Saturday, June 16, 2007

Brocker Follow-up

Brocker: No legitimate reason for Nifong to request a report that had positive matches.

No one has ever denied that this is what Nifong asked for, what they went over at the 5-12 meeting.

Important to remember that there are representations in the hearings not just about what was in the report--but what was discussed with Dr. Meehan.

To buy the Nifong argument: would need to believe that Nifong forgot about everything that happened in the three meetings.

"Would be a mistake" to assume that Nifong was approaching this case logically.

In looking at intent, need to look at all the circumstantial evidence. "Overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence" to indicate that Nifong's behavior was not a mistake--clear exactly what he was doing.

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Ouch! That was a nasty blow, Brocker's follow-up.

Dianna

Anonymous said...

I like Brocker's reminder that just because it wasn't mentioned in the AG's report doesn't mean that they didn't think it was important.

Beck said...

OOO-Undisclosed location
cool

Anonymous said...

Clear, cogent, and convincing.

laxhooligan88 said...

"Brocker's reminder that just because it wasn't mentioned in the AG's report doesn't mean that they didn't think it was important."

That would be pointing out that the AG was being "Old School"

Anonymous said...

90 minutes for lunch and deliberations

Anonymous said...

Reconvene no earlier than 2. That's not too long, including lunch.

Hmmm...

Anonymous said...

So what was the final tally on the number of men that Miss Crystal had sexual intercourse with in a few days?

Beck said...

Tom Maher (bleh) is on WRAL HD channel 256 if you are in the Triangle with Time-Warner cable. The WRAL news channel has been carrying the hearing with commentary when there is time.

laxhooligan88 said...

lunch plus deliberation at an undisclosed location...gave themselves two and a half hours

doesn't sound like they think they'll spend much time arguing over whether on not he's f'd

Anonymous said...

8 minutes of deliberation
77 minutes for lunch

Anonymous said...

oohh...excuse me, forgot the time difference. Only 90 mins!!!

Holy Shnikeys!!! That's hardly enough time to just have lunch and take a c__p!!!

laxhooligan88 said...

as to earlier comments about Brocker not going yard with the fat pitches over the plate...I'd say he just touched em all!!!

Anonymous said...

LaxHooligan--Where in TX? We're in Clear Lake, but just moved back to Houston area less than a year ago after 7 years outside Raleigh.

Anonymous said...

To the person who asked this question;

So what was the final tally on the number of men that Miss Crystal had sexual intercourse with in a few days?


The Tally I think of known partners of CGM seems to be 12, plus some toys in front of a couple she was dancing for.


Tom E.

laxhooligan88 said...

Dallas area

Southwestern Univ '88

Anonymous said...

Did anyone bring the rope? 2 minute deliberation.. the rest is lunch?

Anonymous said...

DA Nifong turns into congressman Nifong in 2008, unless he joins John Edwards campaign as a chief blogger or AG candidate. Nifong would be a huge asset in gaining votes from far-left white elitists and AA racists.
Besides, he has important experience in primary elections.

Anonymous said...

Nifong defense of saying no intent and being “clueless” is of course lame.
He has claimed he was so busy running the DA office, no time to in effect read all the motions timely and reflect on the impact of the excessive media comments.
He claims the 1800 pages of dna data was a clean report until he realized it wasn't, yet he testified the coping and document production for multiple defense lawyers was very burdensome in volume and detail. His claiming he and his office was focused on quality open production, yet he delivers a 1800 page report of data without reading it or understanding there is no translation of the data.

Anonymous said...

No need to deliberate.
90 minutes for lunch.
It will be nifongs last that the taxpayers pay for.

Michael said...

I am hoping and praying that
Nifong is not only found guilty
on all counts, but that he is disbarred.

His behavior throughout the
whole case was absolutely abhorrent.
He is a lying psychopath with an
absolutely huge and over-inflated
ego and absolutely
should not be practicing law (or lecturing
about law) in any way shape or form.

Anonymous said...

"It's sometimes hard to do the right thing, but there's no excuse for doing the wrong thing."

That sums it up.

simpleswine said...

Serious question.. Does nifong actually think, believe, he is innocent? Does his defense team? Does anyone?

Anonymous said...

I am hoping and praying that
Nifong is not only found guilty
on all counts, but that he is disbarred.


From your lips to God's ears, my friend.

Anonymous said...

Sure. The woman from the Innocence Commission, the Group of 88 and Victoria think he is a saint.

His lawyers admitted he committed violations.

Anonymous said...

Serious question.. Does nifong actually think, believe, he is innocent? Does his defense team?

No, of course not. It's simply a case of skin saving at this point.

Anonymous said...

I do not believe that he said "we are fucked.." I do believe that he said either, "I am fucked..." or "We are nifonged..."

Anonymous said...

I would guess the sanctions are in the several years suspended to disbarred range. I would put more money on several years suspended...

gs said...

I'm glad Nifong fought. Had he just handed in his license, he would not have spent thousands on legal defense.

This way he is disbarred and loses a bunch of equity in his house.

Anonymous said...

