Dismissal bears marks of Duke lacrosse case

DURHAM -- A judge dismissed assault and weapons charges against a teenager Tuesday and in the process admonished the district attorney's chief investigator for intimidating a witness.

The issue before Judge Orlando Hudson was whether Breon Jerrard Beatty, 18, could get a fair trial on charges that stemmed from a shooting in August.

Bob Brown, the defense lawyer representing the teen, complained that Linwood Wilson, a tall, hulking man who has been the district attorney's chief investigator since December 2005, threatened a witness charged in the same incident to the point where irreparable damage had been done to Beatty.

The two-hour hearing not only highlighted the specifics of one case, it provided hints that the climate in Durham County courts has chilled for prosecutors in the aftermath of the Duke lacrosse case.

At several points in the hearing, Hudson and Brown each referred in disparaging terms to the lacrosse case and to District Attorney Mike Nifong, whose handling of the case has him facing career-threatening ethics charges before the State Bar.

Some lawyers said they hope Tuesday's ruling was a sign that the legal landscape has changed in Durham.

"The Duke lacrosse case opened a window into the Durham District Attorney's Office and how they operate," said Joseph B. Cheshire V, one of the defense lawyers in that case. "That window allowed not only the public to look in, but it allowed judges to look in. Hopefully that will continue for the transparency of justice"

Brown asked Hudson to dismiss several charges against Beatty -- assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, discharging a weapon into occupied property, injury to real property, possession with intent to sell and deliver marijuana, and injury to personal property.

The charges stemmed from an incident Aug. 16, 2006, that also led to the arrest of Beatty's cousin, Chasaray Newman.

Newman pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm. Through a plea arrangement made with the District Attorney's Office, Newman was given probation if he agreed to testify truthfully in the trial against his cousin.

In March, however, Newman gave a different account of what happened in August.

At a meeting with Wilson, the district attorney's chief investigator, Newman allegedly said he was the shooter, not his cousin.

Wilson, according to a written statement that was read in court Tuesday, told Newman that the District Attorney's Office could revoke his plea; in fact, only a judge can do so.

Wilson also told Newman that he would schedule another meeting, one in which he could have a lawyer present.

"What the state was attempting to do was threaten this witness to get him to change his story," Brown told the judge.

Wilson denied those allegations, as did David Saacks, the assistant district attorney handling the case.

But in approving the motion to dismiss the charges, Hudson said he agreed with Brown's characterization that Wilson had "threatened" Newman.

In the Duke lacrosse case, Cheshire and other defense lawyers made similar complaints -- that witnesses who could offer testimony that conflicted with the prosecutor's version of events were brought in on old warrants and intimidated by Wilson.

"This happens all the time," Brown said after the hearing. "What's different in this case is the particular threat that was made to the witness -- this time they put it in writing."

(News researcher Brooke Cain contributed to this report.)