| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, August 16, 2013; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 16 2013, 04:30 AM (387 Views) | |
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 04:30 AM Post #1 |
|
wo former prisoners' lives, valued Published: August 15, 2013 Thanks to agents of the State Bureau of Investigation, Greg Taylor and Floyd Brown spent 17 years and 14 years respectively in custody for murders of which they never should have been convicted. They’ll now have millions of dollars in settlements from the state to ease the years ahead, but that hardly compensates them for lives lost. Taylor was convicted in 1993 of murdering a woman in East Raleigh, partly because an SBI lab report by blood analyst Duane Deaver suggested a substance found on his truck was blood. Deaver, who has been fired, did not report a subsequent test that showed there was no blood. Taylor was freed in 2010 after his case came before an independent innocence commission and three judges declared him innocent. He’ll get over $4.5 million from the state. Floyd Brown, mentally handicapped with an IQ of 50, was convicted of the 1993 murder of a retired teacher who was beaten to death in Anson County. His lawyers claimed his confession, taken down by SBI agent Mark Isley, was far too sophisticated for someone of Brown’s capability. Isley remains on the SBI payroll. Brown will get almost $8 million from the state. Attorney General Roy Cooper stopped far short of apologizing to these men. He said that the SBI had better investigative practices now and that, “It was in the best interest of the state to settle these cases.” And maybe in the best interest of justice, too? These two men lost their youths thanks to agents of the SBI. That is an outrage for which they can never be adequately compensated. State officials have been encouraged to offer profuse apologies, and that is not unreasonable, though it’s a little late for it now. Taylor is trying to cling to his family. Brown has a caretaker and presumably will not have to worry about finances in the future. But let no one involved in prosecuting these two men believe that the debt for their “mistakes” is paid in full. Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/15/3110656/two-lives-valued.html#storylink=cpy |
 |
 
|
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 04:32 AM Post #2 |
|
UNC AD says PJ Hairston will play this season, but not in every game Published: August 15, 2013 By Andrew Carter — acarter@newsobserver.com CHAPEL HILL — P..J. Hairston will play this season, but not in every game. That’s what Bubba Cunningham, the North Carolina athletics director, told a group of university faculty members during a question-and-answer session on Thursday. Cunningham on Thursday spoke at a faculty retreat for the UNC journalism school. Andy Bechtel, an associate professor in the journalism school, posted on his Twitter account Cunningham’s answer when asked about Hairston, the Tar Heels’ junior guard and leading scorer who has been suspended indefinitely. “Bubba Cunningham takes a PJ question,” Bechtel wrote on his Twitter account. “Will he play? Answer: ‘Yes, but not all the games.’” That was the entirety of Cunningham’s answer, Bechtel later said during a phone interview. Cunningham’s comments are the closest UNC has come to saying anything about Hairston’s playing status for next season. Even so, UNC athletic department spokesman Steve Kirschner said on Thursday that there has been no change in Hairston’s status, and that Cunningham’s comments represent his opinion – and not the university’s official position. “It’s what he thinks might happen, but we’re not there yet,” Kirschner said. Hairston was suspended after the North Carolina Highway Patrol charged him with speeding and reckless driving late last month. That followed his arrest in Durham in early June, when he was charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession and driving without a license. Those charges were later dropped. At the time of his arrest, Hairston was driving a rented GMC Yukon that was paid for by Haydn “Fats” Thomas, a Durham resident and convicted felon. Hairston also received a speeding ticket in May while driving another rental vehicle, a 2012 Camaro, that has been linked to Thomas. After he played in a pro-am at the Wyndham Championship in Greensboro, UNC coach Roy Williams on Wednesday declined to comment on Hairston. “Not talking about P.J.,” Williams said. “I’ve read about it all summer, I’m tired of reading about it, tired of talking about it. If you want to talk about anything else, I’ll talk about anything.” Cunningham, the UNC athletics director, also played in the pro-am with Williams and declined comment about Hairston. Cunningham’s brief comment on Thursday was the first time that a UNC official has definitively said that Hairston will play this season. Hairston is facing a potentially lengthy suspension, depending on whether his use of rental cars is deemed to be an extra benefit. If the use of rental cars were an extra benefit, the NCAA could suspend him from anywhere between three and nine games – or more – depending on the monetary value of the benefit. Williams said in a statement last month that Hairston would face “serious consequences.” Carter: 919-829-8944; Twitter: @_andrewcarter Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/15/3110626/unc-ad-says-pj-hairston-will-play.html#storylink=cpy |
|
|
|
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 04:40 AM Post #3 |
|
