2008 Woodie Awards
Lax attorneys reply to dismissal motion
By: Julia Love
Issue date: 9/1/08 Section: News
Last update: 9/1/08 at 7:27 AM EST
Last update: 9/1/08 at 7:27 AM EST
Attorneys for 38 unindicted members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team filed a brief Thursday in opposition to a motion to dismiss their lawsuit filed by Duke and other defendants May 30.
"These Duke officials possessed from the outset convincing evidence of the players' innocence and had a responsibility to their students to speak out," the brief reads. "But not only did they steadfastly remain silent, they also lent Duke's credibility to the rape allegations by repeatedly capitulating to the demands of an angry mob."
Washington, D.C. attorney Charles Cooper filed a lawsuit Feb. 21 on behalf of the players and several of their parents seeking damages from the University, the City of Durham, Durham police Cpl. David Addison, former Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, lead investigator Benjamin Himan, attorney Wes Covington and 23 others, including several Duke officials.
Duke, the City of Durham, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan and Covington each asked a federal court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed "to state a claim on which relief may be granted." Duke attorneys noted that the actions of former Durham district attorney Mike Nifong were "indeed shocking," but added that they were in no way the fault of the University or its employees.
But the players' attorneys insist that Duke should be held accountable in court. The attorneys admonished administrators for portraying the lacrosse players as either "racially motivated gang-rapists" or their accomplices in the press, suppressing exculpatory evidence, permitting professors and students to harass the athletes and depriving members of the team of important educational and athletic opportunities.
"Throughout the crisis, [President] Richard Brodhead and other Duke officials consistently sacrificed the rights and interests of the accused Duke students in an effort to avoid embarrassment to Duke and to minimize criticism of its administration," the brief reads.
"These Duke officials possessed from the outset convincing evidence of the players' innocence and had a responsibility to their students to speak out," the brief reads. "But not only did they steadfastly remain silent, they also lent Duke's credibility to the rape allegations by repeatedly capitulating to the demands of an angry mob."
Washington, D.C. attorney Charles Cooper filed a lawsuit Feb. 21 on behalf of the players and several of their parents seeking damages from the University, the City of Durham, Durham police Cpl. David Addison, former Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, lead investigator Benjamin Himan, attorney Wes Covington and 23 others, including several Duke officials.
Duke, the City of Durham, Addison, Gottlieb, Himan and Covington each asked a federal court to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had failed "to state a claim on which relief may be granted." Duke attorneys noted that the actions of former Durham district attorney Mike Nifong were "indeed shocking," but added that they were in no way the fault of the University or its employees.
But the players' attorneys insist that Duke should be held accountable in court. The attorneys admonished administrators for portraying the lacrosse players as either "racially motivated gang-rapists" or their accomplices in the press, suppressing exculpatory evidence, permitting professors and students to harass the athletes and depriving members of the team of important educational and athletic opportunities.
"Throughout the crisis, [President] Richard Brodhead and other Duke officials consistently sacrificed the rights and interests of the accused Duke students in an effort to avoid embarrassment to Duke and to minimize criticism of its administration," the brief reads.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
laser
posted 9/01/08 @ 9:16 AM EST
The Duke students' brief reveals much more than is covered in this article.
For those members of the Duke community who have only heard the "Duke had no obligation to protect these students from a corrupt Durham DA" argument, a much better understanding of the core issues of the lawsuit, including the involvement of certain Duke employees in the creation of false evidence, the suppression of exculpatory evidence, and the release of protected information in violation of FERPA laws and in support of Nifong's attempt to frame innocent Duke students to win an election, is readily available in the briefs at: www. (Continued…)
Chavez
posted 9/02/08 @ 10:15 AM EST
"Duke had no obligation to protect these students from a corrupt Durham DA"
All of society has the duty to protect the innocent from a corrupt DA and insure a fair judicial process. (Continued…)
Post a Comment