Duke (Non) Rape Case Hearing Postponed Until May

A critical hearing in the Duke lacrosse sexual assault case has been postponed until May as the new prosecutors continue to study evidence.

Prosecutors from the state attorney general's office met with defense attorneys and the judge for about two hours Tuesday. It was the first meeting between the parties since the state took over the case this month from embattled District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Lawyers said afterward that a planned Feb. 5 hearing where the accuser was expected to appear would be rescheduled for May 7.

"We will use this time to continue reviewing the case files, talking to the many people involved in the cases, and making sure that all discovery requests have been responded to properly," state Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement.

Joseph Cheshire, a defense attorney for one of the players accused of attacking a woman hired as a stripper during a lacrosse team party, said he anticipated more meetings with the attorney general's staff.

"We are very hopeful about this case, and where it stands, and where it will go, and at least we know that it will be dealt with professionally," he said.

Everyone is trying to figure out what the next step in the case will be and the Attorney General's office is trying to pick up the pieces in the botched investigation and prosecution initiated by Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong (who himself is now under investigation by the NC State Bar). It had been anticipated that the February 5 hearing would result in additional charges being dropped against the trio.

However, given that the AG's office received boxloads of information relating to the case only two weeks ago, they need more time to evaluate the case and materials. Postponing the hearing is a sensible measure as all sides appear to agree. KC Johnson has more.

(Hat Tip - MandyManners at LGF)

UPDATE:
KC Johnson's NY Post editorial hits at the NYT coverage of the whole Duke scandal. It's a must read. (HT: Jammie Wearing Fool).

UPDATE:
Based on the comments and an email conversation with Anonymous emailer, I think addressing the issue of why this case should be allowed to drag on is worthy of further scrutiny. A defendant's right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the US Constitution, so why should one of the defendants put themselves in a situation where this case drags on for three more months.

It's a very good question but I think there's an adequate reason. The defendants have spent months demanding that Nifong recuse himself from the case, and now that he's gone, the defendants want to give the AG's office the opportunity to review the evidence and make their own determination in a reasonable amount of time.

The defense team knows that they've got not only the criminal case to concern themselves with, but potential civil cases against Nifong, Durham, Duke University and the accuser. They do not want to jeopardize those efforts by calling for a speedy trial in which the possibility exists that unsavory and damaging testimony as to the character and conduct of the trio might come out, which could prejudice the trials down the road.