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1739639-roy-williams-unc-compounding-the-pj-hairston-problem-with-indecision Roy Williams, UNC Compounding the PJ Hairston Problem with Indecision By C.J. Moore August 15, 2013 Roy Williams has one clear message for the media. Stop! Enough with the P.J. Hairston questions. "I've read about it all damn summer, I'm tired of reading about, tired of talking about it," Williams told Andrew Carter of the News & Observer on Wednesday at a charity golf tournament. "If you want to talk about anything else, I'll talk about anything." Whew. I'm tired of it too, Coach. And I'm sure those North Carolina reporters are tired of asking. I'm sure they would be more than willing to write about anything else. Anything. But whether Hairston is worth the words or not, he's the best player on North Carolina's team and his status is up in the air. Why? Because Williams has left it up in the air. And people want to know the status of the best player on one of the most popular basketball programs in the country. The most honest, direct response North Carolina has given on Hairston came Thursday at a faculty retreat. You could say it was by accident. UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham was asked if Hairston would play this year. And wouldn't you know it, a dadgum journalism professor was there to relay his answer. Well, that's something. And you know what's next... How many games? And why will he play again? Those are questions Williams should get used to, because those are fair questions. Those would be fair questions after Hairston got caught driving a rental car without a licence rented by a convicted felon, Haydn "Fats" Thomas, with marijuana in the car and a gun nearby. (Charges, which did not include anything with the gun, were dropped.) Williams didn't want to talk after that. Those would be fair questions after it was later reported that Hairston also got a speeding ticket in May while also driving a rental linked to Thomas. Williams, himself, decided to talk after that news. He called it "embarrassing." He said Hairston would suffer "serious consequences." You would think. And you would think that would be the end of it. When do we learn to quit messing up because we've disappointed our parents? Three? Four? Hairston is 20. And he clearly does not give a damn what you think of him, what Roy Williams thinks of him or what UNC fans think of him. How long should P.J. Hairston's suspension be? Less than five games 6-10 games 11-15 games 15 or more games Hairston should be kicked off the team Submit Vote vote to see results Because after all the bad press he had given the program from his indifference behind the wheel, Hairston decided he felt comfortable enough to drive down the interstate at 93 mph. He got caught. He got suspended indefinitely, a punishment that allows a coach to think on it. See, it's easy for anyone else to think that Hairston will play this season—"but not all the games"—because UNC still cares that he can make shots. That's what Williams' "I'm tired of talking about this" says. Because Williams could put an end to the questions. He has enough information that he, Roy Williams, could end this. Everyone supports giving a guy a second chance, right? I know I do. But Hairston, as far as we know, is at least on chance No. 3. When he got his second chance, he flipped the Tar Heels the bird while cruising at 93 mph. There's enough foolishness there for Williams to justifiably give Hairston the boot. But Hairston is going to play. We know that now thanks to Cunningham and a faculty retreat. Imagine that. UNC faculty wanted to know whether one of its most high-profile students was going to be allowed to play this year. Shame on their curiosity. Someone better tell Williams about this in case he's given up reading entirely. He's going to get questions about what Cunningham said. And he could say "this is how many games Hairston is going to miss unless he messes up again." That, too, would bring most of the questions to a halt. Of course, Williams has a right to not do that. He can keep saying he's tired of the story. But the journalists who cover the team have every right to keep asking. |
|
|
|
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 04:45 AM Post #4 |
|
http://www.wbir.com/news/article/284633/2/Christian-Newsom-families-happy-with-Glenn-Beck-comments Christian, Newsom families happy with Glenn Beck comments 11:58 PM, Aug 15, 2013 | 1 comments Steve Butera The families of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom said they were pleased that national media attention was brought to their childrens' murders this week. Talk show host Glenn Beck spoke about the 2007 murders on his show "The Glenn Beck Program" on The Blaze TV. Beck owns the cable channel. "The names the (caller) gave me are Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian: likely they mean as much to you and did to me," Beck prefaced. "But you'll never forget them after the next few minutes." He said there was little media coverage of the murders, outside of East Tennessee, admitting he did not remember covering this story either. However, both families said they liked the attention Beck gave, stating that it should recieve that national scope. "I was glad to hear it. It's about time somebody had the courage to do something and put it on national news," Chris Newsom's mother, Mary, said Thursday alongside her husband, Hugh. "I watched it immediately when I saw it, and he did a good job. Pretty accurate for not knowing what he was talking about," Gary Christian, Channon's father, said. All four parents say they liked what the talk show host said about the discussion of race, of the brutality of the crimes, and the lack of national media attention. "What we tried not to do from the very beginning is not make this a racial thing," said Deena Christian, Channon's mother added. "I think that's why they didn't get attention, because we didn't care if they're purple, black or white; we just cared what they did." Now with renewed interest, these two families say they are happy a bigger audience is listening to the story. "The kids didn't get the support that they needed, really. From the nation, they should've got support, and I'm glad this (coverage) happened," Mary Newsom added. |