Did you notice in his "apology" he said "I wanted my sone to be proud of me too." Not "I want," but "I wanted." That was pure Freudian:
he isn't wanting his son to be proud of him now, taking his medicine and bettering "his community" by resigning. No, he slipped and said "I wanted him to be proud of me." He wanted to be the big hero, swaggering DA, hurling white rapists into prison, protecting the downtrodden... Of course that is why he did everyting. And he slipped when he admitted "I wantED my son to be proud of me, too."

Anonymous said...

Question for you lawyers:

Can Nifong's testimony in this hearing be used in a civil trial? Especially his answer to the question "Do you believe something happened"?

Anonymous said...

Ha,
Southwestern 1987 !!!

BDay

Anonymous said...

12:52

Entirely correct. You have to admit the violations. Try to mitigate the intent. Try to throw as much other mitigation (no record or pattern of ethical violations, generally good rep, he's resigning so generally not a continuing threat, etc.) at the wall as possible. Hope for several years suspended.

Anonymous said...

I think HE believes he is innocent... but then, I wonder if he BELIEVES in anything?

Anonymous said...

yep sworn, testimony.

The whole hearing was free discovery for the lax players. Not just the 3 charged, but the whole team.

Anonymous said...

Okay, most important lesson learned: ESPECIALLY if you're innocent of a charge, hire the best defense money can buy and NEVER plea bargain: that just makes the DA's job easier.

Anonymous said...

The whole hearing was free discovery for the lax players. Not just the 3 charged, but the whole team.

Awesome. But there probably aren't enough assets there to go after Nifong. Maybe they go after Duke and Brodhead first, and use the proceeds there to go after Nifong just to twist the knife in him.

Anonymous said...

Am I correct in thinking that the only issue for the panel to decide is whether Nifong 'knowingly' violated the rules (which his lawyer admitted) or 'intentionally' violated the rules (which his lawyers claim he didn't)?

Not to be flippant, but might it not take longer to decide what to eat for lunch?

Anonymous said...

12:54

Sworn testimony of a witness represented by counsel can always be used in another proceeding. The question would be"how" it could be used because there are certain evidentiary questions. But certainly to impeach if he changes his testimony.

Anonymous said...

12:57..
you forget about future assets. The whole point of civil action. Don't let him write a book, or make money in the MSM and profit from it..

BDay

Anonymous said...

12:57
That may work for other people, but it will not work for Nifong at this hearing.

Anonymous said...

Not to be flippant, but might it not take longer to decide what to eat for lunch?

I think it will take longer to decide between tea or water with lemon.

Anonymous said...

At least the "good reputation" up to now part suggest that the system isn't totally corrupt.

Anonymous said...

I doubt this is the last lunch the tax payers pay for... there is always jail food, if this goes (hopefully) to criminal trial... and if it only goes civil, he will need foodstamps, after the settlements....
Cy will leave his behind..a sad, BROKE, lonely man... good thing he has CM's phone number!

Anonymous said...

12:57

I would be shocked if they went after Duke/Broadhead. Not much there to go on. Being unfairly treated in retrospect is not a cause of action.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

1:00
They will go after Duke, and Duke will settle.

Anonymous said...

I bet they do go after Duke and the group of 88.

Duke has deep pockets. I rep to protect, and has settled two lawsuits already (pressler, and the grade issue).

Anonymous said...

1:01

What would the claim be?

Anonymous said...

1:00

If I were the LAX coach, I'd file for unfair dismissal at the very least.

Those professors acted unethically by allowing anything other than student performance influence their grades.

Oh, I'd go after Duke and those professors.

gs said...

I bet if the group of 88 are named in a lawsuit, they will push Duke to settle to protect themselves.

Anonymous said...

1:02

But if you are one of the three indicted, what would you sue on? The University has a right/duty to suspend a student accused/indicted of a violent felony.

gs said...

1:00

If I were the LAX coach, I'd file for unfair dismissal at the very least.

The coach received a settlement this month, details are secert.

Anonymous said...

There's a lot of 1st Amendment protection for the Group of 88 though. Tough to overcome.

Anonymous said...

Has the hearing panel started deliberations?

Anonymous said...

That Duke failed to protect its students, that the presumption of innocence was absent, that the LAX players were subject to prejudice by their professors, that the coach was fired and the season cancelled, that statements were made that further incriminated the accused "Even if they didn't do what they were accused of doing, whatever they did was bad enough".

Anonymous said...

1:00

You obviously know nothing about civil litigation. Duke is extremely scared of any DISCOVERY relating to this case, including conspiracy by Negro Studies professors to railroad the boys.

Lawsuits will be sprayed all over Dook.

David said...

Has anyone here read "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham? This whole case makes me think of the DA in Ada Oklahoma Bill Peterson, with the exception that Peterson did not try his case in the press first. If Nifong had not spoken to the national media we would probably be watching the trials of the three lacrosse players instead of watching Nifong getting slowly roasted over the grill.
Its unfortunate that now we have to protect ourselves from the very people whose job it is to protect us from being unjustly accused. Personally, I think that this case has illustrated the need for reform in all aspects of the justice system. Why do prosecutors run for office in the first place? Why are there no Term limits on District Attorneys? If Nifong wasn't trying to save his frikken job then none of this would have happened. The people I feel sorry for are the lacrosse players who were accused AND the taxpayers in the State of North Carolina (its unfortunate that you will be the ones who ultimately will pay for Nifong.....

