Correspondence from Smiley to McGee and Neyhart Re: Joint Appendix
Correspondence
August 1, 2000
2 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Correspondence from Smiley to McGee and Neyhart Re: Joint Appendix, 2000. 5d222de0-fc0e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/fdb4a6b2-702f-446d-94fd-e773ac45b344/correspondence-from-smiley-to-mcgee-and-neyhart-re-joint-appendix. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
State of North Carolina
MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice
ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley
RALEIGH Special Litigation
27602-0629 (919) 716-6900
FAX: (919) 716-6763
August 1, 2000
Martin B. McGee
Williams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Tuttle, P.A.
Post Office Box 2
Kannapolis, North Carolina 28082
BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Seth Neyhart
Everett and Everett Law Firm
Post Office Box 586 (Self-Help Building)
Durham, North Carolina 27702
Re: Cromartie Joint Appendix
Dear Marty and Seth:
For purposes of finalizing the joint appendix, we are setting a deadline of noon, Thursday,
August 3, 2000 for you to provide us any additional designations as a result of materials we added
based on your designations.
With regard to your questions regarding what testimony is part of the trial record, our
understanding is that the court admitted all Cromartie depositions in toto, in lieu of additional
trial testimony. This broad expansion of the record rendered the designations of Cromartie
depositions in the pre-trial order irrelevant, and complete copies of all these depositions were
provided to the court. Thus, all the parties are free to put any portions of these transcripts in the
joint appendix.
However, you raise an interesting point with regard to the Shaw and Pope depositions and
testimony. Although plaintiffs designated some of these materials for “proffer on cross-
examination” in the pre-trial order, our investigation does not reveal that copies of Cohen’s Shaw
testimony and deposition transcripts or Cohen’s Pope deposition transcript were ever submitted to
the court in full, or that selected portions based on the designations ever were submitted.
Plaintiffs’ failure to provide the court copies of this testimony renders the designations
meaningless. Thus, our view is that none of the Shaw and Pope testimony was made part of the
record and none of this testimony belongs in the joint appendix. If you still want to include any of
this material in the joint appendix, please advise whether a copy of this testimony was ever filed
McGee, Neyhart
August 1, 2000
Page 2
or submitted to the Cromartie court, when it was filed or submitted and how it was filed or
submitted.
Sincerely,
( ZA2_
are B. Smiley
Special Deputy Attorney General
TBS/cdf
ce: Todd Cox
Adam Stein