If the law in California is like the law in New York, I think one would. In New York, a judgment is good for 20 years. Brock Turner may not have much $ now, but it’s probable he will have some some time during the next 20 years. If he ever does get a job working for someone else, his salary can be garnished. If he inherits any money from his parents, that money could be sought. If he buys a car, legal action can be take to seize it.
Moreover, this is the kind of case that (a) wouldn’t require that much preparation–the fact he raped her would not be relitigated and (b) would give the plaintiff’s law firm some very good publicity.
The only thing I can think of might be - does Stanford have a policy that frat parties have to be closed, invite-only and this one violated it by being open to anyone who walked in (if such is the case, given that Brock was not a member and the girl wasn’t a student). I am not a lawyer so I have no idea if a) that’s the truth or b) there is any merit in pursuing such an argument against either Stanford or the frat.
Was the frat actually on Stanford’s campus, or off-campus?
I’m sure that’s true. Not sure obviously about the “privilege” part but I think we all acknowledge that if our kids get into selective colleges with or without financial aid then “we” are privileged.
There’s no way I would want a daughter going into a civil suit in this particular case. No…way…not a chance…not against the Turner family nor against the fraternity or college.
No.I think sex-offender registries were supposed to be for people such as pedophiles, who have a high rate of re-offending even after incarceration, or rapists with multiple victims, and so forth. I don’t think that people who are most likely salvageable should be on them, or at least not permanently.
This whole thing does make you think about all the possible versions of the scenario and how they subtly alter one’s opinion. This one was open and shut - she was passed out, there were witnesses, she was behind a dumpster. What if instead he had taken her to his dorm room. Or a “romantic” spot on campus. What if there was evidence that she said to a girlfriend as she left the house - I’m going to go **** this cute guy, don’t wait up for me. What if he hadn’t been drinking at all. What if she had a known drinking problem. What if she hadn’t been fully passed out, but close to it. What if they’d made eyes at one another in a study group. What if she were a poor black scholarship student. What if she were the 40 yo cleaning lady at the fraternity who happened to be working that night. What if he was a 30 yo grad student. What if he were a 6’5" 250 pound football player with muscles who could overpower anybody. What if her blackout had been caused by a diabetic problem versus alcohol. What if he were the poor black scholarship student and she was the rich white girl. All of these things. They shouldn’t matter but somehow it does cause me to reevaluate how I’ve thought about these cases in the past.
@momofthreeboys, this particular case? You have been pushing for people to use the civil courts. Now we have a case where the accused has been found guilty to in a criminal court. Found guilty in a criminal court, that is pretty rare. Now you wouldn’t want your daughter to go to civil court?
I would leave this up to my daughter.
@nottelling, gives good reasons why a civil case may not be the way to go, but as @jonri wrote, if the victim wants to go to civil court and she can find a good law firm which will take this case for the publicity…
Thanks, Jonri. I should have qualified that statement, since I don’t practice that kind of law and don’t know much about the economics of firms that work on contingency.
But, in thinking about it, I still think the economics would make it difficult for a contingency lawyer to take the case; most lawyers don’t want to get paid in drips and drabs over the course of 20 years (if at all) and I’d imagine the expenses involved in collecting a judgment under those circumstances would be substantial. And there could be significant costs in litigation, if expert testimony is used to help prove damages.
There was a GoFundMe or similar set up by friends of the Turners. So presumably despite the “affluent” meme, there isn’t so much money to go after in terms of suing the family.
If God forbid it were my D, I would focus on whatever course of action best preserved / ensured her mental health and make a decision about a civil suit based on that. Big chunks of $$$ can pay for therapy but in and of themselves they may not buy peace.
Even if it were indeed possible to get some money in dribs and drabs over the years, I would not want my daughter to continue to be engaged in thinking about Turner over those decades. If at all possible, I would want her to consign him to the trash heap of her personal history and move on with her life, unencumbered by any need to ever think about him again, much less keep tabs on his life!
According, to the OP link, Brock was 20, and therefore not legally allowed to drink. Who exactly provided him with alcohol? What liability does the frat have here?
If Brock gets to argue that being drunk diminishes his responsibility for the crime, could some of that responsibility come to rest on whoever illegally served him? Not that I believe this, but it is an interesting thought.
@dstark I don’t think they would only take it for the publicity. Because Brock Turner doesn’t have money now, the law firm could probably negotiate a deal in which it would get a very high percentage of any recovery----assuming California law doesn’t prohibit that in personal injury cases. So, the firm might get as much as half, if this is not prohibited by California law.
The Turner family might decide to settle the case, so Brock doesn’t have to go through a trial and adverse publicity again. Even if it doesn’t settle now, I think it is probable that he will have some money at some point in the next 20 years. The judgment will continue to accrue interest at the statutory rate—I don’t know what it is in California–until it is paid. If Brock comes into money within the next 20 years (ior the amount of time a judgment is good in California) and the law firm goes after it, the story will be the news again…and maybe again, and again and again. Each time, the press may give us an update on where Brock is and what he is doing.
And although it is illegal in most states to refuse to hire someone because of outstanding debt, employers don’t like to have to garnish wages, so an unpaid civil judgment will make it even harder for BT to get a job.
( An aside: Just to answer @jonri 's question – and hoping not to take us too far afield – the statutory rate of post-judgment interest in California is an insane 10%!)
@dstark I would not want this girl in civil court on what essentially would be a re-do. Maybe, maybe against Brock…but why? The guys not going to have money worth suing for a long, long time so if she won it would be a hollow victory. Against the college or the fraternity I’d be afraid she’d be eaten alive. I like civil suits when colleges make stupid determinations or trample on due process rights or if one party is skirting the truth.
What would the law be if this had been outside a bar (that presumably wasn’t supposed to serve underage people)? What does the law say about the responsibility of a bar or restaurant in serving people who are obviously inebriated? How does this differ versus a private party?
I’m not looking for speculation by other people as uninformed as I am – I’m looking for the lawyers to weigh in.
@notelling, a person is charged 10 percent a year? So if a victim wins $1,000,000 and after a year she doesn’t collect anything, the amount owed is $1.1 million? And the next year the amount can be $1.21 million? And the amount keeps growing until the victim is paid?
This is a strong incentive to sue. I guess Brock would be written out of the will.
