Skip to comments.Historian must answer questions about lacrosse case (DukeLax)
Posted on 10/16/2012 4:01:49 AM PDT by abb
DURHAM A historian whos written about the Duke lacrosse case must answer questions from Duke University lawyers defending the school from lawsuits filed by two groups of former lacrosse players, a federal court in Maine says.
U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III said Brooklyn College professor K.C. Johnson has to give Dukes legal team a deposition and turn over documents about his dealings with the players.
Johnson invoked a form of journalists confidentiality privilege as he fought Dukes subpoena. Rich acknowledged that such claims can be valid, depending on how the interests in each case balance out.
In this case, Duke wants to know what players told Johnson, the co-author of a book, Until Proven Innocent, that was sympathetic to their point of view.
People who bring suit must expect that their prior statements that are relevant to their claims cannot be hidden from those whom they are suing, Rich said, holding that what the players told Johnson is fair game for Dukes inquiry.
He added that Duke had already agreed to focus its questions on the events that happened between March 13, 2006, and March 28, 2006.
That covers the early stages of the police investigation that began in 2006 after stripper Crystal Mangum falsely accused members of Dukes 2005-06 mens lacrosse team of raping her at a team party.
It also covers a string of discussions or meetings between team leaders and a trio of key Duke administrators: school President Richard Brodhead, Executive Vice President Tallman Trask and Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek.
The players separate groups of 38 and three, represented by different teams of lawyers are suing Duke for fraud.
Their lawsuits say campus leaders relayed to police information the players told them in confidence. They also allege that Duke tried to cover up the fact that, without waiting for a subpoena, it had given detectives data about the players whereabouts on the night of the party.
Richs ruling was the second on an evidence-gathering dispute to go Dukes way in as many weeks.
Another federal magistrate judge, in Washington, D.C., previously halted Durham lawyer Bob Ekstrands attempt to subpoena information from lawyers representing the group of 38 former players.
Ekstrand is representing the other three players who are suing Duke. The lawsuits are proceeding on separate tracks with separate evidence gathering. Lawyers for the 38 made a deal with Duke in January to keep what they learn confidential, save for what they have to include in future court filings.
Dukes lawyers want to question Johnson because he was in close communication with the players and Ekstrand from early on. His book included detail about what allegedly was said between the players and Brodhead, Trask and Wasiolek.
Rich noted that Dukes original subpoena of Johnson hadnt asked for any information the historian might have received from the players parents. Though subsequent filings from the school have voiced curiosity about those exchanges, Rich said point-blank that theyre not covered by his order.
He also cautioned Dukes lawyers to focus their inquiry on the fraud claims.
The dispute over Johnsons subpoena played out in a Maine courtroom because he lives in that state.
The clown judge has already ruled that Duke has no contractual obligation toward students in that regard.
(Condor, give us some guidance on what exactly Beaty ruled, please.)
This sounds like the specious thinking that goes on constantly at LS. Defending the players is one thing, being practically stupid is another. While I disagree with the action of the faculty, since when do we or can we be allowed to sue because we disagree with someone’s opinion or point of view. Unfortunately the Liestoppers board has been infected with a serious case of group think and those who disagree are demeaned and excoriated for having a different point of view. That is the reason so few people bother to post there any more on any subject. The heavy hands of Baldo, the Empress Foster and the CIA agent wannabe Mason/Lodge Pro control the conversation. It’s sad but unfortunately while seeking truth, they manage to create only a one way street to it.
Faculty have academic freedom to speak in their area of authority in the classroom. They do not have the right to publicly slander or defame the reputations of innocent people, especially students with whose care you are entrusted. These faculty wouldn’t last a minute in a trial.
This case is not about academic freedom. Does being on the faculty prohibit free speech? Perhaps one should ask why so few Duke faculty spoke out in defense of the players until the facts were known. Outside of the non testimonial order, I don’t see the plaintiffs here getting much out of this lawsuit particularly issues related to the 88 faculty members.
No one has the right to defame or slander another person but it is the result of that defamation that must be proven here. Can you tell me how any of the players other than the three accused were hurt or suffered loss of some kind other than whatever fees paid to lawyers.
Absolutely: they all have to walk around with the stigma (especially in this PC society) of being “rapists.” And, yes, lawyers fees are tangible and should be taken out of faculty pay, NOT the donors’.
I watch “Investigation Discovery” on TV on a regular basis. The story of Crystal Magnum’s on right now!
They repeat these programs regularly all day long...all night. They’re 20 minutes into the program so far and it’s all “poor me.”
The Investigation Discovery (ID) program about Crystal Magnum is:
Wives With Knives (New)
ID: Friday, December 14 10:00 PM
Stripped to the Bone
After a string of bad relationships a woman stabs her lover during a fight and ends up in jail.
So far, she is making it seem as if it’s everyone else’s fault that she has made bad decisions all her life...she’s never to blame. She’s interviewed throughout the hour.