|
|
|
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 05:15 AM Post #5 |
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323446404579010513489442936.html Updated August 15, 2013, 12:58 p.m. ET College Athletics Could Die! Or Not Worst-Case Scenario: The O'Bannon Case Barely Bruises Ohio State While Flattening Iowa State By RACHEL BACHMAN To hear it from doomsayers in the NCAA, college sports faces a potentially devastating threat. The alleged danger: a lawsuit brought by former and current college athletes, seeking a share of NCAA revenues. But a Wall Street Journal examination finds that even if the plaintiffs got everything they are seeking, most Division I athletic departments would avoid catastrophe. "It won't be a tobacco case, destroy the industry, because nobody wants to see that happen," said Rodney Fort, a professor of sport management at the University of Michigan. To hear it from the NCAA, college sports faces a potential threat: a lawsuit brought by athletes seeking a share of NCAA revenues. But a WSJ examination finds that most Division I schools would avoid catastrophe. Rachel Bachman reports. Photo: Getty Images. Still, a sense of alarm may be warranted on some campuses, particularly smaller athletic departments in large conferences. Think Iowa State. Washington State. Maybe even the Indiana Hoosiers. Filed in federal court in Oakland in 2009, the suit charges that the NCAA and its partners violated U.S. antitrust law by fixing at zero the price of an athlete's image or likeness. In an online statement, the NCAA said that previous federal cases have deemed its amateurism rules to be compliant with antitrust laws. Led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon, a growing list of plaintiffs currently includes about 20 former and current football and men's basketball players. But the potential for damages would increase if a federal judge certifies the case as a class action, automatically encompassing thousands of athletes. That decision could come within weeks. Smaller athletic departments like Iowa State might suffer if the plaintiffs win the Ed O'Bannon case. If worse comes to worst for the defense, according to the most pessimistic perspectives, college sports could become a barren landscape. In a March court filing in support of the NCAA, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany even suggested the suit could knock the formidable conference from top-tier Division I to small-college Division III, an assertion from which he has since retreated. But let's examine what really is at stake. The plaintiffs are seeking big slices of two main revenue areas, both tied to players' images and likenesses. The first is a school's licensing from football and basketball videogames, created by EA Sports, whose animated athletes bear striking resemblances to their real-life counterparts. The second and much bigger revenue source is TV broadcast-rights contracts. A videogame is what inspired O'Bannon to file suit. In his view, why shouldn't players profit—as do their schools—from EA Sports' use of their images? But videogame-licensing revenues are relatively small, as a look at Ohio State shows. The Buckeyes have one of the nation's largest programs with 36 sponsored sports and $142 million in revenue. Yet in 2012, they made only $181,000 on EA Sports videogames. The plaintiffs are seeking one-third of that revenue, which translates to $60,333 for Ohio State. The value of TV-rights contracts, on the other hand, has skyrocketed in recent years to more than $20 million annually per school in major conferences. The plaintiffs are seeking 50% of that revenue. To large, established athletic departments, that revenue is gravy, and losing half of it wouldn't be crippling. Ohio State, for instance, listed $24.7 million from broadcast rights and related revenue on its 2012 financial report—though a small part of that comes from other sources, said Pete Hagan, who oversees the Buckeyes' finances. A worst-case-scenario hit for the Buckeyes would amount to $12.4 million—or less than 9% of total athletic revenues. Small schools can also breathe easy. Take Western Kentucky, whose $26 million in 2012 athletic revenues included only $1 million in broadcast rights. Losing $500,000 would hardly decimate the Hilltoppers. A Western Kentucky spokesman declined to comment. Then there are schools like Iowa State. The Cyclones boast the prestige and TV-rights contract of the Big 12 Conference. But they have a modest stadium (55,000 capacity) in Ames, population 59,000. Of Iowa State's $55 million in 2012 athletic revenue, roughly $26 million came from TV rights. Half of that would gouge 24% of revenue from an athletic department that runs on a break-even basis. Through a spokesman, Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard declined to comment until the O'Bannon case is adjudicated. Even Indiana, with its venerable men's basketball program, could forfeit up to 19% of its $73 million in 2012 revenues. An Indiana spokesman declined to comment. These calculations assume the plaintiffs are awarded the percentages they're seeking. A jury could award a lower