Duke lacrosse players are staring down a tough trial

	Collin Finnerty was one of two Duke lacrosse players arrested on Tuesday morning, providing news crews with a prime photo opportunity. AP
	MAILBAG Lester Munson will periodically answer questions from SI.com users in his mailbag. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

We caught up with Sports Illustrated legal expert Lester Munson, who is closely following the case involving members of the Duke lacrosse team. On Tuesday, two players were arrested and charged with the rape and kidnapping of a stripper at a party in March. We asked Munson about some of the evidence against the players and how the case will shake out.

SI.com: A report has surfaced that one of the players charged, Reade Seligmann, has an alibi -- including ATM receipts, a statement from a cab driver and evidence he was at his dormitory -- indicating he had left the party before the alleged incident happened. Is this credible evidence?

Munson: It's potentially credible and can be proof of his innocence. But we should remember that the presentation of an alibi can be tricky and dangerous. The police and the prosecutor will scrutinize this evidence in exquisite detail, and if they find something is askew, that something doesn't fit in the alibi evidence, they will not hesitate to charge Seligmann with yet another crime. That would be obstruction of justice. The defense lawyers know they must be very careful in the presentation of an alibi. The disclosure of this evidence so quickly after Seligmann's arrest indicates we must be very careful and slow to evaluate it and its credibility. You don't see many alibis in criminal cases -- it's a very rare thing. Ordinarily, 99 times out of 100, the police have the right guy, and you'll find that most people arrested were involved in something. Getting the wrong guy is very unusual.

SI.com: The other player arrested, Collin Finnerty, was charged with assault for an incident in Washington, D.C., last November and got off with community service. Will this come into play in this case?

Munson: It'll work against him in D.C., where he is no longer eligible for diversion and may now face trial for that assault case. The whole theory is that when you reach a deal with a judge, you must behave yourself. When you don't, you find yourself in double the trouble. The court system gave Finnerty a break, and judges and prosecutors tend to be unforgiving. In the Durham case, that first assault would come into play if he is convicted, and it would be used to extend his sentence for previous predatory behavior. You wouldn't want to be either one of these guys right now.

SI.com: District Attorney Mike Nifong claims he has a third suspect, another team member. What do you know about him?

Munson: We know nothing at the moment. The question we must ask is whether this third player is in the process of negotiating with the prosecutor and is seeking immunity from prosecution or is seeking leniency for his testimony against the other players. Has the prosecution succeeded in driving a wedge into the veneer of solidarity the team has presented so far?

SI.com: Nifong is up for reelection next month. Do you think this has played a role in the case?

Munson: I believe his candidacy is playing a major role in the timing of the charges. He could not go through the election process without having made at least some of the decisions that must be made in this investigation. We have had instances of prosecutors using sports figures for political advancement in the past. In the rape case against former Green Bay Packers tight end Mark Chmura in 2001, the prosecutor, Paul Bucher, charged Chmura with rape and other serious crimes even though Bucher had no evidence. It was clear he wanted to run for statewide office in Wisconsin. The ploy did not work -- Chmura was found not guilty after a trial that was humiliating for Bucher, who had to postpone his political ambitions. He's actually running for attorney general this year. But the political dimension of the Durham situation is very important and it must be recognized.

SI.com: Investigators found no DNA evidence. What does that mean for the prosecution's case?

Munson: Its absence is not important. There are hundreds of men in penitentiaries across the United States who were convicted of rape without their DNA being found on the victim. It does help the defense to some extent, but it's not conclusive. The whole idea that DNA evidence was somehow conclusive was the invention of the defense lawyers. Its absence hasn't stopped the grand jury from charging these guys.

SI.com: The grand jury sealed the indictments the night before it announced the charges the next morning. What's the point of sitting on the charges?

Munson: For the sole purpose of humiliating the two boys, of getting them on video in handcuffs. The prosecutor wanted to have what we call a perp walk -- parade them in handcuffs in front of television crews. It's a fairly common practice in high-profile cases. Take these huge financial cases, for example, like the Enron and Tyco trials: A guy like former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling is worth hundreds of millions; everyone knows he'd be out on bail, but they still needed to go get him at 5 a.m. It's a common practice for prosecutors entering into a situation that makes for good TV. Here, I think Nifong wanted to show he was arresting somebody.

SI.com: Will this case go to trial?

Munson: Yes, probably in February or March 2007. There won't be a settlement. When you're talking about an alibi, you don't have much leeway to negotiate out of a case -- 95 percent of criminal cases are negotiated, but this isn't one of those cases. These guys come from wealthy families and have the money to fight it.