Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A bit about lawsuits

For months readers have been asking concerning the Duke Hoax: Where are the lawsuits?

I’ve said nothing, although I’m very sympathetic with the questioners.

The Duke students, their families and the public have received in many instances extremely foul treatment from authorities and institutions they had every right to expect would treat them fairly, honestly and legally.

Regarding David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann there is already at hand extensive prima facie evidence they are felony crime victims of Durham DA Mike Nifong, certain Durham police officers and others.

So where are the lawsuits?

I’m going to say a few things in response to the question, but first some qualifications of what I’ll say.

I’m not an attorney.

Other than knowing what we are all hearing – that a number of lawsuits are coming - I’m not privy to the plans of anyone who has standing to bring the suits we’ve heard discussed.

What I’m going to say is not meant to be comprehensive.

It’s meant to respect reader questions by offering “at least a few thoughts” about what JinC readers keep asking.

What follows is best thought of as something like a few sketch lines at the start of a drawing.

Now here goes ----

If you’re going to bring a civil suit against someone who’s committed crimes against you, you want to make sure you don’t do anything with a civil suit that would interfere with a criminal prosecution.

Something else: often with civil suits, waiting can have a big payoff.

Suppose, for instance, you believe a police department spokesperson deliberately gave out false information to the public saying you’d committed a crime, and the police spokesperson’s supervisors did nothing to correct what their department spokesperson said and discipline the officer.

You want to bring a libel suit against the officer, his supervisors and the department.

But you have to prove your case, unless before you bring suit the officer and his supervisors admit to what they did or are convicted of doing it.

In that case, aren't you glad you followed your attorney's advice and waited?

You're now in a very different and easier position. You’re task now is primarily to show you were harmed and establish what needs to be done as a result.

Something else and then I’ll be done for today ---

In the case say, of libel suits, courts and juries often look at what you did before you brought suit. Did you inform the respondent you believed you’d been libeled and ask for some type of correction? Was you request persuasive? Did you give the respondent time to respond? And so on ……

Folks, there are a few sketch lines and nothing more.

I hope they helped some of you who very rightly want to see as much justice as possilbe wrung from this terrible series of injustices launched when Crystal Mangum gave her false witness, and many others began conspiring and enabling.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks John.

I'd think the defendants would want to avoid depositions until after any possible criminal case they could face. That's a bit too much discovery from their side.

OT - Nifong's bar hearing is postponed to 2/28 now. Illness of his attorney. Witt.

Anonymous said...

There may be a problem, however, with the NC Statute of Limitations on libel suits. If the AG's agents who took over the case can just stall a little longer, it might neutralize all such suits.

Anonymous said...

I do not know the litigation strategies being employed by counsel for these young men - but waiting for criminal cases to be done, bar proceedings to be done, etc., usually makes sense.

Something everyone must realize, though, is that litigation takes a whole, whole, bunch of time. All the legal activities will not proceed according to the timetables outside observers want. Things won't wrap up in a nice tidy bow. But things will happen, in their own time.

Brand

Anonymous said...

I think you mean slander, not libel.

The statute of limitations in NC for slander is 1 year, so you might see some filings very soon.

Ex-prosecutor said...

A criminal defendant cannot be certain of having a cause of action until favorable resolution of the criminal charges. Pending criminal charges by the state coupled with parallel civil suits create an untenable situation. Typically, criminal defendants will resist giving a deposition and, arguably, lose their rights against self-incrimination by pursuing a civil action while criminal charges still are pending.

Normally, statutes of limitations for false arrest run from the date of dismissal of the criminal charges. A previous responder may be right in saying that the statute on libel charges runs from the utterance, however. In my state, a claim can be preserved by filing a suit and dismissing it on the same day. The lawsuit then is timely if filed within the next year. Whether this is true in NC, I do not know.

Also, as an ex-prosecutor, I can tell you that a pending civil lawsuit makes more difficult the dismissal of the criminal charges. The defendant-to-be in the civil suit, usually the victim, such as a business pursuing theft charges, will want dismissal of the civil charges to coincide with an agreement by the criminal defendant not to file a false arrest, defamation or civil rights suit. While it is extortionate for a prosecutor to agree to dismiss criminal charges in exchange for the criminal defendant's not bringing a civil suit, it happens all the time.

However, this case is different because of the psychological and financial harm resulting to the three defendants. I expect that defense counsel are waiting for dismissal of the criminal charges to bring a civil rights lawsuit in federal courts, which can be coupled with available state claims, such as defamation. While a state lawsuit would draw jurors only from the judicial district in which it is filed, a federal suit will draw from a must larger area, typically a multi-county area.

Any lawyer would salivate about bringing a civil rights claim in this matter. The key will be to stick a defendant with money, here the city of Durham and the Durham police. Mr. Nifong and the police officers involved quickly can be cleaned out.

Although I'm not a bankrupcy lawyer, I think that intentional torts, as the prosecution and police actions could be viewed in this case are not dischargable in bankrupcy, Also, home-owners policies do not cover intentional acts. So the individual civil defendants will be cleaned out by a judgment.