Anonymous said...

Also, if I'm one of the three players, do I want to be that person who goes after the deep pocket? Do I want this to look like it's about money? I would think they would want it to look like they wanted justice done (which a settlement check from Duke does not necessarily represent). This, today, is a BIG step in seeing that "justice" is done. Duke and the Group of 88 were mostly reacting to the hoax perpetrated by CGM and Nifong.

gs said...

1:04
Doesn't matter. The profs would be afraid of losing. The jury would not like them. Just fighting the case will run up law bills.

The group would pressure Duke to settle with the players and include themselves in the settlement.

So sue the group of 88 and Duke.

Use the Group to your advantage.

Anonymous said...

Someone has figured out that KC cannot screen these posts and live-blog at the same time. We have certainly been treated to some zingers this morning! Sheesh!

Anonymous said...

1:06

I don't disagree there was unfairness, but last time I checked, there was no cause of action for unfairness. Nothing of those things sound like a claim to me.

Anonymous said...

1:06

I know plenty about civil litigation and these guys are not going to want to spend the next 4 years of their lives and the millions it would take to take on Duke (who is represented by folks much smarter and more skilled than Freedman and Witt) to get a couple e-mails of professors expressing opinions (protected by the 1st Amendment) that these guys are guilty. At the end of the day it doesn't get them very far.

David said...

In response to the comment about First Amendment protections for the group of 88....If the lawyers for the LAX players can prove that the comments of the group of 88 were an "incitement to riot" then first amendment protections fly out the window. Its the same situation as going into a crowded theater and yelling "fire". It has been proven time and again that the LAX players feared for their lives and had various threats made against them, on campus and off. If you are a duke student then you can expect that your tuition is about to go WAY WAY up.

Anonymous said...

1:04

And I guess I'm missing something, but Duke would not necessarily have an obligation to indemnify/defend the professors sued especially if what they did was not within the scope of their employment (and the Listening Ad could certainly be argued to be outside).

Also, running up legal bills goes both ways. Who has more resources? The Duke three or Duke?

gs said...

The players do not have to win a lawsuit in court. They just need to get to the discovery potion of the case. Duke would probably not be able to block discovery. Who voted on the ad, who paid for the ad, etc.

Duke would not want to air its dirty laundry. The case could drag on in the news for years.

Duke will settle.

Anonymous said...

I would think tt will be a lot easier to reach out of court settlements after the testimony brought forth in the hearing this week.

Anonymous said...

Considering it has cost each of the boys' families $1 million+, I think they can definitely go after Duke. The statement made by the Group of 88 poisoned the community towards them- these are employees of Duke.
I should also state that I love Duke and have a son there. I still think they are culpable, though. Heck, they were named in the request for change of venue!

Anonymous said...

David:

That is a point, but I think the chances of successfully arguing that here is slim. There is no call for violence. There was no hit list (as you might see in abortion doctor cases where your point was successful).

Anonymous said...

1:07

It's Polanski, the insane genius of the blog.

KC hates his guts--LOL.

Anonymous said...

"Debrah
(who is still not wearing panties)"

...what? not wanting to preserve any evidence on same?!?!?!

LOL

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:07

The families have probably double mortgaged their homes, and used up their entire retirement funds. They should get that money back - their sons should never have been charged.

Their one piece of good fortune is that they did have the resources. Imagine if they didn't.

Money is a marker, a symbol. Getting the money back will not make up for all that's happened, but it will at least get the families back to where they started in one way.

Dianna

Anonymous said...

Duke has rewarded members of the 88 by appointing them to administrative posts, e.g., dean, which makes them a part of the Duke Administration. Duke may fear a faculty member, but Duke controls who is appointed to an administrative post and thus who is representing the University. These administrative appointments are appalling and do suggest where the Duke President and Administration,and the Board of Trustees (who usually must agree to administrative appointments) place their "trust" and "confidence." It is a painful story of American Higher Education.

Anonymous said...

I hope they LAX3 at least recover all their costs. They deserve at least that.

Anonymous said...

I think it would be difficult to lump Duke and the Group of 88 together. And discovery could be stalled for a long time. Motion practice. Etc. It is not worth it. These guys would not even be looking at significant damages at the end of the day. What are the compensatory damages? Tuition? (which I'm sure has been refunded) Emotional distress would be tough (because of the causation problem). Probably no punitives -- not egregious enough conduct by Duke in light of what was told to them by the police/DA.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Also, Duke already settled the grade law suit and the Pressler law suit. If Duke has such great counsel why did they settle those? Answer: because they cannot allow discovery. It would be too damning. Which is why I think they will quickly settle the law suits from the 3 boys.

Anonymous said...

Dianna:

While they should not have been charged, it was not Duke/88's fault they were. You can't seek damages caused by one party (Nifong,CGM) from Duke.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

1:16

No they settled those because it was clear they were in the wrong. Not so with the Duke 3. Duke HAD to suspend them giving the indictments.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Nifong’s biggest mistake was going to this trial and not giving up his law license. As another poster pointed out before this is free discovery for the LAX players. Furthermore public opinion has defiantly been swayed by this, look at today’s New York Times. This trial also gives credibility to KC, and Dr. Anderson, it establishes that they were dealing with facts not tin foil hats.

