<p>1sokkermom wrote:
I haven’t seen that suggestion anywhere here on CC - is it being suggested elsewhere? It would seem to me that reimbursement for their costs of defense would be a pretty non-controversial claim at this point.</p>
<p>Ok Kluge, then we agree. ;)</p>
<p>Changing subjects: I never watch Nancy Grace. However, I have been checking to see if she has had any play on this story recently. Haven’t noticed any since the Nifong trial results broke…:o</p>
<p>Maybe I missed it.</p>
<p>By the way, the “open file discovery law,” which benefitted the lacrosse players, was passed precisely because of what happened to Alan Gell. As Gell himself has suggested, perhaps the lacrosse players and their families should send him a thank you note (inbetween getting their money back for their legal fees). ;)</p>
<p>jack,
why the hostility toward the lacrosse player’s families?</p>
<p>Oh wait, I guess the 
means you don’t really mean it.</p>
<p>jack~Cooper did not make the decision to charge Nifong with ethics violations. The Grievance Committee of the NC State Bar did that, and the decision to do so passed by just one vote, that of the Chair of the Grievance Committee, Jim Fox. If Nifong is criminally charged that might be a decision made by Cooper, or perhaps by the Feds. Certainly he could be in trouble with Judge Smith for his conduct in the courtroom (lying to the court) at that December hearing. Judge Smith has already indicated that he would be looking at that after the ethics trial was over, and the defense attorneys are making sure he does!</p>
<p>Unbelievably, Nifong is not officially out of the DA’s office until July!!! This just in from WRAL:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1509633[/url]”>http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1509633</a></p>
<p>So he is somehow able to draw a salary for a few more weeks–why do these election laws allow this? :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No hostility towards anyone involved in this case. You’re mis-reading my comments. </p>
<p>I do, however, question Cooper’s and/or the Grievance Committee of the NC State Bar’s treatment of Nifong in the face of how they have treated other prosecutors who have done far, far more harm to innocent people. (Again, in the Gell case, those two prosecutors who deliberately withheld key evidence received no more than a “reprimand,” and Gell spent 9 years on death row.) </p>
<p>Regardless, the lacrosse families are very fortunate that they had the financial means (ie, “adequate resources”) to hire the best lawyers and get this case in the international public eye. Cooper, and the Grievance Committee of the NC State Bar, obviously responded to that.</p>
<p>irishforever: Just cross-posted, so I corrected my statement above.</p>
<p>soccermom-
I think Kluge is agreeing that the true victims in this case (the lax players) are entitled to compensation for their expenses. What I believe he is not agreeing to is that they are entitled to compensatatory damages for pain and suffering. On this many of us disagree. If you recall a while back there was a discussion where it was suggested that these boys would suffer no long term or permanent ill effects from this experience, and that this was but a “blip” in their lives from which they will fully recover. Even if people “recover” (partially or fully) from injuries, I don’t believe this means they aren’t entitled to compensatory damages for pain and suffering they experienced. However, lets not go there again…</p>
<p>I’m not so much arguing that they’re not “entitled” to it as that I think it’s probably not in their best interests to pursue it. It is true, as several people have pointed out, that these young men have their entire lives ahead of them, and that to some extent these very public events will shape how others perceive them in the future. I don’t think that anyone worth thinking about will think of them as “rapists”, but the transition from “noble victim of injustice” to “greedy capitalizer on personal misfortune” is a pretty easy one to make in the public mind. These guys have a lot going for them right now; any money they get above and beyond their costs of defense will strike a sour note among some people in the public - including people who might be in a position to affect their future professional prospects. If this was going to be their only opportunity to “cash in” then, well, yeah, go for it. But these young men have legitimate prospects for the future, just as they did before this happened. Grace under pressure and magnanimity in victory are personal characteristics which generally are viewed positively. They’ve got that in their pockets now; I’d hate to see them squander that for a few extra bucks which will be gone before long.</p>
<p>jack~I agree that the prosecutors in the Gell case deserved more than they got in the way of punishment. My understanding of that, however, is that the withholding of evidence was their only offense (and correct me if I’m wrong!) Now that is certainly outrageous, and Gell actually was convicted based on that, and should NEVER have spent that time on Death Row.</p>
<p>Nifong himself made this an international case from the moment he got it on March 27, 2006. As soon as he was briefed on the “case” by Gottlieb and Himan he was scheduling interviews with the local and international media–and started lying right away!</p>
