Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by iwannaperfectseason, Jan 8, 2014.
She may affiliate with counsel that is more experienced in these types of cases.
I have no doubts that money is the big issue in the reason this person is pursuing this case. I am no fan of FSU and Winston, but honestly, I doubt that this is a true rape case. Now, did the TPD investigate the mater or did the SAO do their best to see that justice was served? Probably not. It would have certainly benefited the plaintiff to have had a grand jury indict and then Winston convicted of some offense, but just as in the OJ case, the civil court case will move on, and a monetary award or settlement could very likely happen. As I do believe this situation is all about the $$'s, it probably benefits this claimant not to have Winston in jail, since she would be much better served to have a very collectible Winston pocketing a huge signing bonus, than him sitting in some prison somewhere penniless.
I would imagine that the only thing she could effectively charge FSU with would be somehow covering it up. I find it hard to imagine they could get much from the school for negligence. I would suspect there's little point in suing the school.
And while they might uncover wrong doing by the TPD, they might get people in the department suspended and maybe even show enough cause that they reopen the criminal case, but I highly doubt they'll be able to get damages.
As far as a case against Winston, I may be wrong on this, but I find it kind of difficult to believe they'll get a judgement on a crime they didn't even have enough proof to get to trial. Granted, in a civil case, they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, but they'd better have something more than what we've seen or they're going to have a hard time getting a judgement against a local "celebrity" like Winston is now, especially if they can get a jury trial. And even if she gets a judgement, since at this point, I doubt he has much, they would also need to get sympathetic judge or jury who would award her damages based on his future wages.
I wouldn't get your hopes to high on this going very far.
A nice settlement would be what they are hoping for. When Winston gets his $$'s, and they should be substantial, he won't want to go through a trial. He''ll cough up some $$'s to get this distraction behind him.
You mean as shocked when meggs came out the week before the heisman vote and said there wasn't enough evidence to charge jameis...color me unshocked and expectant.
If there was nothing to see, why did they hide it in the first place? the cover up is always worse than the lie.
So she will speak to the court, and JW will speak to the court...
Care to wager when actual English words are spoken, which one might embarrass themselves?
JW may have a shot at confusing the heck out of everyone after he takes the stand and walk out the winner...
Over/Under on double negatives used while on the stand: 25
This thing could go on for awhile in the media. A song that seems to characterize this shameful situation is the following:
May be symantics BUT Meggs said he felt that HE couldnt win the case ! A lot of people think this exonerates Famous but there is evidence that something did occur and again the civil case is a different animal than the criminal case . In other words they still have a better chance to win this suit in a civil case than criminal . I hope they win and stuff it up Meggs laughing and demeaning ASS !!
I still think FSU will come out of this unscathed.
Exactly. The university had 60 days from December 7, 2012 (when they learned of the rape) to investigate it and reach a conclusion per federal laws. I have seen no evidence that this probe was conducted and a decision reached by Feb. 7, 2013. All the while, FSU was still on NCAA probation at that time.
"Lately, though, the legal ramifications of such cases are spilling off campus, with schools caught in the middle. Colleges that do too little about sexual assault could lose federal funds. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is currently investigating a dozen colleges and universities over their response to sexual violence (documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show schools that have recently agreed to take steps to resolve OCR complaints over Title IX policies include universities such as Notre Dame, Northwestern and George Washington).
Meanwhile, judgments in Title IX lawsuits against colleges, usually brought by accusers, are soaring. Compounding the fear: In some such cases, college administrators may be found personally liable."
Megss used an incorrect standard in deciding not to pursue the case. By the 2 customary standards listed below, Meggs should have brought the case to trial. Of course, that would violate his allegiance to his alma mater.
“We have a duty as prosecutors to determine if each case has a reasonable likelihood of conviction,” said Meggs, who added that the evidence was carefully examined. “After reviewing the facts in this case, we do not feel that we can reach those burdens.”
I’ve been able to review the released details of the case. It appears from witness statements and other circumstances that Meggs had a difficult (although not impossible) case to prove had he chosen to charge Winston with a sex crime. My issue isn’t with Meggs’ decision not to prosecute; it’s with the standard he articulated before the press as to why he did not do so. That standard, at least according to everything I know that guides prosecutorial decisions, is incorrect.
I know of two nationally accepted sources for charging standards for prosecutors. The first is from the American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Standards, Prosecution Function. The ABA directs prosecutors to charge only cases with “admissible evidence to support a conviction.” The second is from the National District Attorneys Association National Prosecution Standards, which states that prosecutors should only bring charges when the prosecutor believes the charges “can be substantiated by admissible evidence” at trial.
Note the key phrases: The existence of admissible evidence that would support a conviction. The ability to substantiate charges with admissible evidence at trial. Neither “support” nor “substantiate” connote anything about a likelihood of the defendant being convicted."
^^^ Totally agree with your assessment, and have disagreed with Meggs' reasons for the home cooking since announced.
A prosecutor is supposed "to do justice" and not concern himself about winning or losing, which is exactly the political consideration Meggs announced when he spoke of the "likelihood" of a conviction.
Yes, and the 4th estate dropped the ball by not calling Slick Willie out on his own non-legal standard.
He didn't want to win...if so his alma mater loses.
Can you sue someone for a criminal charge?
A battery is also a civil tort, in addition to possibly being a criminal charge.