SBI called on in Duke case

Durham's interim DA asks agency to decide if a crime happened in lacrosse prosecution

DURHAM -- Interim District Attorney Jim Hardin has asked the State Bureau of Investigation to determine whether anyone should be prosecuted as a result of the Duke lacrosse case.

The request came during the past several days, but no decision had been made late Wednesday about whether to proceed.

"We're reviewing the request at this point," said Noelle Talley, a spokeswoman for the state Attorney General's Office.

Hardin, appointed by Gov. Mike Easley to fill in as Durham district attorney after Mike Nifong was forced from office, declined to comment on the matter.

The Duke lacrosse case, which began with an escort service dancer's allegations of gang-rape in 2006, ended on the criminal side last week when Judge W. Osmond Smith III found Nifong in contempt of court and sentenced him to a day in jail.

The three exonerated players are weighing the possibility of civil suits against Durham police, Nifong and the city of Durham.

Nifong, found guilty Friday of willfully lying in court during the Duke case, was disbarred this summer after an N.C. State Bar disciplinary panel ruled that he had intentionally and repeatedly lied and cheated as he prosecuted the three former lacrosse players on rape charges.

State Attorney General Roy Cooper took over the case in January and, after a 12-week investigation, declared the three players innocent of all charges.

If the SBI opens an investigation, there could be more targets than Nifong, who is scheduled to report to jail Friday for his one-day sentence. The actions of Durham police investigators and of Linwood Wilson, an investigator in the District Attorney's Office under Nifong, could also be reviewed.

There are many avenues to investigate, including perjury and the simple one marked by Nifong's conviction last week, said Joe Kennedy, a law professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.

"A judge found Nifong guilty of intentionally misleading the court, and that could be obstruction of justice," Kennedy said. "Prosecutors have charged obstruction of justice on much less."

Duke law professor James Coleman, who has followed the case closely, said investigators might look into the differing reports of the first interview that Durham police investigators conducted with the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum.

Handwritten notes taken by investigator Benjamin Himan at the March 2006 interview give descriptions of the alleged assailants that differ greatly from those in notes typed up in July by Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.

Defense lawyers have suggested that Gottlieb adapted his report to match the descriptions of the three players indicted in the case.

"I always assumed his typewritten notes reflected what he told the grand jury, and they were inconsistent with his partner's," Coleman said.

Another avenue the SBI might choose to inquire about would be the interview in December 2006 that Wilson, Nifong's chief investigator, conducted with Mangum. That interview produced a version of the alleged attack that seemed to fill holes in the prosecution's case. "If [Wilson] coached her, that could be obstruction of justice," Coleman said.

That exchange points out how difficult it will be to bring charges, Coleman said.

"You really need documentary evidence, or a tape recording, or a helpful and credible witness, like a police officer," he said.

Coleman said a federal grand jury could be more effective in cases like this. Federal grand juries can subpoena documents and compel testimony.