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 (12,250 Views)
sceptical

Scorecard for the Evans suit:
Quote:
 

Based on this determination, the Court notes that claims are going forward as to
Defendant Nifong in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 14; against Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson,
Clark, Meehan, and DSI in Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, and 14, plus Count 21 as to Defendant DSI;
against Defendant Addison in Counts 4 and 13; against the City in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (based
on the allegations in Count 5), as well as in Counts 13, 14, 16, 17, and 23; and against
Defendants Hodge, Baker, Chalmers, Russ, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger in Counts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 6.


AMEN, AGAIN!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

There's not an academic department in the country that could rival the explicators we have here. Thank you all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
The Court notes that of the three “related cases,” see supra note 1, this case involves the most
significant alleged constitutional deprivations, but was commendably more concise. However,
a complaint of over 150 pages, with over 570 numbered paragraphs, as in this case, is still
beyond what is necessary or appropriate under Rule 8


Again, I find this remark objectionable.
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 31 2011, 06:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
diet_dr_pepper
Member Avatar

Texas Mom
Mar 31 2011, 06:02 PM
Payback
Mar 31 2011, 05:23 PM
Joan Foster
Mar 31 2011, 04:46 PM
Discovery!!!!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

:party:

:crh: :crh: :crh: :crh: :crh:

OK, I think I get it, or enough of it to join Joan in celebrating.

Baldo, just to be sure, what are you feeling?


:party: ?
Hip, hip, HOORAY! I never thought I'd live long enough to see discovery take place!
:toast: :party: :cher: :cele:
:D Egr93:

(I saw it on FreeRepublic and came "home" right away.
Me too. I saw it on Free Republic.

I'm just glad some of you are explaining the legal stuff in plain English!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Does this mean there is no recourse against Durham? Can "parts" be appealed?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sdsgo

Congradulations to all the plaintiffs!!

:toast:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Evans opinion pdf.

http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/evans-opinion033111.pdf

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Payback
Mar 31 2011, 06:34 PM
There's not an academic department in the country that could rival the explicators we have here. Thank you all.
http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/explicators

ex·pli·cate
verb \ˈek-splə-ˌkāt\
ex·pli·cat·edex·pli·cat·ing
Definition of EXPLICATE
transitive verb
1: to give a detailed explanation of
2: to develop the implications of : analyze logically
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Again, doing this fast, may be incorrect in some areas:

EVANS:


Quote:
 
Based on this determination, the Court notes that claims are going forward as to
Defendant Nifong in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, and 14; against Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson,
Clark, Meehan, and DSI in Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, and 14, plus Count 21 as to Defendant DSI;
against Defendant Addison in Counts 4 and 13; against the City in Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (based
on the allegations in Count 5), as well as in Counts 13, 14, 16, 17, and 23; and against
Defendants Hodge, Baker, Chalmers, Russ, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger in Counts 1, 2, 3,
4, and 6.

All of the remaining claims are dismissed, including all of the claims asserted in
Counts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, and 22.




FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983....................................................................................................97
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983....................................................................................................98
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................100
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MAKING FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF
42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................102
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(MONELL V. DEP’T OF SOCIAL SERVS., 436 U.S. 658 (1977))......................104
A. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority for Durham Police
Approved the Unconstitutional Conduct of Their Subordinates...............105
B. Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Permitting
Officers to Publish Premature Conclusions of Criminality and
Guilt...........................................................................................................106
C. Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Targeting
Duke University Students for Harassment Through Selective and
Improper Enforcement of the Criminal Laws...........................................107
D. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Nifong...................................108
E. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise
Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Gottlieb.................................110
F. After Being Given Final Policymaking Authority over the
Durham Police Investigation, Nifong Directed Officers to
Engage in Constitutional Violations.........................................................111
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
SUPERVISORY VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983......................................113
A. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Supervise the
Investigation Resulted in Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional
Rights.........................................................................................................113
B. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Control and Supervise
Gottlieb Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights................115
C. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failures to Train, Control, and
Supervise Addison Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional
Rights.........................................................................................................116
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983.....................................118
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE).........................................................................120
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)
(WITNESS TAMPERING)..................................................................................122
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).................................123
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DURHAM

POLICE)...............................................................................................................124
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DNA
SECURITY).....
....................................................................................................126
THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY.......................................127
FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY.......................................130
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND
CONSPIRACY...
..................................................................................................132
SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE...........133
SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND
RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE...............................................................134
EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY
DURHAM POLICE.............................................................................................137
NINTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY
DURHAM POLICE (DURHAM POLICE STATEMENTS)..............................138
TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENCE BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS..
..........................139
TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION,
HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND
RETENTION BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS...............................141
TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS...........


