Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Mandatory Discovery Conference Motion

The lawyers for the players in the Duke Lawsuit have filed a motion requesting that the counsel for defendants participate in a mandatory discovery conference.


In the Duke Lacrosse Hoax/Frame case the various defendants had a habit of hiding exculpatory evidence and exaggerating inculpatory evidence.

1) Erased DPD Radio recordings despite a Court Order to preserve them.
2) Failed to report a DPD Officer meeting with the false accuser on March 28.
3) Failed to report to the public the Police knew who the 911 caller was on March 14th and never revealed that for over two weeks.
4) Failed to keep notes in a critical meeting with City Manger Baker, DPD Senior Officers, & Duke representatives.
5) Failed to keep notes with Sane Nurse Tara Levicy in meetings with Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan on different occasions.
6) Failed to keep notes and report exculpatory DNA tests that were revealed to them on April 10, 2006. They did however report a dubious DNA match on a fingernail found in a wastebasket which the NC AG rejected as irrelevant.
7) Failed to examine party photos in their possession since March 16, 2006.
8) Failed to examine Crystal's cell phone until the defense attorneys requested at a hearing months later. Judge Stephens said he was very concerned about privacy. It should be noted Crystal was working with 8 escort services the weekend of party.
9) Failed to report that DA Investigator Linwood Wilson showed photos of Reade, Collin, and Dave in an interview with the false accuser in Dec 2006. That was not revealed in his initial report, but discovered later.
10) Never gave a complete report of DNASI tests until they were caught by defense attorneys.

The counsels for the defendants would be wise to understand the 4th Circuit's viewpoint of Spoliation.

Spoliation (sometimes seen as "spoiliation") is the destruction, withholding, hiding, alteration, or mutilation of evidence that may pertain to legal action involving the owners of the evidence. Definition

The 4th Circuit is on record.


When Does the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arise?

Is there a duty to preserve potential evidence based on knowledge of
pending litigation or a potential claim?

Yes. “The duty to preserve material evidence arises not only during
litigation but also extends to that period before the litigation when a party
reasonably should know that the evidence may be relevant to anticipated
litigation.” Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583, 591 (4th Cir.
2001) (citing Kronisch v. United States, 150 F.3d 112, 126 (2nd Cir. 1998)).

See Liestoppers Discussion

Hat Tip: sdsgo


Anonymous said...

It is just unbelieved how much this case has been purposefully manipulated by those sworn to uphold the law.

Anonymous said...