A new batch of documents released Wednesday further suggest the NCAA broke its own rules and displayed bias toward USC and former assistant coach Todd McNair during the Reggie Bush investigation.

The documents also indicate that members of the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions had doubts about the validity of the case against McNair, who is accused of lying to NCAA investigators.

The documents were part of a brief filed with the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles by McNair’s attorneys, who in June 2011 filed a defamation suit against the NCAA. The Register obtained the documents, which include 256 pages of internal NCAA emails and court transcripts.

The emails include an update on the USC case sent by Shep Cooper, liaison to the COI, to other members of the committee dated Feb. 24, 2010 – four days after the conclusion of USC’s hearing with the NCAA.

Cooper recaps the allegations against USC and includes a list of suggested penalties. They include a one-year postseason ban for the football team, the loss of six scholarships over two seasons and a limit of 82 total scholarship players for those two years. The actual sanctions, handed down 3 1/2 months later, included a two-year postseason ban, the loss of 30 scholarships over three seasons and a cap of 75 scholarship players for those three years.

The question is what changed over those few months. The documents lend some clues.

They include several highly opinionated emails sent to COI members by Roscoe Howard and Rodney Uphoff, who were involved in the case but who, by NCAA rule, were not allowed to participate in deliberations or influence the committee. Uphoff was the NCAA’s coordinator of appeals at the time; Howard was a COI member on his first case and was supposed to only observe the proceedings.

The documents include a letter dated Jan. 6, 2010, from former COI chair Paul Dee to then-USC president Steven Sample outlining Howard and Uphoff’s roles.

Most of the emails sent by Howard and Uphoff emerged in court documents released in March. Uphoff wrote in one message: “I fear that the committee is going to be too lenient on USC on the football violations. I think that would be a huge mistake.”

In an email dated May 10, 2010, Uphoff wrote: “As you know I favor strict penalties in this case” and “this case cries out for something dramatic.”

In two separate August 2012 depositions involving members of the COI, McNair’s lawyers made apparent their intention to show that non-voting members had influenced the committee’s decision, asking repeated questions about the deliberation process.

Asked on Aug. 21, 2012, by McNair’s lawyer about rules governing the committee’s deliberations on USC, COI member Dennis Thomas responded: “It’s absolutely my understanding that an observer cannot participate in the deliberations of a case, of a hearing, when the committee is sequestered, and talk about the case.”

In a deposition a week earlier, McNair attorney Bruce Broillet questioned Cooper on the same subject in reference to Howard. Documents show he had openly expressed his feelings on the case, in conflict with NCAA procedures. So Broillet pushed Cooper on whether such a practice was out of bounds.

“Was it appropriate at the time of these events for a non-voting member and nonparticipant in deliberations to attempt to influence the vote of voting members of the COI under the rules of the NCAA?” Broillet asked.

After first asking whether he could be excused for a break and then being pushed further by Broillet, Cooper conceded.

“That would not be appropriate,” he said.

Some members of the COI expressed skepticism about McNair’s involvement. A key point of contention is how well – or if at all – McNair knew Lloyd Lake, the San Diego businessman who gave money and other perks to Bush and his family in violation of NCAA rules.

In an email dated March 1, 2010, committee member Eleanor Myers questioned whether McNair lied to the committee and, if he didn’t, whether USC deserved to be charged with a lack of institutional control. Howard provided a lengthy rebuttal – a self-described “rant” – and outlined all the ways in which he believed McNair had lied. Citing the involvement of McNair and others in NCAA violations, Howard wrote: “Lack of institutional control … is a very easy call for me.”

Britton Banowsky wrote in a March 3, 2010, email to fellow committee members that “while I didn’t find him (McNair) credible, on most issues it was his word against Lake’s word. And Lake’s transcript was really choppy on his relationship with McNair. … He (McNair) may not have told the truth about knowing Lake, but the real question would seem whether he knew of Lake’s plan to have the agency and that he was giving benefits to Reggie. … It is challenging for me to make the finding when there is no allegation that he personally was involved in any rules violations or even had specific knowledge of any. That’s why this is a tough one. But I will defer to others on it.”

By May 10, Myers had concluded that McNair deserved a “show cause” penalty, which basically prevented him from getting a job with another university. “I would limit his recruiting because I think he just doesn’t get it,” Myers wrote in an email.

The documents don’t necessarily paint McNair in a positive light. They include NCAA interview transcripts in which Lake said he came to know McNair but McNair denied knowing Lake – despite phone records that corroborated Lake’s version of events.

McNair also said at one point that he had minimal contact with players during the offseason. But the documents include a transcript stating that he and Bush spoke on the phone 330 times between December 2004 and June 2005.