Sports In the Courts Blog : New York Attorneys & Lawyers Specializing in Sports Law & Legal Analysis

Eric Shelton, a former NFL player, filed a lawsuit on Monday in Maryland federal court against the NFL Player Retirement Plan (the "Plan"). Shelton alleges that on July 26, 2008, he suffered a career ending injury as a result of a helmet to helmet collision in a preseason game. He claims that the Plan, while acknowledging that he was totally and permanently disabled, denied him full benefits because his disabilities allegedly did not "arise" within twelve (12) months from the date of the injury. Thus, instead of receiving $220,000 per year, Shelton received $110,000. According to Shelton's Complaint, the Plan is relying upon the fact that Shelton briefly worked at Walgreen's in support of the its assertion that he was not totally and permanently disabled after the injury. Shelton, on the other hand, claims he attempted to, but could not work, and therefore this is proof that he was in fact totally and permanently disabled within twelve (12) months after the injury.

The Complaint, brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act, appears to have merit despite the absence of a complete factual record at this stage. There is no question that the Redskins' doctors determined that Shelton was seriously injured as a result of the July 26, 2008 collision, and should never play football again. On the other hand, Shelton's attorney, while disputing the Plan's claim that Shelton worked at Walgreen's for any significant period of time, does not disclose the actual duration of Shelton's post-injury employment. This will be an interesting case to follow, as it will be perceived that the Plan is punishing players for attempting to return their lives to some measure of pre-accident status.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Saturday, Auburn QB Cam Newton will lead his Tigers against South Carolina in the SEC title game. However, during this week, the action involving Cam Newton occurred off the field of play.

According to reports, the Mississippi Secretary of State’s office continued its investigation on whether Newton or his father, Cecil, solicited illegal funds for Cam to attend Mississippi State. The Mississippi prosecutors interviewed a former player, Kenny Rogers who may have information about an alleged scheme to funnel $180,000 to the Newton’s for Cam’s services. In fact, there may have even been a bit of a “payment plan” where $80,000 would be paid upon Cam’s signing and then a $50,000 payment in 30 days and a final $50,000 in the following 30 days.

For their part, it should be noted that Cam and Cecil Newton have denied any wrongdoing and denied these pay-for-play allegations. By most accounts, Cam Newton is considered to be a front-runner for the Heisman Trophy. However, if these allegations prove true, the folks at the Downtown Athletic Club better not etch Cam’s name on the trophy.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just a couple of days after what turned out to be a key interception in the Saints' 30-27 win over the Cowboys, Defensive End Will Smith was arrested after allegedly grabbing his wife's hair and pulling her down the street after leaving a Lafayette, Louisiana nightclub. Although Racquel Smith's injuries were reportedly minor, Smith was charged with domestic abuse and simple battery. Under Louisiana's criminal laws, Smith faces a minimum of ten days in jail, although he is eligible to have any sentence suspended, as long as he complies with the conditions of probation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Apparently, the Texas Tech college football program is trying to make sure no lawyer goes without work.

Former Texas Tech Coach, Mike Leach is suing the college for wrongful termination of his coaching contract and for backpay. This case is in the discovery phase, But Leach wasn't done, he has now sued ESPN for spreading defamatory statements about how Leach handled the concussion of wide receiver Adam Jones, son of ESPN analyst Craig James.

The James' family allegations surround Leach's decision to lock their son in an electrical closet after he refused to practice with a concussion. Leach claims that these allegations were repeated on ESPN. Adam Jones says he was humiliated and demeaned this conduct.

Well, so far, the proof has been a little underwhelming. It appears (according to Leach) that Adam Jones had been a disciplinary problem. Leach was upset with Jones for showing up late at practice wearing a hat and sunglasses when he was injured. In addition, Adam Jones may have destroyed a door in the team's office (causing a $1000 in damages) after he was demoted to the third team. Most importantly, Adam Jones testified that Leach's actions never placed him in medical harm.

For his part, Adam couldn't say whether he is "locked" in an electrical closet or if the door even had a lock. Leach claims that he intended for Adam to be in the team's media room (the size of a one car garage) and that Adam needed to be in a dark place due to light sensitivity.

And then there's Texas Tech, certain emails have surfaced that suggest that the school may have been looking for an excuse to terminate Leach's contract if their contract negotiations did not improve. The school might have first wanted to fine Leach but then used the Jones' allegations to fire him.

