| When Will Judge Beaty Rule?; Motions to Amend Complaint, to Dismiss | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Nov 2 2009, 10:55 PM (1,688 Views) | |
| sceptical | Nov 2 2009, 10:55 PM Post #1 |
|
Evans et al v. Durham et al was filed on October 15, 2007. McFadyen et al v. Duke et al was filed December 18, 2007. Carrington et al v. Duke et al was filed February 21, 2008. Federal Judge James Beaty has had several motions before him for months by the defendants regarding dismissal of the cases. There are also more recent motions before him from the plaintiffs to add state law claims to the complaints based on NC Supreme Court decision. So far there has been silence from the judge. When will he rule? The wheels of justice turn slowly, but it has been over two years since the Evans suit was filed and there have been no depositions. Part of the delay has been due to the defendants (e.g. Nifong's failed bankruptcy dodge). But Judge Beaty does not seem to be in any hurry. Perhaps the lawyers on the board can comments on the slow pace of these actions. |
 |
 
|
| Kerri P. | Nov 2 2009, 10:57 PM Post #2 |
|
I think he will rule when he gets the word from Eric Holder to kick the suits out of court. JMOO. |
|
|
|
| sceptical | Nov 2 2009, 11:01 PM Post #3 |
|
http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=132 Beaty, James A. Jr. Born 1949 in Whitmire, SC Federal Judicial Service: Judge, U. S. District Court, Middle District of North Carolina Nominated by William J. Clinton on August 25, 1994, to a seat vacated by Richard C. Erwin; Confirmed by the Senate on October 7, 1994, and received commission on October 11, 1994. Served as chief judge, 2006-present. Education: Western Carolina University, B.A., 1971 University of North Carolina School of Law, J.D., 1974 Professional Career: Private practice, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 1974-1981 Superior court judge, Forsyth County Superior Court, North Carolina, 1981-1994 Race or Ethnicity: African American Gender: Male |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 2 2009, 11:11 PM Post #4 |
|
McFadyen has been awaiting a decision on whether to dismiss since Mid-July (that's 100 days, and counting...) |
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 2 2009, 11:16 PM Post #5 |
|
One can also wonder if these delays harm the plaintiffs' case, since witnesses will tend to forget things, documents and data will be lost, etc. There are reasons why people need to be guaranteed a "speedy trial". |
|
|
|
| Sherp | Nov 3 2009, 12:13 AM Post #6 |
|
From what I observed during the televised court appearances, the potted plants and his pals never ruled on anything. They just kept pushing things off. |
|
|
|
| Seen the Light | Nov 3 2009, 01:25 AM Post #7 |
|
Isn't there a rule on this? What is the definition of "Speedy Trial"? A long trial is one thing but this hasn't even made it to court. Isn't there a limit on how long this can take? Also, if it is dismissed, with so much overwhelming evidence, is there legal recourse? If they are dismissed, will that open a can of worms in terms of a precedent? I can't IMAGINE that in the least the DPD, Nifong, etc, are let off the hook. My own speculation is that, as another poster said, this is such an open and shut case that Beatty is afraid and waiting for Obama to let him off the hook. I'm sure this is being discussed at the White House. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
| Seen the Light | Nov 3 2009, 01:25 AM Post #8 |
|
Isn't there a rule on this? What is the definition of "Speedy Trial"? A long trial is one thing but this hasn't even made it to court. Isn't there a limit on how long this can take? Also, if it is dismissed, with so much overwhelming evidence, is there legal recourse? If they are dismissed, will that open a can of worms in terms of a precedent? I can't IMAGINE that in the least the DPD, Nifong, etc, are let off the hook. My own speculation is that, as another poster said, this is such an open and shut case that Beatty is afraid and waiting for Obama to let him off the hook. I'm sure this is being discussed at the White House. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
| psych | Nov 3 2009, 06:26 AM Post #9 |
|
I wonder if this is a lack of profiles in courage. I wonder to what extent if any his being African American plays into the significant delay. Is he afraid he will not get the appointment he covets if he does not do what the politically correct want done, that being these cases going away. |
|
|
|
| sceptical | Nov 3 2009, 08:15 AM Post #10 |
|
