David Evans has never had a moustache." With just seven words, defense attorney Joe Cheshire turned public perception of the lacrosse case on its head.
His colorful character and disarming, genteel manner have propelled Cheshire into the national spotlight as the consistent critic of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Even before his client was charged, the bow tie-wearing Raleigh lawyer decided that if Evans, Trinity '06 and member of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team, were indicted, the lacrosse player would need to make a public statement.
Standing outside the Durham County Jail a day after his graduation last May, Evans-having been charged with rape, sexual offense and kidnapping-proclaimed his innocence to a sea of media. Cheshire was close behind.
One of the few times any member of the team had spoken out publicly since March, the press conference was a turning point in the case, said William Wolcott, Trinity '06 and a member of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team.
"It hit home with a lot of people to see Dave get up there and speak with such honesty, authority and clarity," Wolcott told The Chronicle. "This was the first time that the country really started to see, and the media began to understand, what a travesty of our justice system this was."
In an interview with The Chronicle, Cheshire said he believes the media often tends to assume that the accused is guilty and favors the state's position.
"I wasn't afraid to go out and speak to the media or to advise my client to, and we did that, of course, within the media storm that was significantly prejudicing our client," Cheshire said. "I sensed that unless we went out there and told our side, that what Nifong had done in getting the media to rush to judgment would overwhelm the case."
Defense attorneys had advised the players not to speak to the police or the media during the first weeks of the case, which Wolcott said frustrated both him and his teammates. At the same time, Wolcott maintains that neither the administration nor the athletic department publicly supported the team.
"It was troubling to see the way that we were portrayed in the media early on. We were all painted with the same stroke-in the same light," he said. "There was a real rush to judgment, both in the media and on our campus, that maybe fit an agenda or a desire for a sensational story. Truth and a presumption of innocence were unfortunately cast aside in the initial hysteria, well before the facts were known."
Though the defense remained quiet during the early stages of the investigation, Cheshire said he and other attorneys began speaking to the press once they determined Nifong had jeopardized the chance for a fair trial, in the courts of both law and public opinion.
"I believed then-and I believe now-that what Nifong was doing was absolutely inappropriate," Cheshire said. "I warned him it was inappropriate in a letter that I wrote him and told him that if he didn't quit [speaking to the media], that we would have to take our ethical duty to respond to his lies. When he didn't quit, then that's what we did."
A national spotlight
After more than 30 years of practicing criminal law, Cheshire said he feels comfortable handling the media frenzy that has come to characterize the lacrosse case.
"You either have the God-given ability to answer questions on your feet in a diplomatic way or you don't, and some people just can't do it," he said. "I can't do stock trading, I don't care how hard I would try. I can't fix a car, or program a DVD player, but I have the good instincts to deal with the media."
Jim Cooney, defense attorney for indicted lacrosse player Reade Seligmann, explained that he considers the circumstances of each individual case in determining when to speak to the press.
"In this case, when you've got things going on in this media frenzy, you're kind of forced into doing things you wouldn't normally do, because stories will be wrong," Cooney said.
Both Cooney and Cheshire said they have not intentionally thrust themselves into the media limelight. Though the national spotlight is alluring, it is an inappropriate goal in this case, Cheshire said.
"I don't think any of us relish appearing on TV at a press conference speaking about our clients, but I think it's a necessary part of the job," Cooney said.
Duke law professor James Coleman said the defense was ultimately forced to address the case in the media in order to level the playing field.
"In light of what the district attorney did at the outset of the case, what Cheshire has done is what was necessary to try to restore some balance and create an environment in which his client could get a fair trial," Coleman said.
Cheshire said he was wary of the motivations of certain news outlets. He prefers to speak to the mainstream media, even though he said his words are sometimes taken out of context.
"Cable news is not news. It is entertainment and they are looking for the glamorous and the controversial," he said.
And if dealt with improperly, the national media storm can be all-encompassing, he said.
"[Reporters] are nice people, but they're like a shark feeding frenzy, they know how to get all your phone numbers and you have to learn how to deal with them-who you can trust and who you can't," Cheshire said.
Susannah Meadows, Trinity '95 and a senior writer for Newsweek, has written extensively about the Duke lacrosse scandal. She said she found it difficult to speak with defense lawyers on the record, especially during the beginning of the 10-month saga. She added that Cheshire has generally been more willing to talk on the record than other defense attorneys.
"He's very quotable and has been quite open, and of course, that's what you appreciate the most as a reporter," Meadows said. "I have respect for him, and I'm glad that he's been willing to talk."
In contrast, Cooney said he prefers to begin every conversation off the record and then decide what can go on the record.
"You develop relationships with [the media], so when they call you, you don't have to repeat the ground rules and you can have a meaningful dialogue," Cooney said. "Those are the people you tend to gravitate toward."
"What you see is who I am"
Michael Skube, a journalism professor at Elon University who has written columns for the Los Angeles Times about the lacrosse case, said it was the responsibility of the defense attorneys to appeal their clients' case in the media and to challenge Nifong in a public manner.
It is the responsibility of reporters, however, to seek out what lawyers have said, and not to determine what lawyers should or should not say, Skube added.
Similar to the Michael Peterson trial, in which a Durham man was convicted of killing his wife in 2001, this case has achieved tabloid status, Skube said.
"Every few years, there will unfortunately be a case like this that's lurid and the masses will read all they can about it," he said.
Because this case has been splashed across the headlines, Cheshire said he is now recognizable wherever he goes-at airports, hotels and restaurants.
"I was just being myself and that's the way I deal with the media," he said.
"What you see is who I am."
He added, however, that he has not chosen to make himself a public figure beyond the case itself.
"In many ways, this case is the media," Cheshire said. "It became a media-driven case and is really a case that has been fought out more in the media than in the courtroom-maybe that is a precursor to modern American criminal trials and we will look back at this as one of the first of those."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.