Nifong Hearing

[Sonny]

Well, this certainly didn't take long.....

Duke University, Three Lacrosse Players Announce Settlement

Monday, June 18, 2007

Durham, NC -- On Monday, Duke University leaders announced they have reached a settlement with David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann. Below are statements about the settlement.

STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE PRESIDENT OF DUKE UNIVERSITY:

This has been an extraordinary year for Duke students David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, who were accused of serious crimes they did not commit. In April, after a thorough review, the North Carolina Attorney General declared that they were innocent of all charges and that the charges never should have been brought. We welcomed their exoneration and deeply regret the difficult year they and their families have had to endure. They conducted themselves with great dignity during their long ordeal.

These young men and their families have been the subject of intense scrutiny that has taken a heavy toll. The Board of Trustees and the President have also determined that it is in the best interests of the Duke community to eliminate the possibility of future litigation and move forward. For these reasons, and after considerable deliberation, the trustees have agreed to a settlement with each student. Beyond this statement, the resolution is a private matter among the students, their families and Duke.

This past year has been hard for many people who care about Duke -– for students, faculty, staff, alumni, families and friends –- and for the three students and their families most of all. We resolve to bring the Duke family together again, and to work to protect others from similar injustices in the criminal justice system in the future.

STATEMENT OF DAVID EVANS, COLLIN FINNERTY AND READE SELIGMANN:

Today, we are pleased to announce that we have reached an agreement with Duke University to resolve any differences between us.

Years ago, each of us made a decision to attend Duke because it is one of the greatest universities in the nation. We chose to represent the University on the athletic field and in the classroom as student athletes. We were honored to be admitted and proud to wear the Duke uniform and to compete against the best lacrosse teams in the nation. Duke is a very special place. It balances top-notch academics and athletics, and it offers unparalleled opportunities to its students. We were drawn to Duke because of its sense of community.

The events of the last year tore the Duke community apart, and forcibly separated us from the University we love. It is impossible to fully describe what we, our families and team endured. As we said from day one, we are innocent. But it took three hundred and ninety-four days, and the intervention of the North Carolina Attorney General, before our innocence was formally declared. We were the victims of a rogue prosecutor concerned only with winning an election, and others determined to railroad three Duke lacrosse players and to diminish the reputation of Duke University. Throughout our ordeal, however, we never forgot the lessons we learned, both on and off the field, about character, integrity, and honor. Those lessons, and the love and support of our wonderful families, friends, lawyers and supporters across the country helped us to prevail against those who refused to seek the truth and to protect all citizens from injustice.

We hope that today’s resolution will begin to bring the Duke family back together again, and we look forward to working with the University to develop and implement initiatives that will prevent similar injustices and ensure that the lessons of the last year are never forgotten.

For more information, contact: John F. Burness | (919) 681-3788 | john.burness@duke.edu

[cjwilhelmi]

So what do you guys think - six or seven figures?

[laxfan25]

Seven figures each, for sure. Much cheaper than what a jury would award.

[StrykerFSU]

Do you guys think that the players tried to recoup their legal costs with this settlement or are they holding out for the civil suit against Nifong? I tend to think that they went after the deeper pockets of the University (Nifong only makes $110,000 a year).

The statements were interesting. Duke didn't have to admit to any inappropriate action or mention the Gang of 88 and the players talk about how great a "community" Duke is. Either they are of even greater character than they appear and are truly willing to forgive or part of the settlement was a public burying of the hatchet. I, for one, would never step foot on the campus after the way those boys were treated by the administration and their fellow students. They were sold down the river by their school and were lucky to escape from wrongful conviction despite the best efforts of what I can only describe as a very, very, very bad man.

Starting to turn blue waiting for an apology from Nancy Grace, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party, Bomani Jones, and any of the other ignorant race baiters who chimed in over the course of this witch hunt. Maybe they don't have to apologize because there was underage drinking at the party...

[Sonny]

So what do you guys think - six or seven figures?

It has to be seven figures minimum.

I think I read the the three players & their families had ~ 5 million in legal fees combined over the last year. The fundraising group has raised ~ 800K.

They are in the hole over 4 million dollars in legal fees alone at the moment.

[Bronson Parker]

There will be no civil suit against Nifong. He has immunity as the DA. As do all DAs. Plus, as mentioned, he only makes $110,000. So, the only options would be the university (already settled), or possibly the county. But they may have the same immunity. It will probably end with the university.

[Sonny]

There will be no civil suit against Nifong. He has immunity as the DA. As do all DAs. Plus, as mentioned, he only makes $110,000. So, the only options would be the university (already settled), or possibly the county. But they may have the same immunity. It will probably end with the university.

That is a subject of much debate.

Under such gross misconduct, he might not be immune from a civil lawsuit. Nor would be the City of Durham and/or the state of North Carolina.

[Bronson Parker]

What would be the point of immunity if it had a clause that said "if you are really really bad, then you get in trouble"? Immunity is immunity. There is no civil procedure that goes around that. And then you throw in how much he makes...

Yes, they may have a case against the county or the state, but that would be a tough battle.

[GrayBear]

and to work to protect others from similar injustices in the criminal justice system in the future.

Starting with, maybe, firing certain kneejerk faculty and staff?

[OAKS]

What would be the point of immunity if it had a clause that said "if you are really really bad, then you get in trouble"? Immunity is immunity. There is no civil procedure that goes around that. And then you throw in how much he makes...

Yes, they may have a case against the county or the state, but that would be a tough battle.

I am not a lawyer, but from reading all the Laxpower threads and such, I think immunity can be waived if he knowingly did things like suppress evidence and such. If he's just really incompetent, there's not much you can do.

[cjwilhelmi]

What would be the point of immunity if it had a clause that said "if you are really really bad, then you get in trouble"? Immunity is immunity. There is no civil procedure that goes around that. And then you throw in how much he makes...

Yes, they may have a case against the county or the state, but that would be a tough battle.

I am not a lawyer, but from reading all the Laxpower threads and such, I think immunity can be waived if he knowingly did things like suppress evidence and such. If he's just really incompetent, there's not much you can do.

I would think that him being disbarred would account for the immunity issue.

[Bronson Parker]

Here you go:

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing a complaint against a state prosecutor alleged to have knowingly used false testimony and suppressed evidence favorable to the defendant. The Supreme Court held that a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his prosecutorial duties was absolutely immune to civil suit for damages even if the allegations were true.

Sounds pretty close to this case.

[OAKS]

Starting to turn blue waiting for an apology from Nancy Grace, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the New Black Panther Party, Bomani Jones, and any of the other ignorant race baiters who chimed in over the course of this witch hunt. Maybe they don't have to apologize because there was underage drinking at the party...

Apparently Nancy Grace apologized a few days ago, saying she got swept up and believed Nifong 100%. There was a blurb about it on the Laxpower forums. Didn't see it though, so I don't know how much of an 'Pro Athlete' apology it was vs something sincere.

[GrayBear]

Apparently Nancy Grace apologized a few days ago, saying she got swept up

Note the passive tone ---> uncontrollable forces acted upon her. Upshot: It's not really her fault.

[GrizLens]

Here you go:

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissing a complaint against a state prosecutor alleged to have knowingly used false testimony and suppressed evidence favorable to the defendant. The Supreme Court held that a state prosecutor acting within the scope of his prosecutorial duties was absolutely immune to civil suit for damages even if the allegations were true.

Sounds pretty close to this case.

Would it be worth debating that Nifong was acting outside the scope of his duties by pursuing the case for personal/political gain? Just curious.