The Duke lacrosse scandal produced a settlement with Duke University in June 2007 for the three indicted players (Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans), a separate 2013 settlement between Duke and 38 unindicted teammates, and a 2014 resolution of the federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Durham in which the players received no money but directed a $50,000 grant to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission. Terms of the Duke settlements were never publicly disclosed, and a widely cited $20 million-per-player figure is based on media speculation, not confirmation.
Duke’s 2007 Settlement With the Three Indicted Players
Duke announced its settlement with Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann in June 2007, two months after North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges and declared the three men innocent. The university’s public statement was brief. It said the resolution was intended to “eliminate the possibility of future litigation and move forward,” and added that “beyond this statement, the resolution is a private matter among the students, their families and Duke.”1GoDuke.com. Duke Settles With Lacrosse Players
No dollar amount was ever officially confirmed. The $20 million-per-player number that circulated in press coverage traces back to an IRS tax lien filed against Seligmann in February 2011, which claimed roughly $6.5 million in taxes owed from 2007. Commentators worked backward from that figure to estimate the underlying payout. Duke has never confirmed or denied the amount.2Vanity Fair. Duke Lacrosse Case: Fantastic Lies
Duke’s 2013 Settlement With the 38 Unindicted Teammates
In February 2008, 38 unindicted members of the 2005–06 lacrosse team and nine family members filed a separate federal lawsuit against Duke, the City of Durham, and various school and police officials. The complaint alleged fraud, breach of duty, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress, and it accused Duke of suppressing evidence of innocence and failing to protect the players from harassment.3CBS News. 38 Duke Lacrosse Players Sue School, City
Duke settled that case out of court in February 2013. As with the 2007 settlement, the terms were kept confidential.4Inside Higher Ed. Duke and 38 Former Lacrosse Players Settle Suit
The Federal Lawsuit Against Durham and Its 2014 Resolution
In October 2007, Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann filed a 162-page federal civil rights lawsuit against former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong, the City of Durham, and more than a dozen police and lab officials. The complaint alleged a coordinated pattern of fabricated evidence, rigged identification procedures, witness intimidation, and suppression of exculpatory material. The players sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees, and reforms to the Durham Police Department. Before filing, their attorneys had proposed a $30 million settlement with the city, which Durham rejected.5New York Times. Former Duke Players Sue Prosecutor and City6CBS News. Exonerated Lacrosse Players Sue Prosecutor
The case moved slowly. In 2011, a federal judge denied motions to dismiss the core civil rights claims, finding the allegations plausible enough to warrant discovery, though the court threw out several other claims, including punitive damages against the city. Durham appealed.7Sports Litigation Alert. Ruling Allows Duke Lacrosse Players to Pursue Civil Rights Claims
The parties resolved the case on May 16, 2014, when stipulations of dismissal were filed. Under the settlement, the three players received no monetary compensation from Durham. At their request, the city agreed instead to make a one-time $50,000 grant to the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, a state agency that investigates post-conviction claims of factual innocence.8CNN. Durham Settles With Former Duke Lacrosse Players9MetroWest Daily News. Nation in Brief
As part of the agreement, Durham issued a statement reaffirming its concurrence with Cooper’s 2007 finding that the three men were innocent. The city also maintained that its police officers had an “obligation to investigate the allegations” and that no city employee “engaged in improper conduct.” Durham emphasized that Nifong, as district attorney, had not been a city employee.8CNN. Durham Settles With Former Duke Lacrosse Players
What Happened to the Claims Against Nifong Personally
Nifong was named individually in the federal lawsuit alongside the city and its officials. In January 2008 he filed for bankruptcy, listing more than $180 million in liabilities almost entirely from the civil suits filed by the lacrosse players. He listed Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann as unsecured creditors owed $30 million each, with other team members as additional creditors.10WRAL. Nifong Files for Bankruptcy
A federal judge later allowed the civil rights claims against Nifong to proceed despite the bankruptcy filing, ruling that if a judgment resulted, the matter would return to bankruptcy court to determine whether his conduct was willful enough to preclude bankruptcy protection.11WRAL. Judge: Duke Lacrosse Suits Against Nifong Can Proceed The claims against Nifong were ultimately dismissed by stipulation in May 2014 along with the rest of the federal lawsuit, as part of the broader Durham settlement.12CourtListener. Evans v. City of Durham Docket
By that point, Nifong had already lost his law license and served jail time in connection with his handling of the case. In June 2007, a North Carolina State Bar disciplinary panel unanimously voted to disbar him for withholding key DNA evidence from the defense, lying to the presiding judge, and lying to bar investigators. He resigned as district attorney during the hearing and waived all rights to appeal.13CNN. Nifong Disbarred Two months later, Superior Court Judge W. Osmond Smith III found Nifong in criminal contempt for withholding exculpatory DNA results and falsely telling the court that a lab report he had turned over was complete. Smith sentenced him to one day in jail.14CNN. Nifong Found in Contempt
Coach Mike Pressler’s Separate Settlement With Duke
Mike Pressler, the head lacrosse coach who resigned at Duke’s request in 2006, brought his own lawsuit against the university and former Duke spokesman John Burness. He alleged slander, claiming that university officials made false and defamatory statements about him to the press during the scandal. Duke argued the case belonged in arbitration under Pressler’s employment contract, but both a trial court and the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, finding that a subsequent settlement agreement signed after his departure had voided the arbitration clause.15Courthouse News Service. Ex-Duke Lacrosse Coach Wins Arbitration Ruling
Pressler voluntarily dismissed the suit on March 31, 2010. Neither side disclosed the terms, but Duke publicly apologized to him for “adverse consequences” resulting from two media stories.16ESPN. Pressler Drops Lawsuit Against Duke
The Legal Ground the Settlements Were Built On
The settlements followed the unusual public collapse of the criminal case. On April 11, 2007, Attorney General Cooper dismissed all remaining charges and affirmatively declared the three players innocent, saying his office found “no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house that night.” He described the prosecution as “a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations” and called Nifong a “rogue prosecutor.”17GoDuke.com. AG Cooper Dismisses All Charges18NPR. Charges Dropped Against Duke Lacrosse Players
That declaration of innocence, together with the bar and contempt findings against Nifong for withholding DNA evidence, gave the civil claims against Duke, Durham, and Nifong an evidentiary spine that few wrongful-prosecution suits ever have. It also helps explain why the two Duke settlements were reached quickly and privately, and why Durham chose, after seven years of litigation, a resolution that avoided any admission of misconduct by its employees while accepting the innocence finding.