The first of the defendants’ responses to the lacrosse case civil suit has been filed by ex-investigator Linwood Wilson—who, in an odd twist, purports to be representing himself.
This argument is, in some ways, the reverse of one claim made by Mike Nifong in his disbarment proceedings. Nifong suggested that the state bar’s prohibition against public statements that might heighten condemnation of the accused only kicked in when the grand jury returned an indictment, not when his office had publicly accused a group of people. Denunciatory remarks that might have been permissible before indictments, Nifong argued, would not be after indictments.
In his memorandum of law,
Nifong’s argument didn’t work before the bar, and
A bitter exchange that started outside of the courtroom when Linwood Wilson, an investigator for the District Attorney's Office, interrupted a press conference by defense attorney, Joseph Cheshire.
The interruption came as
was referencing the discovery documents that indicate the accuser gave conflicting accounts of the alleged rape. Cheshire
In affidavits filed by police, authorities said the accuser told police she was raped by three men at the March 13 team party where she was hired to perform as an exotic dancer with a second woman. District Attorney Mike Nifong won indictments against three players and has said they were the only ones implicated by the evidence.
After the exchange,
told Eyewitness News that he personally read all 1814 pages of discovery documents and has not read that the alleged victim changed her version of the story. Wilson
So, by the standard that Wilson himself lays out in his memorandum of law, he was not entitled to absolute immunity.
It’s unclear how
As with his citation of Buckley, it’s unclear how