<p>There are so many other unethical things he did that he made the NC legal system a laughingstock. He was so obviously doing things in the public eye (not only the statements he made, but also the rude and unprofessional conduct in the courtroom–smirking, laughing at Kirk Osborn’s statements about Reade’s alibi, smarmy comments made toward the defense attorneys, etc.) He also encouraged the bogus “lineup” that violated the DPD’s own guidelines, said he never met with the accuser, refused to accept exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys & mocked their attempts to meet with him, and then, of course lied to the court and to the Grievance Committee. There are too many things to even mention here, all of which became this huge stinking mass of misconduct that no one could possibly have ignored.</p>
<p>The much-talked about wealth of the defendents may have helped hire great attorneys, but without Brad Bannon’s “breaking” of the DNA mystery, even that wouldn’t have helped. They were all busting their patooties, but he is the one who spent soooooooo many hours figuring out the 1800 pages of testing material from Meehan’s company, finally discovering the fact that there was DNA from multiple other, untested, males. Nifong may still have been able to take all of this to trial if they hadn’t found that! </p>
<p>No matter how much money these families may have, no one has the money to throw at a legal case that, from the beginning, was a rogue prosecutor’s idea of fun and games to win a primary. He was arrogant, cocky and rude, and still refuses to truly apologize to these young men and their families. After 14 months he still cannot even pronounce Reade’s last name properly!</p>
<p>And, in a smart move, Duke has settled with the families. Clearly the families had indicated to Duke that they would be suing, and Duke wanted to avoid any more adverse publicity.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/06/settlement.html[/url]”>http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2007/06/settlement.html</a></p>
<p>I’m glad they have done this so quickly!</p>
<p>I wonder if the Group of 88 has anything to say? 
</p>
<p>Duke is probably taking the settlement money out of their salaries 
(I wish!!)</p>
<p>^ Maybe if enough students boycott the classes taught by members of this group, they will become obsolete. (if they aren’t already!) ;)</p>
<p>I’m sure they are not teaching for the $$ anyway. They are teaching because they just love the company of their students. :)</p>
<p>A very wise move - by both Duke and the three lacrosse players - to settle, to do it so quickly (and right on the heels of the Nifong proceeding), and to issue a joint statement.</p>
<p>"“Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser - in fees, expenses, and waste of time.” - Abraham Lincoln (<a href=“http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html[/url]”>http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html</a>)</p>
<p>I totally don’t get Nifong. How embarassing, and uncomfortable for everyone else, for him to hang around for another 30 days…</p>
<p>Oh, and while I’m thinking about it, wonder where is Jessie Jackson’s apology, etc.</p>
<p>Epistrophy-
I couldnt find your “discourage litigation” quote in the Abe Lincoln link you attached, but I found this quote that I like better:
</p>
<p>oh wait-- I found your quote, but you left out the IMPORTANT last sentence
</p>
<p>Governor Easley wants Nifong to step down immediately. There is a bill in the NC State Legislature that would allow him to remove a DA or judge from office if he/she has been disbarred. It has already passed the Senate, should be voted on by the House tomorrow, and in front of Easley to sign by the end of the week! </p>
<p>Did anyone believe Nifong would really go so easily? Like everything else about this case…truth is stranger than fiction! He better be shredding all the papers in all of his files!!</p>
<p>I don’t know, if I had done something and ended up looking so foolish and then got disbarred, I would be too embarrassed to show up at the office on Monday, heavens, I’d be in there Sunday night, pack up my photographs etc. and be gone, make my resignation effective immediately, do the exit routine stuff/debrief the next guy from home. Not to mention how uncomfortable it must make everyone else…has the man no couth or common sense at all?</p>
<p>Oh, and what’s up with Brian Williams? I’m hanging out channel surfing, home with flu/cold, and, he does a five second soundbite, and this is exactly what he says: “Duke University has reached a SO CALLED settlement” and then he says maybe ten more words re the three young men. What’s up with that - why the preface “SO CALLED”…I don’t get it…</p>
<p>Well, old Brian may be editorializing a little, or just reading it like the writers wrote it. I agree with the what up with it, though.</p>
<p>It seems to me that Duke would have no liability whatsoever for the boys legal expenses, but might lose a lawsuit regarding disciplinary proceedings and the cancellation of the season. They also might win, since they were watching the same news from the same sources, and hearing the same evidence as everyone else. In any case, it wasn’t Duke who brought the charges or pressed them. </p>
<p>I frankly think much of Duke"s reaction was directly related to the fact that they were the boys landlords. Had that not been the case, they might have been more measured in their appraisal of the situation–instead they were terrified, IMO, of being sued by the dancer(s). Next time they buy property in order to throw the students out, they should delay the closing until the lease expiration date.</p>