As far as who I think defense should go after first in civil trials;

Nancy Grace deep pockets, stupid comments.
The New York Slimes, they need to stop publishing or change.
Duke University (they have already settled with Pressler).
DPD deep pockets morons running the joint will not be able to defend themselves.
Nifong – take from him whatever they can get.

All the rest will give in after these slime balls lose.


Tom E.

Anonymous said...

The damage to the young men's reputations impacts future earnings.


If I were the mom of one of the boys, I'd want costs plus $400,000. That covers the top quarters for 2 on the QMII's round-the-world cruise, and I'd need a vacation like that to help recover from this nightmare.

Anonymous said...

Duke would settle.

The other option is to keep the story alive in the news. Have faculty and Admins put through discovery.

The school has billions in its endowment fund, spending $10 mil to move on may be worth it.

Anonymous said...

Tom E.

Just not that much civilly that can been done vis-a-vis those parties (other than perhaps Nifong and even that will be problematic given his immunity as proscetor).

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

1:20

There is no way Duke would pay $10 m. or $1 m.

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00

Then the State of North Carolina, and Durham, had best start contemplating the quickest, least painful way to come up with the money.

And Duke's behavior really needs to be punished - I'm not a fan of "sue the pants off everyone in sight" usually, but the first few weeks were disgusting, and Duke's administration was not particularly helpful to the presumption of innocence.

Or so it appeared from California.

Dianna

Anonymous said...

f you are a duke student then you can expect that your tuition is about to go WAY WAY up.

Duke's endowment is $4.5 Billion. It grew by 12.6% last year. While they would rather spend $3 million elsewhere, paying off the lawsuits will not be placed on the backs of future students.

Anonymous said...

"I'm glad Nifong fought. Had he just handed in his license, he would not have spent thousands on legal defense.

This way he is disbarred and loses a bunch of equity in his house."

Nifong likely hasn't spent a damned dime of his own money (given for his lousy 30 years of service) for this. NC taxpayers paying his way, sickening isn't it?

His personality traits have been well known in Durham for 30 years and he managed to keep his job. Today he is one day closer to cushy pension. Carefully note that he provided NO DATE for his resignation. Somehow he will find a golden parachute and land softly. His type has an uncanny survivor instinct.

Many folks are going to be disappointed at the lack of forcefulness in his punishment.

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00

I hate to say this, and you will hate to hear it...I know I did when I was a young idealistic buck. You can seek damages from whomever you darned well please. Getting them by way of a court order may be nigh upon impossible. But if the proceedings will be embarassing or onerous in some other way to the defendant, you may well recover beyond your wildest dreams.

You need to sit on the bench and watch the game closely and see how the veterans play before you start telling everybody what a great coach/strategist you are.

Anonymous said...

Can't they go afterr the hoaxer? Defamation or something? The State said they were not charging her, the duke 3 can? She started it all...

Anonymous said...

TO beck--

I have tuned into HDTV channel 256 and they are covering storms and weather stories from decades gone by at this time.

Was it reported that they will return to live coverage of the Bar proceedings at 2PM?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

yeah, whats $10 mil compared to all the free publicity this case has given Duke.

Let alone what a lawsuit and some interesting leaked discovery when the group of 88 are questioned. They did (supposedly) vote as a department on the ad. Also who paid for the ad? Dept funds?

Anonymous said...

I cannot believe that Duke wants the headline of the N&O to be based on emails and statements made by the Group of 88 professors. They are whack-jobs and would shock the public with their views. Brodhead and the BOT will not want the world to see the truth of who is teaching in the angry studies depts there. They will setlle all right...

Anonymous said...

KC: IIRC, Nifong handled a criminal case involving Mangum's family back before he was treated for prostate problems. Yet he claimed in his testimony that he first met CGM when she made her rape claim in 2006. If correct, I wish somebody would at least point that out because he meant to leave the impression he had no idea who CGM was.

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00 You are probably right, but I think Nancy's comments are slander even if she says she was just repeating Nifong's statements. She is on video going after these young men even after a reasonable person knowing the facts should have known they were innocent.

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

Very relieved that it will be over today....as Williamson has promised.

I'm worn out trying to follow all of this and take care of the "tasks of life" at the same time.

Good thing KC travels light and, like most men, is low maintenance. (LIS!) Otherwise, he'd never be able to continue his 24/7 routine.

As I have said before, if I were in Vegas, I'd bet a hundred thousand on Mikey's disbarrment.

Anything less will be yet another travesty.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00

You better start thinking like a lawyer, my friend.

Consider this scenario (bearing in mind Dook's commitment to "diversity"):

Boys' lawyers discover that Holloway, Farred, and Lubiano had multiple meetings in which they discussed how they could exploit their Dook-conferred influence on Mike Nifong and Brodhead.

I'd be shitting myself right now, if I were Holloway or Lubiano.

You think the listening statement had a devastating impact on the viability of AAAS programs nationwide? Discovery just might prove that Wahneema et al. are the manipulative racists we already know them to be.

Dook will not want this info let out of the bag.

And to the numskull who made the argument that the boys don't want this to be "about money"--remember, 1 of the best ways of punishing your adversaries is taking their money.