From wikipedia: Nomination to the Fourth Circuit On December 24, 1995 President Clinton nominated Beaty to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to fill the vacancy created by the decision by Judge James Dickson Phillips, Jr. to take senior status.[2] Almost immediately, Beaty's nomination ran into opposition from North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, who was angry that Clinton after taking office had refused to renominate Helms' preferred candidate, Terrence Boyle. President George H.W. Bush had nominated Boyle to a Fourth Circuit seat in 1991, but the U.S. Senate never acted on the nomination, and the nomination lapsed with the end of Bush's presidency. The Senate Judiciary Committee did not hold a hearing or a vote on Beaty's Fourth Circuit nomination during 1996.[3] Clinton renominated Beaty in 1997, but Helms then announced that the court had a light caseload and did not need any more judges.[4] Helms and the Fourth Circuit's Chief Judge at the time, James Harvie Wilkinson III, even lobbied Congress to leave the seat vacant on the grounds that the seat was not needed. In addition, Beaty was accused of being an activist judge because while sitting as a visiting judge on a Fourth Circuit panel in 1995, he concurred in a decision overturning the murder conviction of Timothy Scott Sherman of Hickory, Maryland because one juror had visited the crime scene, according to a February 1999 article in the ABA Journal. As a result of Helms' opposition, Beaty's nomination again did not receive a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee during 1997 or 1998. Clinton elected not to renominate Beaty to the Fourth Circuit in 1999. Ultimately, Beaty's nomination languished for more than 1,000 days, making it one of the longest appeals-court nominations in U.S. history never to be acted on by the U.S. Senate.[5] Continued controversy over the Fourth Circuit's North Carolina seat The Fourth Circuit seat to which Beaty was nominated remains vacant. On August 5, 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge James A. Wynn, Jr., an African American judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, to replace Beaty as his nominee for the open North Carolina seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Wynn's nomination also never received a hearing from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee or received a full vote from the U.S. Senate due to the resistance of Sen. Jesse Helms, who used his previous claim that the court did not need any more judges as his justification.[6] [7] Clinton renominated Wynn to the Fourth Circuit on January 3, 2001, but his nomination was returned by President Bush on March 20, 2001, along with 61 other executive and judicial nominations that Clinton had made.[8] Twice, President George W. Bush has tried to fill the North Carolina seat. Terrence Boyle was nominated by Bush on May 9, 2001, but his nomination was never brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate. His five year nomination was the longest-pending of the Bush Administration. Boyle had been originally nominated to the Fourth Circuit in 1991 by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush. Boyle's nomination was adamantly opposed by Democrats from the beginning. Former North Carolina Democrat and Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards claimed Boyle was an opponent of civil rights and disabilities legislation. Boyle's supporters viewed Boyle as the victim of political payback and obstruction because of his ties to former North Carolina Republican Senator Jesse Helms, who derailed several judicial nominations by President Bill Clinton (Boyle was a staffer for Helms in 1973), and the perceived determination of liberal politicians not to let conservatives serve at the highest levels of the federal judiciary. On January 9, 2007, the White House announced that it would not be re-nominating Boyle to the Court of Appeals.[9] Boyle has clearly stated he did not withdraw his nomination.[10]. On July 17, 2007, Bush nominated Robert J. Conrad, Jr. for the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit[11] to take the place of the retired James Dickson Phillips, Jr. [12] [13] Despite Republican complaints, he was not given a hearing or vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Democratic chairman, Senator Patrick Leahy. Possible renomination to the Fourth Circuit under Obama Multiple sources, including Fourth Circuit expert and Professor of Law, Carl Tobias,[14]have speculated that President Barack Obama may re-nominate Beaty to the Fourth Circuit. Other names mentioned have included Robert Spearman, J. Rich Leonard, James A. Wynn, Jr., Patricia Timmons-Goodson, Martha A. Geer, Charles Becton and S. Elizabeth Gibson.[15][16] |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 3 2009, 08:34 AM Post #11 |
|
