Duke Player's Attorney Responds to Dropped Charges

This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," April 11, 2007, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: We spoke just a few moments ago with Joe Cheshire. He is the attorney for one of the Duke lacrosse players, David Evans.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HANNITY: Joining us now is the attorney for Dave Evans, Joe Cheshire is with us. Joe, it's a big day for you. Welcome to the program. Thanks for being with us.

JOE CHESHIRE, ATTORNEY FOR DAVE EVANS: Thanks for having me.

HANNITY: You know, when you consider all that's happened in this case, when you consider the multiple statements of the accuser in this case, when you consider all of the exculpatory evidence, when you consider how the D.A. wouldn't even pay attention to this, it's amazing that it went on for 395 days, isn't it?

CHESHIRE: Yes, it's pretty stunning, to tell you the truth. But in North Carolina, our DAs have almost absolute power. And the case really moved about as quickly as it could move. I think it was about to be over anyway at the next motion hearing. But we are very appreciative of what the A.G. did and the extent to which he investigated it and then the courage of how he made his decision.

HANNITY: Would you and the family, this woman — there are a lot of statutes. I was reading the law today. There is a possibility of perjury in this case, subornation of perjury. Do you think this woman should be investigated and brought up on charges?

CHESHIRE: Well, you know, I don't think there's any question, based on the investigation the attorney general has done, that she has violated the laws. There may be other people that have, as well.

But as far as the attorney general's decision on her, because of circumstances that I know in her life, because of what it would put these families through in continuing it, I think he made the right decision. I don't deny him that right or think that it was the wrong thing to do.

HANNITY: Well, is that a final decision?

CHESHIRE: You mean a final decision on behalf of the attorney general?

HANNITY: Yes.

CHESHIRE: I think that he's made the decision. It appeared to me that they're not going to charge the false accuser.

HANNITY: Let me ask you this. And that raises the question about Mike Nifong. We know, for example, in the case of your client, the accuser originally couldn't pick him out of a picture lineup and then said, well, I think that's him if he had a mustache. Your client never had a moustache in his life.

So it was basically she couldn't have a wrong answer because he only had the 46 players that she could choose from, if she's going to say, "Oh, that's the person that did this to me." We have the issue of condoms. We have the issue of withholding exculpatory evidence. What do you want to see happen to Mike Nifong?

CHESHIRE: Well, you know, first of all, the state bar is going to take action against him. I have every confidence that they're going to do the right thing. I have said in the press conference today — and I don't mind saying it again — that this man should not be in any position of power over any citizen in this state after what he's demonstrated in this particular case.

HANNITY: Should he be disbarred?

CHESHIRE: Well, I'm not going to make that judgment. That would be like me doing to him what he did to these young men.

HANNITY: But based on the facts, based on what you know and based on his handling of the case?

CHESHIRE: Well, I'm not going to make that judgment. That's not my judgment to make. That's the state's bars, and I have every faith that they'll do the right thing in that case. I mean...

(CROSSTALK)

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: Mr. Cheshire, it's Alan Colmes. Thank you for doing our show. Do you plan to sue Mr. Nifong?

CHESHIRE: Do I? No, I don't. I'm just a lowly, little old criminal lawyer. So I don't understand those fancy things.

COLMES: But on behalf of your client?

CHESHIRE: We've been trying to keep our eye on the ball of getting this criminal case dismissed. I think everything is on the table as it relates to looking at civil actions against people that have harmed these young men. I think it's on the table.

I don't think anyone has made any decision about what to do. I mean, you've got to think about the young men, too. You've got to think about them getting on with their life. But I'm sure there will be some accountability to look for.

COLMES: Well, the idea then is, you're considering — I guess you're considering suing Nifong, if that's what you're suggesting, if it's on the table. And are you also possibly considering suing Durham or the state? What specifically is on the table?

CHESHIRE: I think everything is on the table. And all of the things that you mentioned I'm sure will be discussed and looked at by our clients, by lawyers smarter than we are, and probably by us, as well. So I think that a new door, a new chapter in this case has been opened about accountability for people who are responsible for what happened to these young men.

COLMES: You're saying this is not over, we're going to be seeing more of this, and there will be more fallout, more legal fallout based on actions you and perhaps the other defense attorneys will take?

CHESHIRE: Yes, I'd be surprised if this was over. I mean, this was a really important case. There are a lot of American lessons to be learned in this case. And I imagine that there will be many more chapters yet to be written about this tragedy.

COLMES: Is it your opinion that Mr. Nifong purposely withheld exculpatory evidence?

CHESHIRE: You know, I think, on the record alone, that it's clear. It's absolutely clear that he did. Mr. Meehan admitted that on the stand when my partner, Brad Bannon, took him on in court. I don't think there's any doubt about that. He can try to parse that in a technical way all he wants, but, I mean, it's just as clear as the fact that I'm sitting talking to you here.

COLMES: Is it also your opinion that he made inflammatory statements to the media? And do you have a case based on that?

CHESHIRE: Oh, there is no question about that. I mean, his statements, saying they were inflammatory would be a very kind way to say them. I mean, they were, at best, irresponsible.

They were lies. They were not truthful. He changed it from time to time. And, you know, do I think that he may have some liability in that area? I'm not a civil lawyer, but I can't imagine that he didn't step out from under his immunity several different times.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

Watch "Hannity & Colmes" weeknights at 9 p.m. ET!

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2007 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2007 Voxant, Inc. (www.voxant.com), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, LLC'S and Voxant, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.