percentage, or both sides could settle for a lower percentage. "There aren't many antitrust trials, frankly," said antitrust partner Jonathan Lewis of Washington-based firm Baker Hostetler, which has no connection to the O'Bannon case. "The stakes are usually too high." How the money would be distributed to players, if plaintiffs win, hasn't been determined. Another unknown is the effect of the O'Bannon outcome on Title IX, the federal legislation that mandates equitable treatment between sexes at schools that receive federal funds. One potential way of complying would be to award female athletes an equal percentage of revenue from their TV and licensing revenue, said Linda Carpenter and Vivian Acosta, authors of a book on Title IX. That remedy would have modest financial effect because athletic-department revenue flows mostly from men's sports. Matt Mitten, professor of law and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University, said the likely effect of a plaintiffs' victory would be for athletic departments to reduce expenses like escalating coaching salaries but that they would otherwise continue to operate much as they do now. What the O'Bannon case doesn't seem to challenge is the basic NCAA rule that potential recruits can be offered only a scholarship. What would represent "Armageddon," Mitten said, would be a change allowing recruits to receive money, inciting a cash war between colleges. Corrections & Amplifications Roughly $26 million of Iowa State's athletic revenue came from TV rights in 2012. An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated the amount was roughly $23 million. Write to Rachel Bachman at rachel.bachman@wsj.com |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 16 2013, 08:17 AM Post #6 |
|
Ditto for those falsely accused of rape. However, an apology from the city and the university might go a long way to help. |
|
|
| Quasimodo | Aug 16 2013, 08:21 AM Post #7 |
|
Just compare his "privilege" compared with the "privilege" supposedly afforded the lacrosse players, who were allowed to get away with so much...  |
|
|
|
| abb | Aug 16 2013, 09:32 AM Post #8 |
|
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2013/08/an-update-from-st-joes.html Friday, August 16, 2013 An Update from St. Joe's Over at Minding the Campus, I’ve analyzed two federal lawsuits filed by male students found culpable of sexual assault after college procedures (at St. Joe’s and Vassar) that failed to provide much, if any, due process. Today is the deadline for the defendants in the first suit, filed by Brian Harris against St. Joe’s and his accuser, Lindsay Horst. Horst’s attorney, Daniel Rucket, filed a reply yesterday urging dismissal of all claims in Harris’ lawsuit. (You can read the filing here; I’ll be analyzing the St. Joe’s reply when it comes in, at Minding the Campus.) Rucket does not deny that Harris’ complaint accurately described the (wildly tilted) judicial “process” that St. Joe’s employs, which is “based on guidance from the United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (‘OCR’).” (This guidance, of course, came from the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, which asserted that federal law requires universities to change their procedures in various ways to make it easier to find students culpable of committing sexual assault.) Rucket concedes that St. Joe’s policies prohibited Harris, like all accused students, from having an attorney represent him at the disciplinary hearing, or attend the hearing in any way. And Rucket observes that, as Harris’ complaint noted, St. Joe’s has structured a procedure in which“[c]ivil or criminal rules of procedure and evidence do not apply,” while allowing the school to consider hearsay. But according to Rucket’s filing, these are all unobjectionable things, beyond the scope of the federal courts to review. It’s quite remarkable to see a private lawyer—much less a “Pennsylvania Super Lawyer,” as Rucket’s website notes he has been every year since 2010—celebrating the fairness of a process in which the accused is denied the right to counsel. Intriguingly, seeking to protect Horst against a claim of defamation, Rucket subsequently claims that in Pennsylvania “quasi-judicial proceedings . . . include school administrative hearings and statements made that lead to such hearings.” In other words: the St. Joe’s disciplinary tribunal should be viewed as “quasi-judicial,” even though it denies accused students the right to counsel, doesn’t guarantee them the right to cross-examine their accuser, doesn’t follow civil or criminal rules or procedure, and allows hearsay. Rucket argues that Harris has no legal claim to challenge the judgments made by St. Joe’s, no matter how unfair the university’s procedures. “Harris is attempting improperly to relitigate the finding of the [St. Joe’s tribunal] that Harris sexually assaulted Jane Doe, in Federal Court, which is not allowed.” Why? In part, because “there is a presumption of fairness in administrative proceedings which favors administrators.” Moreover, according to Rucket, federal courts should respect an assertion in the St. Joe’s handbook that “subsequent reviewers shall not determine anew whether there was a Community Standards violation.” How convenient as a way to shield any university from challenges to potentially unconstitutional behavior. This line of argument, if upheld by the court, would render beyond judicial review the assault on due process for all college students accused of sexual assault, and Rucket asserts as much. At least with regard to students at private colleges, he claims that as “Harris’ guilt for the sexual assault has therefore