<p>
Because the stripper said she was raped by whites, not blacks. </p>
<p>
NiFong wanted to have Roberts on his side.</p>
<p>
NiFong’s was most likely motivated by his desire to be re-elected and his hatred of Duke. These are not racial motives. NiFong did not prosecute the Duke players because he hated whites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So what? The phoney lineup was supposedly to find witnesses, not suspects. The black player was a potential witness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, and he could have easily had just Roberts indicted and tried to find a few players to testify against her. Note that Roberts was the only accused criminal that Precious positively identified.</p>
<p>Anyway, Roberts’ statement from the beginning was that she didn’t see any rape. So what’s the point of getting her cooperation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. He prosecuted the Duke players because he knew that a white on black gang rape would be a good sell. In other words, it fit the metanarrative.</p>
<p>The question is what motivated Nifong to prosecute the three Duke players. lskinner says because the players were white. I say because he was motivated by his pending election and his hatred of Duke. I am right. If NiFong had been running for election unopposed and the three players were on the University of North Carolina lacrosse team, does anyone really believe NiFong would have prosecuted them without first making a reasonable inquiry into the case? The answer is that it is not likely that he would have done so. Only if you believe NiFong is a racist would you belive he was have prosecuted three white UNC lacrosse players. NiFong was not motived by a hatred of whites. In case you missed it, Nifong looks pretty white to me.</p>
<p>"So what? The phoney lineup was supposedly to find witnesses, not suspects. The black player was a potential witness.
"</p>
<p>No the phony line up was done to identify SUSPECTS. You said yourself that it was a phony “pick up 3 guys” lineup. Witnesses aren’t normally put in a line up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re just attacking a strawman here. I never claimed that Nifong hates whites or that he targeted the Duke 3 because he hates whites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t the official story:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2867980[/url]”>http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2867980</a></p>
<p>In the middle of the pi$$ing match here, there a couple of points worth addressing.
That’s an accepted aspect of tort law. But the Supreme Court has capped that “extra” compensation at 9 times the “actual” damage to the plaintiff. And in reality, the cap is rarely met. Furthermore, who is responsible for those extra (called “punitive” or “exemplary”) damages? The law generally says only the person who was directly responsible for the outrageous conduct, which here is Nifong. Ordinary principles of “your boss is responsible for your actions” don’t strictly apply here, and in general, I don’t see how Durham is on the hook for the extra damages which might apply to Nifong. So you’re left with “actual” damages - or to use Lskinner’s example, the amount Rodney King would have gotten for his injuries if he’d been injured in an auto accident.
In fact it’s very relevant. There’s supposed to be a certain amount of consistency in law. Similar cases should have similar results. If the value of a wrongful prosecution and subsequent 9 year stint on death row is $300K for one guy, a wrongful prosecution of another guy which results in complete exoneration before trial should generally be worth less.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that applies to punitive damages. I would argue that the wrongdoer’s intent also touches on the issue of compensatory damages.</p>
<p>In any event, the legal bills alone of the Duke 3 have (allegedly) run into the millions of dollars. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would also include Gottlieb. But can you give me a cite for the legal proposition that there is no vicarious liability for punitive damages?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So how did Rodney King get 4 million dollars?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And maybe Mr. 9 years should have gotten more.</p>
<p>“Damages” are the amount of your injury - regardless of cause or fault. You can have damages with no one at fault, or with someone else sharing fault with you - which will limit your right to recovery. But the damages themselves are determined independent of the degree of badness of the target of your lawsuit. That’s why they are 'compensatory" - because they are supposed to “compensate” - not punish evildoers. Evil intent only comes into question when considering compensation above and beyond a person’s actual damages. In California, the principles governing those “extra” damages is found in Civil Code section 3294:<a href=“a”>quote</a> In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.
(b)An employer shall not be liable for damages pursuant to subdivision (a), based upon acts of an employee of the employer, unless the employer had advance knowledge of the unfitness of the employee and employed him or her with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others or authorized or ratified the wrongful conduct for which the damages are awarded or was personally guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.
[/quote]
I don’t think the people of Durham or North Carolina knew about Nifong’s unfitness before the Duke case (most contemporaneous reports described him as well respected and professional) and the state’s subsequent actions: exonerating the defendants and firing and disbarring the DA - don’t look like "ratification’ of his conduct to me.
like I said - he was overpaid. In my opinion that was a PR move, not a legal settlement.
