Correspondence from Neyhart to Smiley Re: Weber Material for Joint Appendix
Correspondence
August 4, 2000
1 page
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Correspondence from Neyhart to Smiley Re: Weber Material for Joint Appendix, 2000. 2fd4059b-fb0e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fc7aecba-74b1-40e3-b015-ed5dab555d64/correspondence-from-neyhart-to-smiley-re-weber-material-for-joint-appendix. Accessed November 19, 2025.
Copied!
SENT BY: ;
H.O. EVERE | | (1878-1971)
KATHRINE R. EVERETT (1683-1992)
ROBINSON GO. EVERETT
DAWN T, BATTISTE
SANDRA G. HERRING
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT D. HOLLEMAN
OF COUNSEL
CRAIG M. KABATCHNICK
(ADMITTED NC, D.C.)
VIA FAX
Ms. Tiare BB. Smiley
» @ 682 5468; AlUG-4-00 "®
EVERETT & EVERETT
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
SUITE 300
301 W. MAIN STREET
P.O. BOX 588
DurHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702
August 4, 2000
Special Deputy Attorney General
North Carolina Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Re: Weber Maternal for Joint Appendix
Dear Tiare:
PAGE 1/1
TEL: (319) 682-5691
FAX; (913) 882-5489
[nclosed are our last set of corrections with regard to the material that has been sent wo us
in respect to the Joint Appendix materials. In addition to the corrections noted on the attached
sheets, we wish Lo pul back into Dr. Weber's report all of paragraph 55 as well as paragraphs 62
and 63. Also, we wish to have the Rowan County data added to the other counties of District 12
in Table 5. Tinally, there should be a note in Table 6 that the data for Davidson, Guilford,
Iredell, Rowan, and Mecklenburg Counties have not been reprinted.
As for Dr. Weber's deposition excerpts, we note that you did not have included 63:7-13
which we had previously designated. ln our telephone conversation earlier today, Fran Carraway
assured me that this will be taken care of.
In another matter, Judge Everctt has told me that in the conversation he had with you
concerning your request for an extension you were under the impression that the time for filing a
reply brief was 10 days. 1 believe, however, that the rules authorize 30 days, but we certainly
hope that at that point the filing can be accelerrated so we can get this appeal over with as
quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Sot a. Heft
Scth Allen Neyhart
cc Adam Stcin
oC; Todd Cox