Posted on 05/17/2006 7:09:30 AM PDT by Locomotive Breath
A man stands in the background of the Duke Lacrosse 'rape' case…watching. While the alleged rape of a black woman by three wealthy, white male students remains in criminal court, he is not likely to step forward.
[snip]
Even at this early stage, however, the accuser's mother is "very much interested" in "getting [him] involved."
Nicknamed "the Giant Killer," attorney Willie E. Gary is a litigator renowned for winning huge settlements.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
There was a link on one of the Duke threads to legal opinions about the case solicited by a magazine read primarily by attoreys.
I didn't save the link itself but had this one attorney's opinion because I sent it to some people via e-mail so I was able to retrieve it from my outbox.
Actually that opinion is by a Duke law grad who currently is an attorney in Maryland. As I remember he teaches criminal law some and also has worked as a prosecutor in MD.
Well I only saw the outside.
Her only shot is to get Duke. Even rich college kids typically don't have lots of assets to tap into. She has no action against their family members.
This information being released now is nothing more than an attempt to put fear in the hearts of the students.
p.s. The answer is in the comment.
I'm not a lawyer or an insurance agent but could the accuser tap into the parents' homeowner's insurance,perhaps?
It would have been appropriate, but unless I missed it, this article makes no mention of the OJ civil case, which he lost.
Speedy trial in NC is a joke. There is no certain time period for a speedy trial. This could drag on for a couple of years as far as the criminal cases.
I am not an attorney either, but the players are all adults. They were not living at home. I find it hard to believe their insurance companies would go for that.
It has happened. OJ and Clinton both used insurance money for their legal problems. Both examples were very questionable because the actions involved were deliberate. There is quite a difference between accidentally starting a fire and setting a house on fire. I am not a lawyer but I think both insurance companies did that to avoid bad publicity.
I always keep a $1 million umbrella policy for liability because it is cheap insurance against a lawsuit. If I have low limits, the company can pay off their share and leave me hanging. With a large limit they will use their leagl talent to defend against an action.
I think it's good to review provisions with an agent.
This case is a farce. I don't think it will ruin the boys' lives. I wonder about their taste in entertainment.
I heard the state had a speedy trial law but it got overturned like last year.
I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;)
I think Robert Blake and OJ have been able to protect some of their assets from civil courts. But the problem I see with these kids is they wouldn't be able to protect their future earnings. Just as OJ hasn't been able to, I think.
But could it be that under the law...or under the terms of at least some homeowners policies...a full time college student under the age of "x" is considered to be part of the parents' household?
Although I'm not sure of this,I think OJ used two tricks to stiff the estates of the two people he butchered.
1)He established his legal residence in Florida.I've read that certain Florida laws allow legal residents of the state to sink as much $$$ into the "residence" as they wish and that Florida law fully protects your "residence" from some sorts of lawsuits.Here in MA,we have a similar law but the protection only applies to about the first $600K of the home's value...so if your home is worth more,then a person suing you could go after it.
Also,I've read that there some Federal law that shelters certain kinds of "retirement" funds and accounts from certain kinds of civil suits.I think I've read that OJ had invoked that law to avoid paying what the civil court ordered.
I think you're right - homesteads and pensions are protected from civil suits to some degree. Dave Evans has neither.
If jurors do so, they do so with good reason.
About thirty years ago the pendulum swung waaaay to far to the left --to the man-hating feminist Left, with their insistent chant that "women tell the truth."
No, women don't always tell the truth, and the implication that they do is absurd. (I'm a woman, so I can say that.) But sadly this implication has been incorporated almost as dogma into our legal system when it comes to rape and child custody cases.
My theory, FWIW, about this case is that it is all about vindictiveness -- not over rape, but over racial "slurs."
Both "dancers" were apparently enraged by things said by at least one of the Dukies. Both "dancers" apparently singled out the "little skinny one," Collin Finnerty, for special attention (he's actually not so "little," at 6'3") -- the FA is reported to have "burst into tears" when shown Finnerty's photo in that rigged line-up.
So maybe it was Finnerty who hurled a slur or two. He does seem to have hot head, if you believe reports about that incident in DC where he allegedly punched and yelled a "slur" at a bum who was hassling him.
Of course it should go without saying that uttering slurs, racial or otherwise, is A Bad Thing.
But yelling "rape" falsely is far, far worse. As the lawyer you quote points out, it is not only hideously unjust to the accused, but it hurts women too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.