Just ask the NAACP or the recipients of academic welfare at Dook.

Polanski

Anonymous said...

1:22

I didn't realize I had made any statements about being a good strategist.

Just people are a little unrealistic about who you can sue for whom. First, you have to have a lawyer willing to bring a frivolous case. Then you have to survive a motion to dismiss. Then a dispositive motion. Etc.

Just saying sue everybody and the money will start flowing is not realistic.

Thanks Pop for the advice though.

Anonymous said...

Duke will pay a ton to settle the claims of the 3 indicted players. That's a given -- anyone who thinks otherwise is naive. Expect an announcement next week. The bigger question is whether Duke pays anything to the non-indicted players who Duke also put through hell.

Cindy said...

To michael @12:50

Thanks for that cogent, insightful ditty...now why not try to conjure up some useful commentary that can be both constructive, and does not feed YOUR over-inflated ego 

Anonymous said...

Polanski:

I am thinking like lawyer. I love frivolous lawsuits. Because. They. Get. Thrown. Out. And you generally look silly for bringing it in the first place.

Anonymous said...

aren't they forgetting that Nifong's job was to seek the truth. Everything that he did focused on conviction. This is why he was not forthcoming

Anonymous said...

Duke law 00


Even if you believe someone may not want money, These 3 players owe millions to defense lawyers.

They will be suing.

The question is not if but when and who.

The answer is everyone is sight and mostly deep pockets.

sue the bit players so they can not profit from selling stories.

sue Duke, Durham, and the state for the big bucks.

Christy said...

How true is it that an official of Duke told the LAX Team NOT to call their parents when this first happened? That alone is enraging and worth suing over in my, admittedly non-lawyerly, book.

Anonymous said...

I just heard decision in 25 min.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

"Nifong’s biggest mistake was going to this trial and not giving up his law license."

Would this be the best lesson for citizens?:
The Duke players' biggest mistake was submitting DNA without a court order. Had a court order been necessary first, then maybe Nifong would have been stopped early in the investigation.

A member of the public (potential defendent) has the best leverage during the initial investigation. If questioned, it is tempting to think HELPING the authority figures is the way to have the situation go away, as the Duke Players thought. But this case shows the opposite: the Duke Players should have insisted on a DNA warrant. Had any ONE of the players insisted on a DNA warrant, perhaps the DNA evidence would have received judicial scrutiny sooner.

Anonymous said...

Hey Debrah,

In an earlier blog, I stated that I thought I loved you. I'm still contemplating...

On another note, if the DA is disbarred, and you live in Raleigh, breakfast is on me at Big Ed's...

Anonymous said...

1:32

Maybe you're right. I don't think so, though. I think any civil lawsuits these guys bring will be carefully considered and reasonable. Also remember in a civil case you can get these guys on the stand. Do these guys want to be testifying about the party for the next 5 years (if they sued everyone, you can count on it taking years). I thought these guys wanted to move on. Litigation is hell. Litigating against big entities with resources like Duke, Durham, NC, Wall Street Times, etc. is worse.

Just so everyone's clear, I am squarely in the Duke 3's camp. Just trying to temper the sue-happy crowd with some counterpoints.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

How dare KC take a break and eat instead of posting a summary/commentary!

/sarc

Anonymous said...

Brocker's counterpoint that Knifong did know about the "non-probative" matches, which had been revealed to Knifong during one of his three meetings with Dr. Meehan, but did not reveal them to the students' lawyers I think is very damaging. Definitely a sin of omission. It's like sitting idly by and not doing anything to rectify a situation that you're a party to.

Steven Horwitz said...

There's just no way that the G88 can be held civilly liable for anything they did. They may be reprehensible, but you're dreaming if you think any of them will suffer any legal damages from this. Once the grade discrimination case was settled, there's not anything else that anyone is going to do to them.

Anonymous said...

The BAR's decision will effect the behaviors of lawyers and the public:

- If 3-5 years, then lawyers see to watch their own actions, but only their own actions. Citizens, who might become the accused, see to cooperate As Little As Possible with investigations: insist on a DNA warrant. (Anyone who's watched enough CSI can learn this lesson.)

- If disbarment, then lawyers see to watch their own actions AND to not tolerate poor performance by their colleagues. Don't tolerate poor ethics and don't tolerate lazyness. Potential similar reactions from police investigators and judges. Overall quality of justice is improved: Old School attitude returned and with the Rules/will to enforce it on each other.
- If disbarment, then Citizens will see the Sentence as a aberration: News: The first DA in ## years to receive disbarment!. Thus Citizens see the Nifong-Duke case as an aberration; one time event. Citizens will still cooperate with police investigations in the same level as prior, or only slightly less cooperative and enlightened suspicion.

Anonymous said...

Also, everyone think about the guys who are released from prison after YEARS behind bars. Those guys generally get in the $200K to several million range. If you think these guys who -- even though what happened is horrible -- did not spend a day in jail are going to get $10 M because it was "unfair" I just don't think so.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Guess we will just have to wait and see, steven.

The paid ad is what will hurt them, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Steve.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

1:38 PM
Well, I guess the False Accusation buys still buys a person the most bang for their buck. It's the method of choice for the "other criminals."