All of this brings me to my brilliant legal conclusion: settle. These lawsuits will only be a vehicle to tear each other down. Leach needs a new job and Tech needs to move on. Craig James is major media personality who does not need to be mired in lawsuits and it doesn't look his son is going all-pro any time soon. Tech should give Leach a modest buy-out, paid over time and Leach should take it. Leach and the Jones family should exchange mutual apologies and get back to the big business of college football.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Now that the trial has concluded, we know what the main issues were - whether Leyritz ran a red light or otherwise contributed to the death of the victim, Ms. Veitch, and whether he was operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Attorneys know that jurors do not always follow the instructions of law given to them by the Judge, and consequently, we are always intrigued by what jurors think of the witnesses and evidence presented and how jurors make their decisions – this is the most important consideration when preparing our cases for trial.

It was interesting to read what some of the jurors had to say after the trial It now appears that the jurors were never deadlocked on the DUI manslaughter charge; rather, they could not agree on whether Leyritz was driving under the influence. As reported by CNN, Jury foreman Brian Haul stated that, while all six jurors agreed Leyritz was not guilty of DUI manslaughter, they felt compelled to hold him responsible on some grounds. "Are we going to go in front the public and say it's OK to have four or five drinks within an hour or so period of time and then hit the road? I think that was the deciding factor."

Not that we disagree with Haul’s reasoning, but if the jurors believed the evidence that Leyritz’s blood alcohol content was .08 or higher, they had no choice but to convict Leyritz in accordance with the jury instruction. If they did not believe that the blood test was accurate, the jurors would have to acquit Leyritz of the DUI charge. Although evidence that Leyritz’s “normal faculties were impaired” is enough for a conviction under the statute, the Judge found as a matter of law that there was insufficient evidence of impairment, and dismissed that part of the case.

Another juror wanted to acquit Leyritz of the lesser DUI charge, but changed her mind to avoid a hung jury (even though the jurors could have acquitted Leyritz of DUI manslaughter regardless of the deadlock on the DUI charge). Again, we have a juror that voted to convict Leyritz, even though she felt there was not enough evidence to do so.

In the end, Leyritz dodges a bullet, and faces minimal penalties, compared to what he was facing with the DUI manslaughter charge. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After Notre Dame visited the new Yankee Stadium this weekend, it has found itself in the midst of another possible dark time for the school and football program.  According to sources, one of Notre Dame's football players was involved in an alleged sexual assault this past fall.  Elizabeth Seeberg, a St. Mary's freshman student reportedly told Notre Dame University police that a Notre Dame football player had sexually assaulted her in a campus dorm.  Just weeks later, Seeberg committed suicide by overdosing on prescription pills.  

Notre Dame head coach Brian Kelly was questioned about the accusations this week, but Kelly placed it back on Notre Dame University to deal with the matter.  Kelly referred to it as "a university matter".  With the death of Declan Sullivan looming in the minds of the media, this is just another nightmare in the short tenure Kelly has taken on since he took over in December.  

ESPN has reported the family of Seeberg is working with Zachary Fardon (a former federal prosecutor) to investigate the incident.  This is just another black eye on Notre Dame's storied program.  Will an email be released on this matter as well where Notre Dame admits it "failed to protect" or was partially responsible for not taking action or properly investigating the matter?  It seems like Notre Dame actually is protecting its student at this point, as the football player involved in the incident remains unnamed and on the team.  With the investigation building momentum, stay tuned to see if Kelly or the University decide it is in the best interest to make a move to suspend the athlete. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The LPGA is reconsidering a rule requiring that all participants be born female, apparently in response to a lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California by a transgender golfer. Lana Lawless, 57, underwent gender reassignment surgery in 2005 and has now sued the LPGA for refusing her membership.

The Complaint alleges that Ms. Lawless “has felt like a female since birth and has had gender reassignment surgery to harmonize her anatomy with her feelings.” She claims that the LPGA’s policy violates California’s “Unruh Civil Rights Act,” and also pleads unfair competition and interference with her economic prospects. Ms. Lawless has also sued a long driving competition that changed its rule to comport with that of the LPGA, after Ms. Lawless won a long drive competition. Some tournament sponsors are also named, including CVS and Dick’s Sporting Goods.

The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects individuals against – among other things – gender and sexual orientation-based discrimination in all business establishments. Lawless’s argument is that California already recognizes her as a woman, and therefore she is entitled to membership in the LPGA.

Michelle Wie’s average driving distance notwithstanding, the holes in LPGA tournaments are played shorter than the PGA, and it would obviously be unfair if men were permitted to complete in the LPGA. Lawless, however, claims that she is taking drugs to retard the production of testosterone, and consequently, she has lost muscle mass. The problem is, if transgender females are permitted to play, it will have to be across the board, regardless of body type.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Everyone knows that the Holy Grail of sports betting is the NFL right? Well, the NFL may have a worthy rival in a sport you might not expect -- the lofty game of Tennis.

