by David Chapman
Staff Writer
When three white Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black female dancer in 2006, it created a perfect maelstrom of courtroom drama that led to the defendants largely being labeled guilty in the court of public opinion.
However, as Charlotte-based defense attorney James Cooney explained Wednesday, the evidence got in the way.
Cooney was one of the speakers during the 5th Annual Ralph “Buddy” Nimmons Jr. Federal Practice Seminar. Cooney talked about the evidence that helped in his successful defense of Reade Seligmann, one of the three accused of raping Crystal Mangum in what became known as the “Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.”
During his “Anatomy of a Hoax” presentation at the United States Courthouse, Cooney discussed intimate details of the case and the evidence that ultimately found his client, and the others accused, innocent of all charges. North Carolina District Attorney Mike Nifong attempted to show otherwise, with much of that effort conducted through the local and national media.
“We wanted to find out, did these kids have the opportunity to do this?” he said, when discussing how his legal team approached the initial defense.
By using data from cell phone records, call logs, pictures taken at the event that indicated time and receipts, Cooney said the time frame the defendant gave – a two-hour block between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m. – showed that Seligmann and the other defendants could not have committed the rape, unless they were doing it while also doing other activities.
“This generation travels through time and space differently,” said Cooney. “Today, we can look for electronic footprints.”
Cooney showed slide after slide of evidence that poked holes in Mangum’s story – calls to girlfriends, pizza orders, cab rides, even Mangum’s family calls – and continued to narrow the time frame of the initial “20-30 minute rape.”
Lack of thoroughness by the local police department, even when evidence presented itself, and a determined Nifong were other obstacles that Cooney and his legal team had to overcome.
They added to their case by using DNA evidence to disprove the rape allegations and a behavioral therapist who specialized in post-rape behavior to further discredit Mangum’s story. No DNA evidence was found and the therapist said that Mangum did not display any post-rape behavioral symptoms whatsoever.
The nature of the case might have led to skepticism by some of the attendees initially, but one person saw otherwise by the end.
“I think the title of the presentation might have made people come in with some preconceived notions,” said Carol Mirando, an attorney with the Office of General Counsel. “But as I was looking around, everyone was spellbound by the evidence.”
Cooney’s presentation impressed others.
“It was an excellent presentation,” said attorney Gerald Bettman. “It was very motivational for attorneys with the message that no matter what, keep on looking at the evidence.”
It was a case, said Cooney, that showed flaws in the system regardless of wealth, class and stature.
“One of our obligations is to make the law work and show people outside the system how it works,” said Cooney. “It’s not about buying expensive legal help. This is a case of justice misfired and it makes you think: How many people of color or poor has this happened to?”