Anonymous said...

1:38

First Amendment. They were entitled to take out a paid ad expressing an opinion based on what they thought the facts were at the time. They did not slander any identified parties. They did not incite anyone to violence. You have to know the statement is false or act with reckless disregard. You can't prove those elements.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

1:38

I didn't mean "you" btw. I meant whoever would bring such a case.

Christy said...

How much difference would it make if a civil suit is filed, say, in Maryland, which is the local news area for the Washington Post? Think Duke has more to fear from a more national newspaper covering the story regularly?

Anonymous said...

Christy:

First, there are rules on where you can bring a case. There would have to br proper jurisdiction over Duke and proper venue. That would make it harder.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00,

Your statement that litigation is hell is spot on. However, I suspect that you (like most lawyers) have not had the unique and horrifying experience of being on the level of litigant, only that of counsel. I can speak from having experience at both levels and at that of expert hired to provide tactical and strategic planning, that the boys families right now are probably not worried about airing any dirty laundry in public, they've already survived worse than what would be to come, and would probably settle or drop prior to depositions. The point of filing is not always to get to court, or even to depositions, but sometimes to intimidate someone into doing the right thing. A demand letter is the first level, it doesn't require a court order...kinda like an NTO. Look how effective a non-judicial instrument was in this case.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

Actually...remember the wording of the Ad..."Thank you for not waiting to make your voices heard"....it was tantamount approval (from Duke Faculty) of the Pot Bangers and Protesters. That tantamount approval led to a hostile campus environment for the players and their families. Creating a hostile environment means that the presumption of innocence was not obtainable. What will happen during discovery is that someone will contact the paper and find out WHO paid for the ad and by what means. If the money came from the university then that means the Ad had to have gone through some approval process before the advertisement was ever bought (I work at a university...thats how things work). If the Ad was approved by the administration of the university (IE their Financial/Purchasing people) then the university is responsible (since purchasing people usually have the ability to negotiate and execute contracts for the university).

Anonymous said...

Duke Law 00

Lawsuit:
Did Duke tell some players not to tell their parents, or get a lawyer? In a position of power telling someone not to get a lwyer or call parents.

Did a Duke employee leak the skinning email?

Did Duke let the DPD search dorm rooms without a warrant?

Was the ad paid for with Duke funds?

Were the protest marches organized by duke employees use duke facilities? Did the marches threaten the players (castration)?

You do not have to win the case, just keep it in the news, Duke will settle.

Anonymous said...

1:47

I agree they have been through the worst. But depos and discovery etc. would take up a lot of their time and energy for years. These guys want to finish college (Reade and Colin) and start careers (Evans).

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

1:47

Well written. Another way of looking at it is ethical extortion:

You don't want to pay me? Fine, I'm gonna publish a long article about your Negro Studies professors.

And people are definitely getting fed up with financing unintelligent, racist blacks.

Or just think of it as guerrilla warfare.

Anonymous said...

1:51

Who cares? Not a cause of action.

No. DPD got it.

No. Himan said he showed up by himself.

Who cares? Who paid for the ad is immaterial.

Not a Duke directed action. Even if professor or student organized. No vicarious liability for Duke.

My point is that I'm not sure how you even get in the door in the first place. And these are pretty meaningless (in a civil action I mean; I would love to know more about some of the internal happenings).

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Re: Duke Law '00

""Also, everyone think about the guys who are released from prison after YEARS behind bars. Those guys generally get in the $200K to several million range. If you think these guys who -- even though what happened is horrible -- did not spend a day in jail are going to get $10 M because it was "unfair" I just don't think so.""

And consider the penalty for the prosecutors in some of those cases has been promotion after promotion, not ethics hearings, as well.

gs said...

Hey, if they are back at 2pm, that means they came to a decision quickly. That's probably is not good for Nifong.

Anonymous said...

David:

Legally, the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

DL '00

Perhaps you haven't paid attention...this won't make it past pre-discovery. I can assure you that PI's and other resources have already uncovered much that would be damning if made public, and that merely sharing a tidbit of that would be very problematic for Duke. It's blackmail/extortion if it's done without seeking redress for a grievance...if done by lawyers to make right a wrong, it's called good lawyering. Trust me...we have not seen the last of good lawyering on behalf of the Lax players in this case.

Anonymous said...

And I'm struck by the irony of folks saying "I don't care if it's legally proper to sue (i.e., not frivolous) let's employ ethical blackmail to reditribute money around." Isn't that what this disciplinary hearing is about? Not following the rules? Doing something shady because in your gut you think the ends will jusify the means? Isn't that what were ticked at Nifong for?

Duke Law '00

Anonymous said...

Duke Law '00...
Say it takes 4 years, but they ultimately get $10M each after their legal bills are paid. Pretty good scroll for a 25 year old. That's JJ Reddick-type money!

Anonymous said...

I think for the three to find at least a plausible cause of action against Duke won't be difficult. Duke will of course settle because they want this to go away. Otherwise it comes down to putting their academic policies on trial.

As for the lax'ers being gun-shy, I doubt it. After all, they're still getting tarred with the "whatever they did was bad enough" brush. Detailed accounts of the party and their specific actions would only make them look less guilty in the long run, which would be worse for Duke.