Maybe. I don’t know the facts of that case that well. But I do know something about the Duke case, and $30M is way too much. It has no reasonable relationship with the actual damage to the Lax players, in my opinion, and also is unrelated to corrective actions - which have already been taken. It strongly supports Poetsheart’s suggestion that the lesson here is “Don’t mess with affluent white folks” - not “don’t mess with anyone.”</p>
<p>
What Supreme Court are you talking about Kluge? If it is the U.S. Supreme Court, I don’t believe a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is binding regarding a North Carolina civil tort. It would be determined by NC law. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I really have no idea what you’re talking about here. Do you?</p>
<p>Gell’s case never received national attention. That was my point. He was poor, uneducated, and very unlike the Duke 3, so nobody cared.</p>
<p>He’s been out for a few years now, but I don’t even think his appeal, subesequent release, and the fact that his prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence has <em>ever</em> been national news. Certainly wasn’t international news, and I’ve never seen the facts of that case (which never came to light until his appeal was successful and he was released) published in anything more than my local newspaper.</p>
<p>At any rate, I agree completely with kluge’s statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes I do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Publicity cuts both ways. When Gell was initially accused and convicted, there wasn’t any national attention. If there had been that sort of attention, his case would have received a lot more attention when he was subsequently exonerated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree to a certain extent. Compensatory damages can include compensation for the humiliation, trauma, and emotional distress inflicted by the wrongdoer’s conduct. So even putting aside the issue of punitive damages, the victim of a brutal beating should receive more money than the victim of a brake failure. Because all things being equal, a brutal beating is more humiliating, traumatizing, and distressful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gottlieb’s conduct was ratified after the fact. And the conduct of the Durham District Attorney’s office was authorized at the highest level – by Nifong himself.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In my opinion, 5 million each would be fair.</p>
<p>Kluge (if I may jump in and dodge the other back and forth!)…
You wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(before I say more, let me say that I am NOT saying that $10 million per defendant is an appropriate sum, but am talking of compensation beyond legal fees) I realize with law there is consistency and precedent. However, I am not so sure that the “measure” of what amount is appropriate should be cases where other poor defendants did not fare well in compensation. Should the standard be what another person got who was not fairly compensated? In other words, some, like myself, are not saying these guys deserve more than others who have suffered injustice who got very poor settlements but perhaps those who got poor settlements due to lack of good representation deserved better. </p>
<p>Jack,
You are right that I do not know who Gell is and his case did not garner national or international attention. It appears you are saying he suffered more because he didn’t get the attention the Duke boys got and they are gonna get more due to all the attention and also that they are well to do. But by the same token, the flip side is that because they got such national and international attention, their reputations were further tarnished than if just covered by a local news station. Their faces and names were plastered everywhere and the person who stands for justice claimed their guilt. While they are now exonerated, there is some damage. I’m not saying they deserve MORE than someone else. I am simply saying that their case and award has its own merits whether or not someone else’s case was treated appropriately or justly or fairly. To want these guys compensated doesn’t imply NOT wanting folks like Gell (whose case I admittedly am not familiar with but I take your word that it was an unjust case) should also be compensated. The argument as to which had more coverage could also be seen as a negative for the Duke defendants. They got more attention which in some ways can be more damaging. </p>
<p>But I don’t see the “contest” here that others are getting so worked up about. If something is unjust and there is merit to the claim, evaluate it for what it is. If someone else was treated unjustly, two wrongs don’t make a right. Hopefully some of those in the Duke fiasco will work toward effecting change to help more than themselves when it comes to justice for innocent defendants who are mishandled by the system meant to stand up for justice.</p>
<p>PS…Kluge…back to you…I mentioned in an earlier post how this case is not ONLY about an innocent party who was wrongly accused (like the example of your quote I just posted). Innocent people are found guilty. It is horrible. They should be compensated greatly for time served. What I said in another post, however, is that this case was not just about innocent people being charged but about willful intent at mishandling the case in illegal ways in several respects (not just the DNA issue). It went beyond simply charging innocent people.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s my point. There wasn’t, because he was not wealthy and well-educated. Nobody cared.</p>
<p>soozievt: I’m thinking that maybe this argument has gone on so long that no one really remembers what the point was initially.</p>
<p>Firstly, to my knowledge, Gell has not yet received anything (other than the standard back-pay an innocent person receives for having served prison time). His civil suit is still pending, I believe, and I have no idea what he’s asking.</p>
<p>And, no, I am NOT saying that he “suffered more because he didn’t get the attention the Duke boys got.” I am simply stating that no one cared, because he was basically an indigent-- a nobody-- who had already been in trouble with the law. </p>
