A six-page internal report on the Durham Police Department's conduct during the lacrosse case has left some calling for an external investigation.
Some critics said the report failed to claim DPD's responsibility for perpetuating false charges against David Evans, Trinity '06, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, and ignored the inquiry's central questions.
"I would not be surprised if [an independent investigation] would uncover conduct that was criminal in nature as it relates to obstruction of justice and creation of evidence," Joe Cheshire, an attorney for Evans, wrote in an e-mail.
The internal inquiry, commissioned by Durham City Manager Patrick Baker, was delivered May 11 by Durham Police Chief Steven Chalmers.
The majority of the report describes the events leading to the indictments, focusing on the witness identification process. A portion also describes efforts by the DPD to obtain exculpatory evidence to exonerate the three indicted former lacrosse players.
The memorandum from Baker that contained Chalmers' report stated that the "ultimate question that will be the legacy of this matter is why it took the criminal justice system nearly 13 months to reach the conclusion that the allegations of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping were unfounded."
Jim Cooney, who represented Seligmann, and Cheshire said they had serious qualms about the DPD's deference to Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong during the investigation, an issue they said was central in prolonging the case. Cheshire also emphasized, however, that the entire police department was not at fault.
"It is fairly clear that the chain of command in this case got usurped," Cooney said.
The probe was meant to define the role DPD played in the case alongside Nifong and address concerns that the witness identification process used was abused and the need for exculpatory evidence ignored.
The report states that DPD conducted six separate photo lineups for Crystal Mangum, the accuser in the case, to identify her alleged attackers.
It also notes that the procedures were consistent with General Order 4077 and that Mangum did not identify her alleged attackers from every lineup.
Mangum identified her alleged attackers April 4, 2006. The report states that this lineup was administered by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb and that Nifong proposed to show her photographs of the entire lacrosse team.
Filler photographs were not used.
Chalmers wrote that the investigator noted Mangum's comments and continued with the array, although she was identifying alleged attackers because stopping might have been misconstrued as confirmation that she had selected the "right" persons.
His report also emphasized that General Order 4077 is only a guideline for officers and is not legally binding. Whether the identifications would have held up in court is unknown, but the report states that deviations from General Order 4077 alone may not have excluded the lineup as evidence or violated the suspects' rights.
Cooney noted, however, that this session was videotaped, and the others were not.
"If the identification process was to ID witnesses only, why was that videotaped?" Cooney said. "The fact of the matter is that was the only piece of so-called evidence that allowed this case to continue, and it's just flat-out wrong."
Critics have said despite the officers' intent, using this information to indict the players, as well as other practices, violated standard ethical procedure.
"The report by the city manager and police begs for a lawsuit to be filed against the City of Durham and the police department for their complicity in the corrupt prosecution of innocent men and to protect the citizens of Durham in the future," Cheshire said.
The document states, however, that DPD made numerous efforts to obtain exonerating information that the defense attorneys declined to provide.
"What [DPD] also failed to address is when they received evidence of Reade Seligmann's innocence-they arrested one of his alibi witnesses," Cooney said. "How is that an attempt to find innocence? Blaming the defense attorneys isn't doing that either."
Cooney said further investigation may be necessary because the report did not sufficiently address some concerns and seemed to shift responsibility away from DPD.
"I don't know how change can come from [the report] because they don't admit they were wrong," Cooney said. "What this police department still needs to explain is how they managed to arrest three innocent people for a crime that never happened-you've got to work really hard to do that."
John Burness, senior vice president for government affairs and public relations, said the report did not resolve the issues it set out to address.
"The report seems to raise as many questions as it answered," he wrote in an e-mail.
The Durham Herald-Sun reported that Mayor Bill Bell would seek an external investigation from the State Bureau of Investigation-which only the attorney general, governor or police can call to action. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper denied Bell's request last week.
Representatives of DPD could not be reached for this story.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.