No, Duke will do the math and settle.

A specific few members of the 88 may get sued for things they said individually; Houston Baker comes to my mind at the top of the list. However, I do think that the ad itself is a slippery target. Fortunately, lots of people did lots of talking beyond the ad.

Anonymous said...

A good month ago (at least) I read that the boys' families had asked Duke to cover their legal expenses. Duke did not say "no".

Anonymous said...

1:57

So if Nifong thought he was redressing a grievance against CGM when he withheld the DNA it is OK? See the slippery slope there?
DL '00

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

2:00

There are not going to get $10M. There are no causes of action. There are no real big money damages caused by Duke (and not by others). There are no punitives. Where is the $10M coming from?

DL '00

gs said...

It seems to me with massive legal bills the players must sue to recover.

The obvious parties would be the Durham PD and the State.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: Dukelaw00

In case you missed it Duke is settling all of these cases. Duke will quickly and the hope quietly settle with Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann.

They settles the grade retaliation suit. They settled with the lacrosse coach before the was even a filing, I believe.

How would the Duke constiuencies feel if Brodhead and Steele after settling with other they fought Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann tooth and nail in civil court? I can not imagine they will not settle as soon as possible.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David said...

When looking at the Ad I just noticed something else...there is not any indemnification of Duke on the Ad. IE: the statement that says "The views and opinions expressed here are not necessarily the views of Duke University. etcetera etcetera...."

Anonymous said...

DL '00

Did you skip the class early on where they explained the difference between civil and criminal law? The gravity and responsibility placed on a prosecutor in exchange for a presumtion of good faith is huge. In civil matters, the gloves come off because there is often not legislative law that outlines who wins...it's who's got the best version of the truth and what legal precedent instructs the court on the matter at hand. I can assure you that divorce attorneys use "ethical blackmail" all the time to gain non-equitable distributions of assets. You are obviously very naive in this. I'm not trying to be condescending, I just think you haven't been in the tough streets much.

Anonymous said...

DL '00, of course I care about the rule of law. Ask anyone who knows me: I'm a rules person to the nth degree. My point is that somehow the LAX3 (at least) and their families should recoup their expenses.

If I were on the Duke Board of Visitors (or whatever they call it), I would insist on some new guidelines on what faculty could publish as faculty. Individuals have an absolute right to expression, and a group of 88 individuals could assemble and pony up for the ad, but to do some under the aegis of "Duke Faculty" is wrong.

Anonymous said...

JLS:

See discussion above. There are potential actions there. Contract, etc. The Duke 3 don't have the same. Because Duke settled one or another case does not mean they will pay each $10M just because.

That's my only point. These guys are not going to be sue-happy.

DL '00

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: DL 00

Your belief is that there is ZERO chance a jury would want to deter Duke and other schools from behaving as Duke did in this matter in the future? That is afterall the purpose of punitive damages.

Are you trying to get us to doubt you are a lawyer, Duke or otherwise with your no punitive damages comment?

gs said...

Does anyone really think the players are going to eat their legal bills 3mil+?

There will be lawsuits. And a lawyer once said, sue everyone in sight, especially deep pockets.

And Duke may be legally ok, but not morally. They hung the team out to dry. So shaking the money tree is not wrong. If Duke will only settle if they think it is their best interest.

Anonymous said...

2:04

Thank you for the education. C'mon you know the point of my argument. So it's OK for a civil lawyer to bend the rules of he thinks it's justified, but not for a prosecutor? Flimsy logic to me.

DL '00

Anonymous said...

JLS:

To have to get int the door first. You can't just ask for punitives. No court that I know of would permit a punitive damages claim to go forward against Duke. It would be reversed in 30 seconds on appeal. What I haven't heard is anyone tell me the claim that would be filed against Duke. What is the claim?

I just think there is a lot of venom here, misdirected. Nifong and CGM were the worst. Everything else was bad, but didn't cause this fiasco.

Anonymous said...

While the Private Investigator (PI) hints by 1:57PM are intriguing, I doubt anyone who knew hard info would risk their case by posting here.

I've been the litigant in a Consumer Case. It was only in the Breach of Warranty / Lemon Law area, but I did learn a basic rule: you can only be "made whole". Despite stress and hassle, your dollars are linked to provable amounts. In a car case, it's the purchase price less depreciation. Your time counts for nothing (but your lawyer's time can be included).

To get to Punitive Damages or try for a Class Action is rarely worth the emotional effort by the litigant. You can only be "made whole" and must show with documents and comparable cases how you calculated "made whole".

That's my layman's understanding.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What's going on? Shouldn't they have reconvened by now?

Christy said...

DL '00, I think the technical term for what you were describing at 1:58 is "legal extortion." Quite a common practice if >1M Google hits is any indication.

Steven Horwitz said...

Here we go!

Anonymous said...

2:08

You have an excellent lay understanding. That is my point precisely. Against Duke, what would make these guys whole? Tuition? Some nuisance emotional distress? You only get punitives in particular fact patterns not at issue here (like you made a food product, knew it was laced with poison, didn't tell anyone to max profits).

DL '00

Anonymous said...

KC--

Could you please delete the idiocy at (1:00PM)?

Polanski is doing his stalking Sybil act again.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

hearing started

Anonymous said...

