors who are making headlines for withholding exculpatory evidence. The Article advocates for a revision to Model Rule 3.8 (and its state equivalents) to alleviate ambiguity related to the prosecutor’s discovery obligations and to conform to constitutional requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • First AMENDED COMPLAINT Against Defendant DAVID ADDISON, THERESA ARICO, PATRICK BAKER, RICHARD BRODHEAD, JOHN BURNESS, STEVEN CH
    CARRINGTON et al v. DUKE UNIVERSITY et al Doc. 145 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. 1:08-cv-119 ________________________________________________ ) EDWARD CARRINGTON et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL COMPLAINT v. ) ) JURY TRIAL DUKE UNIVERSITY et al., ) DEMANDED ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________________ ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Dockets.Justia.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ACTION ................................................ 1 PARTIES........................................................................................................................... 10 I. The Plaintiffs. ......................................................................................................... 10 II. The Defendants....................................................................................................... 16 A. The Duke Defendants.................................................................................. 16 B. The Durham Defendants. ............................................................................ 22 1. The Durham Investigators................................................................ 22 2. The Durham Supervisors.................................................................. 23 JURISDICTION AND VENUE........................................................................................ 26 FACTS..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Duke Lacrosse Case, Innocence, and False Identifications: a Fundamental Failure to “Do Justice”
    MOSTELLER AFTER BP 11/29/2007 5:43:49 AM THE DUKE LACROSSE CASE, INNOCENCE, AND FALSE IDENTIFICATIONS: A FUNDAMENTAL FAILURE TO “DO JUSTICE” Robert P. Mosteller* INTRODUCTION The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster—a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it gets worse on inspection. At the end of a five-day disciplinary hearing, Lane Williamson, chair of the North Carolina State Bar’s hearing panel, called the case a “fiasco”1 and reiterated the term, giving assurance that it was “not too strong a word.”2 He was clearly right, and could well have added adjectives. The fiasco centered around the conduct of Nifong. At the beginning of Williamson’s explanation of why the panel unanimously voted to disbar Nifong, the harshest punishment possible, he described the situation “in which . [Nifong’s] self-interest collided with a very volatile mix of race, sex and class, a situation that if it were applied in a John Grisham novel would be considered to be perhaps too contrived.”3 In April 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ended the criminal prosecution.
    [Show full text]