Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !!
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,243 Views)
kbp

Acc Esq
Apr 1 2011, 04:02 PM
snip

A certain extemporaneous exclamation uttered by D.A.M.N. is probably echoing through the offices of defense counsel and their clients today.
:roflmao:

Thanks for sharing your knowledge!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Thanks, Walt.

You know, this is really an outstanding group of people.!

Blog Hooligans!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

p. B-13 of national edition of NY Times has a BRIEF blurb about the ruling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Acc Esq
Apr 1 2011, 02:01 PM
abb
Apr 1 2011, 10:29 AM
Call me a cynic, but it's just too convenient that these rulings come out just days after the federal five-year statute of limitations runs out.
abb,

The statute of limitations is no longer in play once suit is filed. A plaintiff is only required to file a lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires. This holds true through all proceedings, including appeals and retrials. Thus, e.g., if the case is disposed of on the merits -- i.e., a final judgment is entered -- and an appeal is taken, the plaintiffs could then appeal or cross-appeal the dismissal of their claims by Judge Beaty. If the court of appeals reversed on that point, the claims would be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial; the statute of limitations still would not apply because it is a continuation of the legal proceeding that was commenced before the statute of limitations expired.
I'm speaking of the criminal aspects of the case. I still want to see somebody spend some serious time in jail for what they did.

It's the only message these bastards will understand.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

abb
Apr 1 2011, 05:08 PM
Acc Esq
Apr 1 2011, 02:01 PM
abb
Apr 1 2011, 10:29 AM
Call me a cynic, but it's just too convenient that these rulings come out just days after the federal five-year statute of limitations runs out.
abb,

The statute of limitations is no longer in play once suit is filed. A plaintiff is only required to file a lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires. This holds true through all proceedings, including appeals and retrials. Thus, e.g., if the case is disposed of on the merits -- i.e., a final judgment is entered -- and an appeal is taken, the plaintiffs could then appeal or cross-appeal the dismissal of their claims by Judge Beaty. If the court of appeals reversed on that point, the claims would be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial; the statute of limitations still would not apply because it is a continuation of the legal proceeding that was commenced before the statute of limitations expired.
I'm speaking of the criminal aspects of the case. I still want to see somebody spend some serious time in jail for what they did.

It's the only message these bastards will understand.
http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/criminal-statute-of-limitations/north-carolina/

Search
All legal topics» Laws» State Laws» My current location: | Change location
North Carolina Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws
More Information on Criminal Statute of Limitations

Code Section 15-1
Felonies None
Misdemeanors Malicious misdemeanor: none; others: 2 yrs.

Acts During Which Statute Does Not Run -
Note: State laws are constantly changing -- contact an attorney or conduct your own legal research to verify the state law(s) you are researching.

Research the Law:

Official State Codes - Links to the official online statutes (laws) in all 50 states and DC.
Related Resources for Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws:

Crimes A to Z
Criminal Law Center
Find a Criminal Law Attorney
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

more info

More Information on Criminal Statute of Limitations
A statute of limitations is a law which forbids prosecutors from charging someone with a crime that was committed more than a specified number of years ago. The general purpose of statutes of limitation is to make sure convictions occur only upon evidence (physical or eyewitness) that has not deteriorated with time. After the period of the statute has run, the criminal is essentially free.

Statutes of limitation generally require the criminal to remain in the state, gainfully employed and visible, seeming to necessitate that the criminal remain "catchable." If the authorities fail to discover a criminal living in the open within a specified amount of time, society has determined that at that point the criminal should be able to live free from the possibility of prosecution. It appears that this notion is born out of a sense of mercy more than pragmatics: if the criminal is a fugitive, out of the state in which the crime was committed or otherwise living in hiding, this tolls, or suspends, the statute. (Once the criminal reenters the state the statute resumes running.) However, if the criminal were living an open, public, so-called "reformed" life, after a reasonable period of time he is allowed to be free from capture.

Not all crimes are governed by statutes of limitation. Murder, for example, has none. Sex offenses with minors, crimes of violence, kidnapping, arson, and forgery have no statutes of limitation in a number of states. In Arizona and California crimes involving public money or public records have no statutes of limitation. While in Colorado, treason has none.

Many states have adopted systems that classify felonies by category. Therefore, in order to effectively compare statutes of limitation provisions, it is necessary to determine which crimes in that state fit into particular classes. For example, Missouri lists murder or Class A felonies as crimes with no statutes of limitation. Each crime must then be looked up in that state's statutes to determine its classification.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf

Statutes of Limitation in
Federal Criminal Cases:
An Overview
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Thanks Abb. Yea, I cited the state statutes. But since there are NC state constitution violations in the counts, it may be that the state can bring charges in the future. But I am guessing. Once the evidence is heard, maybe state crimes may be charged.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Quasi, I agree that Judge Beaty used stringent criteria in deciding which causes of action could go forward and which are dismissed. If I were ruling (God forbid!), I would be much more liberal at this stage because the plaintiffs merely need to establish plausibility of their claims.

