Friday, October 05, 2007

Lawsuit Demands

Here are the demands for the lawsuit. Monday’s “blog epilogue” post will discuss the suit in greater detail.

It is, to put it mildly, highly unfortunate that the city of Durham found these demands to be unacceptable.

The players want a judge to issue an order that:

i. appoints an independent monitor (the “Monitor”), to be determined by the Court, who shall oversee certain activities of the Durham Police Department for a period of ten (10) years, and who shall report to the Court on an annual basis regarding Defendants’ compliance or non-compliance with the terms of the Permanent Injunction;

ii. authorizes the Monitor to establish, review, and enforce all policies applicable to the management of the Durham Police Department;

iii. provides the Monitor with the authority to hire, fire, and promote all Durham Police officials, including the Chief of Police;

iv. establishes an independent citizen Police Review Committee, composed of three members selected by the Court, which shall review and hear publicly complaints of misconduct by Durham residents against Durham Police personnel and make recommendations to the Monitor as to discipline or innocence;

v. orders that all eyewitness identification arrays, lineups, and similar procedures conducted by the Durham Police Department, whether formal or informal, and/or of suspects or “witnesses,” conform to the provisions of General Order No. 4077 and be recorded by videotape;

vi. orders that any reports of DNA or other scientific testing requested by the Durham Police Department or District Attorney’s Office include the results of all testing, and all notes, charts, or raw data generated during such testing, and that a copy of each such report be provided to the Monitor to ensure compliance;

vii. orders that the Durham Police Department provide proper training, based on materials and plans approved by the Monitor, to all current and new personnel (the “Remedial Training”) on the following matters:

1. the appropriate chain of command in criminal investigations;

2. the issuance of public statements relating to an open investigation;

3. the conduct of eyewitness identification procedures;

4. the service of outstanding warrants on witnesses in a criminal investigation or proceeding;

5. prohibiting threats, inducements, or intimidation of witnesses;

6. the standards for police reports, investigator’s notes, and other reports of investigations, including the timely and truthful preparation of such documents;

7. the supervision of private companies engaged to provide scientific testing or other services in connection with a police investigation; and

8. the standards for probable cause;

viii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from issuing any press releases, written statements, posters, flyers, or other materials intended for publication relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

ix. enjoins the Durham Police Department from making any oral public statements relating to a Durham Police investigation, whether directly or indirectly through an entity in which Durham Police personnel participate (such as Crimestoppers), without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor as to the substance of the statement;

warrants on a person known to be a witness in a criminal investigation or criminal proceeding without first obtaining the approval of the Monitor;

xi. enjoins the Durham Police Department from delegating any supervision over a Durham Police investigation to the District Attorney’s Office;

xii. orders the Durham Police Department to implement a policy requiring Durham Police personnel to present exculpatory evidence when testifying before a grand jury.

xiii. enjoins the Durham Police Department from targeting students of Duke University for selective enforcement of the criminal laws, and from refusing to protect the legal and constitutional rights of students of Duke University;

xiv. requires the City of Durham to pay all costs relating to the Monitor, Police Review Committee, and Remedial Training for the duration of the Permanent Injunction; and

xv. enjoins DSI and Meehan from providing any reports of DNA or other scientific testing, or providing any expert testimony, in any court proceeding, whether civil or criminal, for a period of ten (10) years;

b. damages in an amount to be established at trial as compensation for constitutional deprivations; past and future economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of privacy, and loss of reputation; loss of education; and expenses associated with defending against the criminal proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants’ unlawful conduct;

c. damages in an amount to be established at trial to punish Defendants for outrageous conduct pursued out of actual malice that recklessly and callously disregarded and was deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, to discourage them from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to deter others similarly situated from engaging in similar misconduct;

d. an award of attorneys’ fees, including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988(b);

e. an award for reasonable and customary costs, expenses, and interest incurred in pursuit of this action; and

f. whatever additional relief the Court may deem proper.

206 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 206 of 206
Anonymous said...

"Look at the LAX III: they've gone in my book from victims to victimizers with their latest demands. Whose going to pay the cost of all of these suits? The citizens of Durham, some of whom had adsolutely NOTHING to do with this case. That's guilt by association in my book, but I guess that doesn't matter."

Sorry, but it has always been the case in the United States -- and everywhere in the world, probably -- that some individuals will end up paying for actions taken by the majority, actions that the individuals did not support and would not have chosen. If the city votes for a tax increase, you pay the tax increase even if your own vote was against it. And if the city votes in a corrupt district attorney and city council members and mayors who support that corrupt district attorney and who issue reports whitewashing frame-ups committed by crooked cops -- you pay for it. Those who bring the bill are not "victimizers".

Anonymous said...

True enough: those who bring the bill are not "victimizers". They are "victimizers." Yes, in fact, they are. They're going after lots of money that will go to them and their attorneys. That doesn't happen everywhere in the world. The US is a hugely litigious happy and the trial attorneys make out like bandits.

Great. You seem to believe in collective guilt, 9:45. I don't. And the LAX III are a true American success story: from victims to victimizers. They can be proud.

Anonymous said...

'True enough: those who bring the bill are not "victimizers". They are "victimizers."'

Wow, a Nifong fan so desperate that he has to use the proper placement of the period inside or outside the quotation marks as a talking point. Too bad he's missed the bus on the key point -- the people responsible for the city of Durham ponying up ten of millions of dollars in damages are those who did tens of millions of dollars worth in wrongdoing. The victimizers are the ones who saw a district attorney and a police department working between them to frame innocent people and said "Wow! Those are my kind of people -- the kind who pander to my racial prejudices! They sure get my vote!"

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the shout out 2:01 AM. I, too, have been amazed at the comments of people on this blog who have never been on the campus, and who don't know anyone who went to Duke or is currently associated with Duke. They couldn't wait to hate all over Duke because they thought some lacrosse players were rapists. Then when it turned out the lacrosse players were innocent, they couldn't wait to hate all over Duke because of Brodhead's response or lack of leadership or the faculty or something they know very little about. Their opinions are formed from their anger over Laettner's shot against Kentucky 15 some years ago, or something equally as silly, and then they believe the stupidity of that opinion passes for intellectual discourse on this blog. Unreal. There are certainly many valid comments and thoughtful opinions on here, but when you are reduced to using kiddie put-downs like "Dookie", you have no credibility. Duke, like any organization, is not perfect, but it is a great university, and dismissing those of us who know it and support it as "shills" doesn't change that fact. But if I had a degree from State U. somewhere, I would be jealous of Duke,too. My son just changed careers and got the first job he interviewed for. He told his new boss, "I don't have all the experience you would like." And he said, "That's OK. You have a degree from Duke." Enough said.

Anonymous said...

Being concerned with the proper placement of a period, is trivial to me.

Anonymous said...

"Also, the suit says that the officer who found CGM, based on his training and experience, could tell she was pretending to be unconscious. Yet, it also says he couldn't send her home or to jail, because she was "pretending" to be unconscious."

Since Mangum admitted to the special prosecutors that she was feigning unconsciousness when Sgt. Shelton encountered her (page 16 in the Summary of Conclusions) why is InOrOut putting "pretending" in quote marks?

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 206 of 206   Newer› Newest»