A question for lawyers

The Duke lacrosse players who were exonerated by North Carolina's Attorney General are now reportedly suing the city of Durham.

Attorneys for the three players falsely accused in the Duke University lacrosse rape case are seeking a settlement of about $30 million and several changes to the state's legal process, a person close to the case said early Friday.

If the terms aren't met, the players' attorneys will file a civil rights lawsuit against the city of Durham early next month, said the source, who requested anonymity because not all of the details of the proposed settlement had been worked out.

During a discussion Wednesday with Durham officials, players' attorneys Brendan Sullivan and Barry Scheck, stressed that the money they are seeking — about $10 million each for David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann over five years — must be accompanied by the legal reforms, the source said.

On Thursday, City Attorney Henry Blinder and City Manager Patrick Baker briefed elected officials on the settlement discussions, according to The Herald-Sun of Durham, which first reported on the settlement demands. The city has a $5 million liability insurance policy with a $500,000 deductible, the paper reported.

In addition to the money, the attorneys are seeking the creation of ombudsman positions to review complaints of misconduct about North Carolina district attorneys, the source said. They also want Durham city officials to lead the lobbying for any legal changes that would require action by the state's General Assembly.

I have no idea if the city is liable for the misconduct of its legal officers. What do the lawyers among my readers think?

UPDATE: KC Johnson blogged a couple of weeks ago about the possibility of Durham's liability and thus their readiness to settle with the three young men.

Both Coleman and Duke Law professor Erwin Chemerinsky pointed to the city’s likely vulnerability under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which allows people to sue in federal court over “the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution.”

Such suits are often confined to rogue police officers, but in this case the 2007 actions of key Durham officials are likely to prove very costly to the city’s long-term financial health. The city’s key area of vulnerability, Coleman noted, is the procedurally tainted April 4, 2006 lineup, in which ex-DA Nifong instructed the police to violate their own procedures and confine the lineup to suspects.

Coleman told Gronberg that the officers “had an independent obligation to handle this thing according to their own polices, and they've pretty much acknowledged they didn't do that. And, obviously, that had some pretty serious consequences. The students wouldn't have been indicted if they didn't run that flawed identification process.”

Indeed, given the decimation of Brian Meehan’s findings in the December 15 hearing, it’s now evident that the results of the flawed ID process constituted the only evidence used to indict the three specific people ultimately targeted.