<p>The people who “care” about the Duke boys mainly “care,” because they identify with them. If this could happen to the rich, white, well-educated-- well, yikes, it could happen to anybody! When stuff like this happens to the poor, uneducated, and the disenfranchised-- who cares, really?</p>
<p>No one is saying that the Duke 3 don’t deserve something, but $30M is too much. Kluge has pointed out many of the reasons why. I do believe that long-term damage will (or should) come into play here, and I just don’t think they can make a case for that. As I’ve said many times, one could argue their lives, since their public exoneration, have improved and will continue to do so. </p>
<p>Even if you don’t compare this to other cases and look at it on its own merits, I <em>still</em> don’t think they deserve $30M. Frankly, I doubt their lawyers or they do, either. I suspect they’re <em>mainly</em> asking for that amount for other reasons, least of which is because they think it will get the attention of Durham (and the broader community) and teach everybody a lesson. I think it won’t, and that it’s a naive and risky assumption to make; and I think they’re making a mistake by doing so.</p>
<p>Also, as pointed out earlier, what others have received in damages in these types of cases will have bearing on what they receive-- like it or not.</p>
<p>Hope that clarifies things. As I said before, I got bored with these guys long, long ago. I wish them the best, but honestly don’t care what happens to them in future. I won’t be buying their tell-all book (which I’m sure will be published one day); I won’t be watching them on the talk show circuit; and I won’t be following their futures. </p>
<p>I’m much more worried about the presidential elections and where this country might be headed with regard to Iraq, Iran, homeland security, the economy, my family, the continued good health of my family, etc. That impacts my life far, far more than these guys have-- or ever will.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Dennys-Lawsuit.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Dennys-Lawsuit.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow :):):)</p>
<p>Now $30 million doesn’t seem so excessive!!! ;););)</p>
<p>Doesn’t the Supreme Court ruling supersede any state’s civil tort law?</p>
<p>Jack, I enjoy reading differing points of view and the ensuing discussion. I admit I am repeatedly confused and befuddled when now, as well as a long time ago on the previous Duke thread, you keep posting about being bored with the case and not caring about it, but appear to be quite immersed in discussing it. Of course, I VERY much welcome your posts. But if you don’t care about it, why get so engaged in it? I’m not criticizing you for it but don’t understand it. You say you won’t be following them but by the nature of posting about the latest happenings with them, it seems like you ARE following the story and care enough to post and debate the merit of the suit, etc. Anyway, carry on, I welcome hearing what you have to say…it doesn’t matter if I understand some of the contradictions.</p>
<p>As far as the Green vs Denny’s case, I think the jury awarded such an outrageous sum for damages (and yes, it clearly was an outrageous sum), to send a message to restaurants such as Denny’s not to thumb their noses at Civil Rights legislation and treat minority patrons anyway they please. The jury was clearly emotionally invested in sending this message. I suspect the strategy was to make restaurants understand how such violations might effect their bottom line. How many people (even those on the jury itself) really believe that the Denny’s incident damaged the Green family 600 million dollars worth? I certainly don’t. Denny’s will, of course, appeal. I doubt the Greens nor their lawyers believe they’ll ever see anywhere near that amount when it’s time to settle.</p>
<p>Poetsheart…that’s kinda what some are saying with the three Duke boys…they likely will not get that sum of money but this sends a message about what we excpect of the judicial system and those who are charged with upholding the law and seeking justice. It isn’t so much that the were just innocent but the way the case was handled. So, what is wrong with sending a message that hopefully will have some effect on how ANY cases are handled and not just those of rich white boys. I agree that with the Denny case, they are also sending a message, even though the sum of money seems like an outrageous sum.</p>
<p>soozievt: Haha. Well, I haven’t read this thread in a while. I actually thought it was gone. So when I consistently saw it at the top of the page this past week, I bopped in to see what was new. I thought the discussion of the $30M demand was interesting, especially as I had literally just finished reading a local newspaper article about it. So . . . I posted it as I thought it might be interesting for others and certainly relevent. </p>
<p>As you know, once you post something, and then somebody asks a question and you answer, and they respond by not understanding your point and also take your words out of context, you feel like you have to correct that (or, at least, I do) and so you make your point again-- and before you know it, you get sucked into this vortex. That doesn’t mean these guys and their futures interest me, though. I still find them and their families dull as dishwater.</p>
<p>That said, from a sociological standpoint, the difference between how folks react/respond to cases like the Duke 3 and cases like that of Alan Gell, I do find somewhat intriguing.</p>
<p>While I certainly don’t wish them ill will, I honestly don’t care one way or the other what happens to these 3. The best thing that has come of all of this, from my perspective, is that Duke bought up all those properties and is selling (has sold?) them to prospective homeowners and won’t be using them for rental properties anymore. That’s a big positive for all concerned. I also think their case shed light on some inherent problems with Duke’s off-campus parties, alcohol consumption, [some] sports teams, etc. Illuminating those issues and working to correct them (ie., having external reviews done) is another big positive for Duke. And that’s a good thing, something that does effect me, and that I do find of interest.</p>