The Office of the North Carolina Attorney General released a report Friday explaining the attorney general's decision to dismiss the remaining charges against, and declare the innocence of, the indicted players in the Duke lacrosse case.
The 21-page report affirms the lack of evidence in the case against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans, Trinity '06, all members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team. It also contains the chronology of the March 13 party as determined by special prosecutors Jim Coman and Mary Winstead, who were appointed after Nifong asked the attorney general to take over the case Jan. 11.
"It provides the background information in considerable detail that explains why the attorney general felt that there was simply no credible evidence to support the charges brought by the district attorney," said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations.
The document points out several problems with the investigation: improper procedure in identifying the players, a lack of DNA evidence and credibility issues of the accusing witness.
"It clearly, plainly and factually proves that Reade, Collin and Dave are innocent, and of course it proves what we've known all along," said Jim Cooney, who served as Seligmann's defense attorney during the case.
KC Johnson, who has followed the case extensively on his "Durham-in-Wonderland" blog, said the report was "very effectively done" and purposefully did not mention the actions of Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who has been charged with ethics violations by the North Carolina State Bar.
"It was carefully worded... to make sure it wouldn't impinge on Nifong's trial before the State Bar," he said. "From the standpoint of the Bar, this raises serious questions about Nifong's motives."
Johnson added that Attorney General Roy Cooper had to walk a "fine line" in writing the report, illustrating the deficiencies in the case while not prejudicing Nifong.
"Cooper doesn't want to do the same thing to Nifong that [Nifong] did to the lax players," Johnson said.
Cooney said the focus on the accusing witness and not on Nifong did not surprise him. He added that the impact of the report on Nifong's ethics charge will depend on how the State Bar prosecutors view the report.
"The attorney general's job wasn't to investigate Mr. Nifong," Cooney said. "His brand of jurisdiction was to determine whether or not these crimes occurred, and that was all he was authorized to look into."
Johnson said the report will bring closure to the investigation of the case itself but not to the charges against Nifong.
He noted that the report is highly critical of Nifong's investigators and the Durham Police Department. Johnsons said it may influence the charges against the district attorney.
"This report basically puts to rest that 'something must have happened' argument," Johnson said. "With the party itself and with the innocence of the three, it's the closure for that aspect of it."
But Cooney said closure will never be fully achieved and those accused will always have to live with the charges.
"The attorney general did everything he could do to bring closure to it, but there's been terrible damage done and you can't fix it with a report," he said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.