The audio is back on wral.com. NO video yet

Anonymous said...

THEY'RE BACK ON THE AIR!

Anonymous said...

Here we go!

jamil hussein said...

Duke advised/forced players not to contact lawyers or their parents.

They propably leaked private email.

Duke Medical Center (Tara et al) is clearly guilty of various actions.

Duke funds were (most likely) used to pay for the Listening Ad.
Official Duke equipment were used for the ad.
Duke promoted racist actions and violent/hostile atmosphere by AA professors.

Duke can and will be sued.

Anonymous said...

Just background noise. And I was so excited!

Anonymous said...

I don't have video yet either. I trust no one else does.

Anonymous said...

DL '00

Would agree with the premise that a windfall would be out of line, but can promise you that the aggrieved parties will find a way to be made whole.

Anonymous said...

I've lost my feed! Is the panel back yet?

Dianna

Anonymous said...

Jamil:

What is the claim?

DL '00

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: DL00

Are you claiming that in some tort actions one can not ask for punitive damages?

Here is a definnition with bolding added by me of punitive damages:

DAMAGES, PUNITIVE - The purpose of punitive damages is to punish a defendant and to deter a defendant and others from committing similar acts in the future.

Plaintiff has the burden of proving that punitive damages should be awarded, and the amount, by a preponderance of the evidence. punitive damages may be awarded only if defendant's conduct was malicious, or in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights.

Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of injuring another.

Conduct is in reckless disregard of plaintiff's rights if, under the circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the safety and rights of others.


Are you claimin no jury would possibly hold that Duke did not operate in complete indifference to the rights of Evans, Finnerty and Selgimann?

Do you work in the Duke PR department?

Anonymous said...

The easiest cause of action to pursue would be intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress, caused by Duke faculty and students harassing the lax'ers and the administration failing to address this according to Duke's stated policy.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick note while we are all waiting with the great power of the internet to broadcast throughout the world where are yo'all from. I am in Wisconsin.

Tom E.

Anonymous said...

As part of any settlement with Duke, I'd like to see the three buildings on campus that house the most members of the Group of 88 renamed Evans, Finnerty, and Seligmann Hall.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Mongolia. We are very interested in seeing the great criminal Nifong face justice and become beheaded.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

JLS:

Yes, it is settled that you cannot ask for punitives in every tort action.

And yes, there is no way under the facts of this case that punitives would go forward against Duke.

No I do not. I don't think Duke's initial reaction was great. I do not subscribe to the belief that Duke was out to get these guys as an institution. Some profs sure were. But Duke is not necessarily responsible for that. Again, I think it is pretty standard that colleges/universities suspend students accused/indicted of violent felonies.

DL '00

Anonymous said...

2:14

Maybe. That's a hard claim to prove up though.

DL '00

laxhooligan88 said...

okay...the suspense is killing me!!! Get some video on of Nifong sitting there twitching, at least, so I can have something to enjoy with my popcorn!!!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Decision coming in the next few minutes.

Panel coming in now.

DL '00

Anonymous said...

Thud-dump Thud-dump, Thud-dump!

Anonymous said...

Go to the cable news channels. Panelists returning. Why isn't WRAL.COM braodcasting?

Anonymous said...

Fox news is carrying it.

Anonymous said...

its on fox new cable

Anonymous said...

wral back now

Anonymous said...

It's back now with video.

Anonymous said...

Three witnesses to be called in Phase II.

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: DL00

What class of tort actions are punitive damaged not permitted and how do any actions arising out of this case fall in those classes?

BTW, a Duke Attorney is said to have advised Duke student under a major police criminal investigation not to call there parents or seek attorneys. Do you think that meets Duke's duty of care to Duke students?

Anonymous said...

HOLY ####. Nifong looks like he is going to die.

DL '00

Anonymous said...

Tom E.

I'm in San Jose, California.

And my blood sugar is crashing. They've got to get back soon, or I'm going to faint from the suspense.

Steven Horwitz said...

unanimous verdicts

Anonymous said...

MSNBC is covering it LIVE.

Debrah

Steven Horwitz said...

and guilty given that there will be a phase 2

Anonymous said...

And here we go

Anonymous said...

Tom E.

By your use of the word "yo'all" it is clear that you are not from around here.

That is a unique construct, to be sure.

I live in Durham. I want Nifong gone. More than that I cannot say, given the history of local law enforcement in charging innocent people.

Anonymous said...

Nifester looks ill.

Steven Horwitz said...

first count - "yes" - he's in violation.

Anonymous said...

Nifong is looking like he's going to puke as Williamson is reading all the "yes" verdicts to the bar complaints.

Anonymous said...

yes yes yes yes yes

Anonymous said...

Nifong's crying again.

Will he please suck it up? He did all these things for political gain, and he chose the actions, and therefore chose the consequences.

Anonymous said...

Wow, ALL the LAX players may have a chance at civil damages!

Anonymous said...

Does he have an envelope, ala dwyer?

Anonymous said...

New thread, nothing said by KC yet.

Dianna

Anonymous said...

Rats. A very technical basis for allowing Nifong off the hook on the condom issue. A bad judgment... but hopefully that is the only one Nifong wins.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»