been conclusively and finally decided by SJU at the [disciplinary] hearing,” a federal jury “cannot reconsider or alter that decision.” The power this line of interpretation gives to college disciplinary processes is extraordinary: once a private college brands a student a rapist, no matter how unfair the process the college utilizes, the student can never challenge the finding, as long as the college followed whatever unfair procedures it utilizes in sexual assault cases. Absurdly, Rucket claims that the power he gives to the St. Joe’s process to avoid court challenge is equal opportunity: If, he notes, St. Joe’s had found that Horst hadn’t been sexually assaulted, and she had then filed a “lawsuit against Harris and SJU, Harris certainly would be making this exact same argument, that the findings of the [disciplinary tribunal] cannot be relitigated.” First: this claim will certainly come as news to the anti-due process “activists” glowingly profiled in the New York Times and Inside Higher Ed’s Allie Grasgreen, who have urged federal intervention to effectively relitigate a variety of campus decisions they opposed. Second: as Rucket well knows, even if Harris had been cleared by St. Joe’s, Horst still could have filed a criminal complaint with the police. Harris then could have been tried and, if convicted, sued. In any event, the filing notes, even without the specific wording in the St. Joe’s handbook, Harris would have no case. Before choosing to attend St. Joe’s, Harris knew (or should have known) the university’s procedures for handling sexual assaults. Courts, Rucket suggests, can’t now intervene. (Oddly, the only two cases that Rucket cites to bolster his point come from Pennsylvania state courts; he doesn’t explain why these decisions should be treated as precedential in a federal lawsuit.) If Harris didn’t want to subject himself to the anti-due process approach used in his case, he shouldn’t have matriculated at St. Joe’s. But given that the “Dear Colleague” letter applies to virtually every university in the country, under Rucket’s viewpoint, the only realistic choice for a male student who wants to ensure that he has due process if accused of sexual assault would be not to attend college at all. Finally, Rucket challenges Harris’ claim that he lacked an opportunity to cross-examine Horst, but, in any case, deems the matter irrelevant—in part because St. Joe’s doesn’t promise such a right and in part because the “Dear Colleague” letter “strongly” discourages granting such a right. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time perhaps the most objectionable aspect of the “Dear Colleague” letter—its urging schools to set up procedures that deny an accused student the right to confront his accuser—has been cited, positively, in a legal filing. Beyond legal arguments, the filing also provides Horst’s version of the evening in question, in which she alleges that she was assaulted while incapacitated. Rucket’s writings, however, corroborate several points from Harris’ filing, chiefly that: Horst asked Harris to come to her dorm room and spend the night; After the alleged assault (which Harris maintains was consensual intercourse), Horst left her room to go to the bathroom, but then returned to her room voluntarily, where she and Harris then spent the night; Horst did not seek a medical examination after the incident; Horst did not report the incident to police. The filing describes Horst as “obviously intoxicated” on the evening in question. But since she didn’t go to the police or seek a medical exam, there’s no way to verify this claim. Rucket does challenge the version of events presented in Harris’ complaint in one significant way. While he concedes that Horst invited Harris to come to her room for “cuddling” and to spend the night, according to the filing, this invitation had no sexual connotation. Two final notes: (1) This is not the lacrosse case, in which overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence of actual innocence existed. Instead, the Harris case is an excellent demonstration of how due process-unfriendly college procedures—coupled with the newly-mandated preponderance-of-evidence (50.01%) standard—all but ensure that college structures can’t discover the truth in close or even somewhat close cases. And in a campus environment that’s overwhelmingly favorable ideologically to accusers, this is a dangerous thing. (2) In his brief, Rucket asserts that Harris “was found guilty of (1) sexual assault.” [emphasis in original] Technically, colleges and universities can’t find anyone “guilty of sexual assault”: only the criminal justice process can do so. But in the real world, that’s a distinction that’s easily elided, since the stigma of being branded a rapist comes just as easily from a college process as from a jury verdict. That Horst’s own attorney—in a legal filing, no less—conflates the result of the St. Joe’s disciplinary process with that of a criminal trial illustrates why universities, when they consider issues that also qualify as criminal matters, need to provide due process to accused students. And if federal courts are the only mechanism for forcing universities to do so, then so be it. Posted by KC Johnson at 12:01 AM[/s] Edited by abb, Aug 16 2013, 09:33 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Jack Wade | Aug 16 2013, 01:45 PM Post #9 |
|
The proper comparison of the O'Bannon case isn't to tobacco litigation but to baseball's Curt Flood/free agency cases, in the sense of being game-changers to the industry rather than scorched-earth destroyers of it. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
11:40 AM Jul 13