Is Beaty under pressure? Would it be improper to ponder whether or not the political establishment in NC doesn't want these cases to go forward? And whether or not we could add that Robert K. Steel (a man not without influence) doesn't want these cases to go forward? And that they are applying all the pressure they can to avoid this? And that, in such a circumstance, Beaty might just be hoping that he will be nominated for another post and therefore have to give the case over to another judge? Or, likewise, that he wants to avoid having to rule, and thus offend the entire political establishment in NC, plus some extraordinarily powerful figures in DC (such as Steel)? (Or that if he does rule, and contrary to the wishes of some powerful figures in DC, his potential nomination for other posts will be quashed?) Major national figures (on the BOT) are involved in this. They have clout. Is it out of the realm of possibility that they might want to use that clout--friends in DC, in the DOJ, in NC politics, etc? They have a lot at stake. It is alleged that they were not unwilling to permit three innocent students be sent to prison, for the sake of advantages they saw in this. Would it be their natural recourse to try and use pressure if they felt threatened by a suit? (Pure speculation. JMOO. For discussion purposes only.) |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 3 2009, 08:44 AM Post #12 |
|
Will people, reviewing this case later and in years to come, have a likelihood of concluding that Nifong's "bankruptcy" was only a stalling tactic? And that the court was either duped or overly-cooperative in playing out that scenario and delaying the cases for a year? How much of a burden have these delays placed on the plaintiffs? Have these delays unfairly harmed their case (in that memories may fade, and evidence be lost, and the costs increased proportionately)? ---------------- As an example, here are the Judicial canons of New Jersey: 7) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court. Commentary: Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to insist that court officials, litigants and lawyers cooperate to that end. In disposing of matters promptly, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of the parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 3 2009, 08:51 AM Post #13 |
|
Federal judicial rules: http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/judges/judges_code.html 3 A 5 (5) A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court commentary from an actual case: http://www.convertino.org/id5.html The canon further states that, “A judge should dispose promptly of the business of the court.” • A nine month file review, that the judge conceded, in his own opinion, “far exceeded the boundaries or expectations of the court,” was not in any sense prompt. (snip) • It became apparent that Judge Rosen was waiting for the investigation against Convertino to conclude prior to making a ruling. Instead of making a judicial decision based on the merits, he obviously wanted the U.S. Attorney’s office to make the decision for him. One can only assume that he did not want to sustain a conviction and later have the Justice Department admonish the prosecution. Equally, he did not want the decision to potentially let terrorists go free to rest on his shoulders alone. Having the Justice Department “pull the plug” prevented that from happening. As previously mentioned, Judge Rosen gave unlimited time to the investigators, going well beyond the file review, to make that decision. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 3 2009, 09:01 AM Post #14 |
|
(an example of judicial rules from another state, Illinois) : http://www.dupageco.org/courts/generic.cfm?doc_id=297 1.29 DECISIONS WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS (a) All judges are encouraged to render their decisions promptly when matters are ready for decision, and except as hereinafter provided, no judge of this Circuit shall keep a matter under advisement or fail to render a decision in a matter submitted to that judge for a period of time greater than sixty (60) days from the date such matter is taken under advisement. (b) For the purposes of Rule 1.29, a matter is taken under advisement: (1) If the issue to be decided is a factual issue, at such time as the proofs have been closed; (2) If the issue to be decided is a legal issue, at such time as the Court has received briefs as may have been ordered by the Court and heard arguments as may have been ordered; (3) If the issues are both factual and legal, it shall be considered as if the case involved legal issues only, after the proofs have been closed. (c) Any case taken under advisement which has not been decided by the sitting judge within sixty (60) days after being taken under advisement shall be reported by the Presiding Judge to the Chief Judge together with an explanation of the reason such decision has not been rendered. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 3 2009, 09:04 AM Post #15 |
|
McFadyen has already been waiting 100+ days for a decision on dismissal. The other two cases may require (with the holidays) two months or more just to get done with amended complaints; and eventually to the dismissal question. Is it fair, or just, to the parties in McFadyen to make them wait for the resolution of these other two cases--a wait which could easily extend to six months, and even to a year? How much will their costs escalate? (Is that "judicial economy"?) What happened to the rights of the parties in this case to get speedy justice (and justice that is not encumbered with unnecessary costs)? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
8:34 AM Nov 26