In a recent lawsuit, the plaintiff, a man named Jim Agate claims that he placed bets on tennis for the defendant, Ted Forstmann. According to Agate, he was a "go between" for Forstmann by placing his bets. Agate also alleges that Forstmann broke certain "business promises" to Agate.

For tennis, this lawsuit is a huge mess. The problem is that Forstmann is the CEO of the mega-sports agency, IMG. The Tennis Integrity Unit (no, I'm not kidding) chastised Forstmann for betting $40,000 that Roger Federer would beat Rafael Nadal in the 2007 French Open. It was a good bet, but did I mention that IMG represents BOTH Nadal and Federer? This type of gambling by an insider can call into question the legitimacy of a match even if the players where unaware (as appears to be the case here).

While Tennis instituted rules against this type conduct in 2009, the issue still remain as Forstmann used a third-party to place his bets. Since the days of the "Blacksox" baseball has had a "death penalty" for betting on its sport, seems like Tennis needs someone to act as an executioner. Maybe the TIU should get some teeth to protect its sport.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jim Leyritz was acquitted of DUI manslaughter today. On Friday, the six jurors had deliberated for approximately six hours, and advised the Judge that they were deadlocked and could not reach a decision. The Judge ordered the jurors back to court today, and asked that they discuss the case amongst each other and attempt to reach a decision. In order to convict Leyritz, all jurors must agree that he is guilty.

Had the jury not acquitted Leyritz today, the Judge may have declared a mistrial, and the prosecution would have re-tried Leyritz. However, the jury did find Leyritz guilty of driving under the influence. Leyritz will be sentenced at a later date, and although he faces a maximum of six months in prison, he is not likely to receive any time in prison. Florida penalties typically include a license suspension, probation, and a drug abuse/alcohol treatment program.

This is a huge break for Leyritz. His attorney did a good job of creating doubt in the jurors' minds as to whether Leyritz ran a red light. Although there was testimony that Leyritz was looking down as he approached the intersection - enough to convict him for contributing to the victim's death - most of the jurors probably felt it somewhat unfair to convict Leyritz, when the victim herself was driving under the influence and also may have contributed to the accident. These jurors were able to convince the juror(s) who wanted to convict Leyritz on Friday.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a lot of speculation that the University of Notre Dame will move quickly to settle a potential wrongful death lawsuit involving the tragic death of student Declan Sullivan. As of now, there has been no report of a settlement of this incident.

One reason maybe that OSHA, the investigating agency, has not released its findings into the cause of Sullivan’s accident. If OSHA is critical of Notre Dame’s football program for allegedly pushing Sullivan to work on a dangerous lift, the case could be worth a considerable sum.

Well, how much then? Some commentators have postulated that the wrongful death could be worth around $30 million. While valuing a particular case is not a perfect science (but a very important aspect of the legal practice), it is important to consider that Indiana law will allow a jury to assess Declan’s “conscious pain and suffering” before his death. Technically this means, the conscious pain and suffering a person sustained after the accident but before his death. This could be a very short period (i.e. seconds) of time in accidents like a collapse of a scissor lift.

But, juries often (whether knowingly or not) will factor in the “fear of death” that can occur before the accident happens into the equation. We know that Declan tweeted about how dangerous it was to be on the lift that tragic day and had a true “fear” of his impending death (which unfortunately occurred). Given this fact, Notre Dame cannot allow a jury to put a price tag on the fear of death of a 20 year old student. A jury verdict could be devastating on the issue alone, and I am not including lost wages and the pain and suffering of his family. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In his opening statement, Leyritz's attorney told the jury that he would call a toxicology expert to testify that the blood test taken after the accident was not reliable, since – according to the defense -- the concussion Leyritz sustained in the accident could have affected the body's ability to process alcohol. The defense also promised to show that the victim, Ms. Veitch, was speeding, ran a red light, and may not have had her headlights turned on. The prosecution's accident reconstructionist already testified that Leyritz was not speeding at the time of the accident and concluded that Ms. Veitch's vehicle was traveling between 33 and 40 MPH (the speed limit is 35 MPH). Leyritz's expert, however, Kenneth Bynum, has Ms. Veitch traveling up to 51 MPH, leaving it for the jury to determine which expert is more credible.