However, there may be a silver lining in the cloud. Judge Beaty set a high bar for those causes of action he allowed to go forward. This makes it much harder for any of the defendants to appeal Judge Beaty's opinions in the case.

If the starting point for the plaintiffs is to get discovery going before more records are lost, tapes erased, memories fade, and witnesses die
(e.g. Wes Covington), then Judge Beaty's opinions are just fine.

The list of scoundrels who face depositions is extensive and deep. One thing Liestoppers can do is to help the lawyers by coming up with questions we would ask if we were doing the deps. For example, JSwift's questions for the Durham Police Department are thorough and probing. I suggest that we set up a committee on each of the main groups of defendants to come up with questions:

1) DA Office-- Mike Nifong, Linwood Wilson
2) DUMC-- Tara Levicy, Victor Dzau
3) Durham Police-- Mark Gottlieb, Ben Himan, Ron Hodges, Jeff Lamb, Chief Chalmers etc.
4) Duke Administration-- Richard Brodhead, John Burness, Tallman Trask, Sue Wasiolek etc.
5) Durham Administration-- Patrick Baker
6) DNASI-- Brian Meehan, Richard Clark
etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

Someone with a good command of neutrally worded information should update Brodhead's Wikipedia entry with news of Beaty's ruling on "obstruction of justice" and "constructive fraud." Walt?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
One thing Liestoppers can do is to help the lawyers by coming up with questions we would ask if we were doing the deps. For example, JSwift's questions for the Durham Police Department are thorough and probing. I suggest that we set up a committee on each of the main groups of defendants to come up with questions:


Excellent idea!

:toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
I'mstillaRebel

Wouldn't you love to watch our Kethra lead a deposition of Tara?

There is such depth of knowledge held by the collected members of this board.

Yes, I know beyond a doubt we all want to help--we have to remember, however, that the "bad guys" can and have and do read this site.

Can our awesome leaders please develop a plan to do what Sceptical suggests--and make sure it's only seen by the "good guys"? I know we all remember the frustrations of watching Nifong's bar hearing on live TV and wanting to pass a note to the prosecution side with suggested follow up questions.

I don't think I'm off base at all when I say that this group of dedicated Hooligans has valuable knowledge to contribute.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acc Esq

abb
Apr 1 2011, 05:08 PM
Acc Esq
Apr 1 2011, 02:01 PM
abb
Apr 1 2011, 10:29 AM
Call me a cynic, but it's just too convenient that these rulings come out just days after the federal five-year statute of limitations runs out.
abb,

The statute of limitations is no longer in play once suit is filed. A plaintiff is only required to file a lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires. This holds true through all proceedings, including appeals and retrials. Thus, e.g., if the case is disposed of on the merits -- i.e., a final judgment is entered -- and an appeal is taken, the plaintiffs could then appeal or cross-appeal the dismissal of their claims by Judge Beaty. If the court of appeals reversed on that point, the claims would be reinstated and remanded to the District Court for trial; the statute of limitations still would not apply because it is a continuation of the legal proceeding that was commenced before the statute of limitations expired.
I'm speaking of the criminal aspects of the case. I still want to see somebody spend some serious time in jail for what they did.

It's the only message these bastards will understand.
Excellent point. I misconstrued your post. I was thinking with the tunnel vision of a civil trial lawyer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
buddy
Member Avatar

A great two days. I am just getting up to speed, and really appreciate Acc Esq and Walt-in-Durham for their legal analysis. And Jmoo for the quick read and boxscore. It seems to me that Beaty may have been playing CYA with his criticism of the length of the complaints. Because they were so long, it took him all this time to reach a decision. Can't blame him for the delay, no sir, blame those nasty plaintiffs lawyers. His ruling against punitive damages will limit any financial recovery, but I believe the families when they say it is not about the money. (I doubt their lawyers agree entirely.)

I am really disappointed with the ruling about the Student Handbook, although from what I have read of North Carolina law, Beaty got it right. Next time Brodhead (or any administrator or admissions person) speaks to a Duke alumni group, I hope he gets asked directly why the university refuses to be bound by its own document, and why any parent (or student) should feel safe attending an institution that won't follow its own announced procedures. Should be interesting.

Elsewhere I have read that Brodhead wants to get back to teaching while he still has "some good years" ahead of him. My guess is he may get his wish.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

I'mstillaRebel
Apr 1 2011, 08:50 PM
Wouldn't you love to watch our Kethra lead a deposition of Tara?

There is such depth of knowledge held by the collected members of this board.

Yes, I know beyond a doubt we all want to help--we have to remember, however, that the "bad guys" can and have and do read this site.

Can our awesome leaders please develop a plan to do what Sceptical suggests--and make sure it's only seen by the "good guys"? I know we all remember the frustrations of watching Nifong's bar hearing on live TV and wanting to pass a note to the prosecution side with suggested follow up questions.

I don't think I'm off base at all when I say that this group of dedicated Hooligans has valuable knowledge to contribute.
Good point. There are other ways to do this without the product being open (and helpful) to the defendants and their attorneys. :fspin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply