When I refer to "the defendants" seeking federal civil rights damages, I am referring to the lacrosse case defendants.
The body of 1983 cases is so vast, one can find winners on slim circumstantial evidence and losers on what one would think is very strong evidence. This, like many areas of law, is not one where IMO one should purport to predict outcomes with absolute certainty, but is better stated in terms of odds.
My take on their odds of success based on what has been publicly revealed about the case so far, taking ALL factors (legal and practical) into account, is about 1:4. I take it you would put them at better than 1:1.
That is we don't have polls
"When I refer to 'the defendants' seeking federal civil rights damages, I am referring to the lacrosse case defendants."
Thanks for pointing out that misunderstanding on my part.
"The body of 1983 cases is so vast, one can find winners on slim circumstantial evidence and losers on what one would think is very strong evidence. This, like many areas of law, is not one where IMO one should purport to predict outcomes with absolute certainty, but is better stated in terms of odds."
Agreed -- you never know what a jury will do. And although I disagree with any suggestion that the circumstantial evidence of intent in this case is "slim," the task of trying to predict outcomes with absolute certainty in such cases is best left to talking heads who simply don't care if and when they are proven wrong.
"My take on their odds of success based on what has been publicly revealed about the case so far, taking ALL factors (legal and practical) into account, is about 1:4. I take it you would put them at better than 1:1."
Actually, I'd put them at perhaps 50-50 IF the disciplinary proceedings actually produce a finding of professional misconduct, either by admission (via settlement) or otherwise. (But even 1:4 is a reasonable guess, too.) I also think the odds are much better that any section 1983 suit would survive a motion to dismiss.