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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
208 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 208 of 208Home run. Home run. Home run.
DL '00
Is that Cy beside Seligman????
the "reasonably should have known" part of the rules is killing Nifong's defense...
DL '00
I'm not a religious person, but I think the bible has the proper punishment for false accusers.
Both Nifong and the accuser should face the same penalty that those they falsely accused faced. It's the only fair treatment and deterent that makes sense.
@ 1:47
"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."
Yep, you are quite right. I too have been a litigant. Sane people do not initiate litigation merely to prove a point. It costs money, it costs time, and it costs untold emotional pain and suffering. And the families have been through that already.
Furthermore, the families know to hire good lawyers, who do not like to bring cases that have multiple, strong defenses.
So the families will sue only the deepest pocket of all, and the one with least possible defense: the state in whose name this travesty was enacted and whose officers were responsible for it.
And people need to remember that in civil litigation you are suing for damages. If you collect damages from the state, you have no claim at all against anyone else.
Duke Law 00..while you probably think you are pretty cool posting your stuff with your little Duke Law degree, you clearly dont have a clue about litigation. Do you practice insurance defense?
This is one of those situations where Duke will settle and will be happy to pay 10 million to do it pre discovery. Whether that is too much, who knows, but sometimes people with deep pockets do things that warrant huge damages and it benefits them financially to pay it because their secrets are not made public.
I might not have a fancy law degree from a fancy school, and in fact was second to last in my 4th tier law school, but ive litigated enough cases in civil court to make millions as a plaintiffs lawyer and these boys will be getting some serious coin. Its just a matter of who will pay it.
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
I read your denials that there is any basis for substantial lawsuits against Duke with interest. As much as your claim that it will just be too much of a hassle to work with top sharks in the tort industry to recover the millions in legal costs the 46 players spent, and regarding the damages Duke employees directly inflicted on their good names, civil rights.
1. 88 employees of Duke slurred the lacrosse players publicly in the name of 5 Duke academic departments. They refused any recantation. Several Duke employees made even more egregious public remarks and called for more Duke punishments.
2. A Duke employee created and distributed the Vigilante Poster in conjunction with Duke students. Duke did not aggressively act on the posters, letting them stand.
3. Duke employees acting on behalf of administration gave improper legal advice to players and failed to protect them against threats, requiring players flee campus for their own safety.
4. Players were subject to grade retaliation and denounced in class by employees of Duke, with no disciplinary action taken.
5. Duke employee, Tara Levicy, on behalf of DUMC, committed what appears to be medical malpractice in her role as SANE nurse. More importantly, DUMC leadership failed to correct the record on problems with her qualifications, improper diagnosis for a nurse at her level to make, errors in her exam for over 11 months - directly contributing to the civil rights violations of the NTO, a year of legal expenses, and personal suffering for the players and families.
6. President Richard Brodhead, VP Moneta, by word and action, prejudiced the presumption of innocence. While giving lip service to it, their actions, inactions against employees targeting players, and words in other venues - undermined that presumption.
Mainly through Tara Levicy, but also through the Group of 88 statements on behalf of Duke departments, promotions given to Group of 88 members and certain outrageous actions and comments by members of that 88 ---the door to Duke's deep pockets is wide open. Because actions by Levicy and other employees were public, and open enough that motions to block discovery Duke would have to do have no chance of being turned down.
Meaning they will settle.
Being part of a tort suit seeking millions with the tort lawyers doing 99% of the work on contingency is not nearly as draining and time consuming as being a defendent in a criminal process or being on the other side of tort litigation where people are gunning for your business assets or money..
And your estimation of damages in high figures as "out of the question" based on wrngful imprisonment are irrelevant in a national celebrity case involving substantial civil rights violations and potential to deeply damage the image of Duke at Trinity and the professional reputation of DUMC.
Post a Comment