--------------------






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Quasimodo
Mar 31 2011, 06:36 PM
Quote:
 
The Court notes that of the three “related cases,” see supra note 1, this case involves the most
significant alleged constitutional deprivations, but was commendably more concise. However,
a complaint of over 150 pages, with over 570 numbered paragraphs, as in this case, is still
beyond what is necessary or appropriate under Rule 8


Again, I find this remark objectionable.


But read what Judge Beaty says just after that remark complaining about the complexity of the lawsuit:

Quote:
 
The Court is also compelled to note that the allegations in the Second Amended Complaint that are going forward, particularly as to Counts 1-3, set out allegations of significant abuses of government power.

Indeed, the intentional use of false or misleading evidence before a grand jury to obtain an indictment and arrest without probable cause is exactly the type of “unreasonable” search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against, and would violate the most fundamental concepts of due process.
In this regard, it has been noted that “‘if any concept is fundamental to our American system of justice, it is that those charged with upholding the law are prohibited from deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit (indeed, we are unsure what due process entails if not protection against deliberate framing under color of official sanction).’” Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 285 (Shedd, J., concurring) (quoting Limone v. Condon, 372 F.3d 39, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2004)). In addition, “the Supreme Court has long held that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment if, in order to obtain a warrant, he deliberately or ‘with reckless disregard for the truth’ makes material false statements or omits material facts. . . . No reasonable police officer . . . could believe that the Fourth Amendment permitted such conduct.” Miller v. Prince George’s County, 475 F.3d 621, 631-32 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Thus, there can be no question that the Constitution is violated when government officials deliberately fabricate evidence and use that evidence against a citizen, in this case by allegedly presenting the false evidence to a grand jury in order to obtain an indictment of individuals that the officials know are innocent. The Court acknowledges the “‘embarrassing diversity of judicial opinion’ over the composition or even existence, of a claim for ‘malicious prosecution’ founded in § 1983.” Lambert v. Williams, 223 F.3d 257, 260 (4th Cir. 2000). However, Defendants in this case essentially contend that this Court should take the most restrictive view of the applicable doctrines and should conclude that no provision of the Constitution has been violated, and that no redressable claim can be stated, when government officials intentionally fabricate evidence to frame innocent citizens, even if the evidence is used to indict and arrest those citizens without probable cause. This Court cannot take such a restrictive view of the protections afforded by the Constitution.
Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 06:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Cursory quick first look--

the judge appears not to appreciate the "conspiracy" allegations,

nor the infliction of emotional distress.

I would have thought both of these (but especially the latter)
was a slam-dunk.

And again--cursory first look only--

is this narrowing the defendants down basically to a few
police officers

(while it requires the plaintiffs to specifically note what
each of the superior officers did, in order for complaints against
them to continue)?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Na-na-na-na,
na-na-na-na,
hey, hey,
Goodbye!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TGHON0Bn4

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/duke-lacrosse-civil-suit-allowed-to.html

Thursday, March 31, 2011
Duke Lacrosse Civil Suit Allowed To Move Forward
A federal judge in the Middle District of North Carolina has allowed a civil lawsuit by Duke lacrosse players wrongly accused of rape to move forward. The 98-page opinion is below, granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss.

While it will take a while to analyze the opinion, this part jumped out at me (pp 49-50):

"Having considered Plaintiffs’ contentions in the present case with respect to the City, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for Monell liability against the City at this stage in the case. Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have alleged that the City had a policy of targeting Duke students that led to multiple constitutional violations against Duke students, particularly by Gottlieb, and that the City through its final policymaking officials nevertheless continued the policy and ratified and condoned those violations. Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that this condoning of constitutional violations in the enforcement of the policy led to the constitutional violations and injuries alleged by Plaintiffs in the present case.[11 Whether evidence exists to support this contention is not a question before the Court on the present motions. Of course, at later stages in the case, Plaintiffs will be required to present evidence to support these contentions, including evidence to establish the existence of an official policy or custom, and proof that the policy was the cause of the constitutional violation and injuries alleged here."


What this means is the the plaintiffs now will get to take depositions, subpeona evidence and otherwise find out precisely what went on in the City of Durham which led to their almost being railroaded.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
But read what Judge Beaty says just after that remark complaining about the complexity of the lawsuit:


True; but that still does not mean that he has not (likely) directed the focus of the suits towards only a few
police officers directly involved in the bogus warrants (and therefore away from everyone else).

Maybe I am being too skeptical...
Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 31 2011, 06:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Mar 31 2011, 06:55 PM
Quote:
 
But read what Judge Beaty says just after that remark complaining about the complexity of the lawsuit:


True; but that still does not mean that he has not (likely) directed the focus of the suits towards only a few
police officers directly involved in the bogus warrants (and therefore away from everyone else).

Maybe I am being too skeptical...
Trust me, those cops AIN'T going down by themselves!
:elmer:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply