Duke Lacrosse Team: Alleged Attack Took Only 5-10 Minutes, Not 30

Defense lawyers in the trial of three Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper had requested that prosecutors provide a detailed accounting of the alleged assault, including the exact time, place, and details of the types of sexual act the accuser claimed each defendant committed.

But District Attorney Mike Nifong said that he is not required to state the exact time of the attack. "When something happens to you that is really awful, it can seem like it takes place longer than it actually takes," Nifong said. Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III denied the defense request.

On March 14, police were called to a house on the campus of Duke University because of a call from a 27-year-old North Carolina Central University student who claimed that she had been beaten and raped by three lacrosse team players at an off-campus team party where she was performing as a stripper. Nifong said that authorities believe the alleged attack took place between 11:30 p.m. on March 13, when the stripper arrived at the party, and 12:55 a.m. on March 14, when police arrived at the house to find it empty.

Dave Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty have been charged with rape and kidnapping in the case. Attorney Kirk Osborn, who represents Seligmann, told the judge that the defense needs to know the detailed information the prosecution is withholding because the accuser has given investigators several different versions of her account of events, and he believes his client has a right to know which version the prosecution intends to use during the trial. Arrest warrants issued at the beginning of the investigation say that the accuser told police she was assaulted for 30 minutes.

According to Nifong, the defense has to account for only an hour and a half of their clients’ lives in order to clear their names. But for Seligmann, the timing is crucial because his alibi hinges on exact timing. Osborn says that his client made eight calls on his cell phone between 12:05 a.m. and 12:13 a.m., when he called for a cab. The cab took Seligmann to an ATM, a fast-food restaurant, and then back to his dorm at 12:46 a.m. Telephone records, cab company records, and video footage from the ATM corroborate those events. "When is the exact time this occurred," Osborn asked the judge, "because we have accounted for our time."

Nifong turned over some material to defense attorneys on Friday, including reports about the information retrieved from players’ computers, notes about the investigation from police officers and other investigators, and e-mail files from seven people at Duke. Other items that the defense had asked for, but Nifong did not provide, include handwritten notes by police officers investigating the case, reports about the procedures used at the labs that tested the players’ DNA, and notes from a mental health facility where the accuser was taken by police after the party.

Nifong said that the prosecution had provided the defense with most of what they asked for, but defense attorneys say that prosecutors are dragging their feet in the case. The lawyers for the three players asked the judge to make Nifong respond more quickly to their requests for evidence, saying that the DA doesn’t return phone calls or respond to written motions. "We’re providing in good faith what we can in these circumstances," Nifong countered. "I apologize if I’m not doing things the way they want things to be done. Despite the feelings of some people, this is not the only (criminal) case in Durham."

Defense attorney Joseph Cheshire said, "I think we could’ve made this process much more simple if Mr. Nifong was just willing to sit down and talk with us." But given the legal finagling, media speculation, conflicting accounts, and press conference theatrics this case generated from the very beginning, the word "simple" could never have applied.