The prosecution's reconstructionist further testified that his investigation did not turn up evidence of "hot shock," a term used to describe whether a car’s bulb, such as a headlight, was lit at the time of collision. Having dealt with this issue in some of my cases, I can tell you that the absence of hot shock alone is not enough to conclude that a light was not turned on and functioning properly. Although incandescent bulbs contain filaments which illuminate when they become energized – creating the hot shock phenomenon mentioned above -- most headlights use halogen bulbs that contain stronger filaments that require a greater force to distort. Thus, the absence of hot shock does not necessarily mean that Ms. Veitch's headlights were not activated at the time of the accident. Furthermore, if the bulb was located more than a few feet from the area of impact it is also unlikely to show evidence of hot shock.

And what of Leyritz’s blood alcohol level? Defense witness Dr. Mazyar Rouhani testified that he prescribed Leyritz medication to treat a concussion two days after the accident during which, Leyritz claimed, his head struck his car’s windsheild. Leyritz’s toxicology expert is expected to testify that a concussion causes the stomach to stop emptying into the intestines which would keep the alcohol with the heavy meal Leyritz had eaten earlier, rather than entering his system.

The defense is trying to create reasonable doubt, both as to whether Leyritz was intoxicated, and whether he caused or contributed to the collision. The defense must succeed on one of the two.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

To the surprise of no one, Auburn started its star QB, Cam Newton, in its crucial game against arch-rival Georgia. However, concerning the mounting allegations that Newton’s father may have sought a pay-off for his son’s football services, Auburn is officially saying “no comment.”

Well, that’s just not good enough. We now know that Mississippi State is confirming that school was approached to “provide an extra benefit” to obtain Newton. The rumors are the “perk” was between $100,000 to $180,000. So why then did Newton suddenly change his mind to reject Mississippi State and go to Auburn?

No reason? Cam just likes Tigers?

By putting Newton on the field, Auburn is telling us that the school is “innocent” of any wrongdoing (and that means everyone at Auburn). If it turns out that Auburn has lied to the nation and did pay a “perk” to Newton, the school should be made to suffer the maximum penalties by the SEC and the NCAA.

That’s what happens to liars in court when they are caught. In this case, the court of public opinion and the true scholar-athletes (no need to smirk) on the field deserve the truth. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It is being reported that Lawrence Taylor is attempting to cut child support for his daughter, who is afflicated with an intestinal disease that has no cure. Ebony Washington, mother of Erielle, Taylor's 12-year old daughter, filed a motion in Bergen County Superior Court in New Jersey to increase the $1,825 monthly child support payment. In response, Taylor filed a cross motion to reduce the child support payment by $500. Without reviewing the motion itself, we do not know the circumstances, but generally child support orders may be modified based upon "changed circumstances."

Taylor did not help himself by failing to appear in Court yesterday. It was reported that Taylor had his doctor send a last-minute email to the Court claiming that Taylor had a medical condition that prevented him from flying. This did not make Judge Melchionne happy, and he threatened issuing a bench warrant, even though Taylor's attorney did appear. Judge Melchionne nevertheless set a February trial date.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Let's face it, we have seen this show before (many times before). Once again, there a serious allegations that a major college star, Auburn QB, Cam Newton was brokered by his father to play football at the institution of higher learning. Once again, the NCAA is surprised and embarrassed.

This week the FBI met with former Mississippi State player John Bond. Bond apparently had information on a plan to broker a sale of Cam Newton Heisman worth talent, by his father Cecil Newton to Mississippi State. If the allegations are true, Auburn got the the player because they were the high bidder (kind of like the Yankees).

Now, we know Cam has had his share of problems, including theft of a laptop and cheating while playing at Florida. These incidents caused Cam's departure from Florida and his return to the open market.

Yet, instead of getting to the bottom of these serious allegations, it isnt' clear that the NCAA is really doing anything. Where are the the lie detectors? Where is a real investigation? The NCAA isn't a court of law, so it can take actions to enforce its rules.

Right on cue, instead of expressing concern about this brewing scandal, Auburn Head Coach Gen Chizik stated that he was "wasting his time" addressing these allegations and that Cam Newton is a "great human being that comes from a great family."

Well, the FBI is investigation whether a member of Cam's family sold him on the open market and probably failed to pay taxes on any found "income." If these allegation are true, the toothless NCAA should make sure that Chizik is gone from college sports forever.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Former New York Giant, New York Jet, and New England Patriot has been sentenced to 30 years in prison in South Carolina.  Meggett, a former Pro Bowl return man and Super Bowl winner has a has been found guilty of 1st degree criminal sexual misconduct and 1st degree burglary in South Carolina. 

Meggett is being accused of raping a college student in 2009.  Meggett has admitted to having sex with the woman, and has said it was a repayment agreement for a debt.  According to the prosecution, Meggett choked the victim and used physical violence to force the sexual act.  Meggett's attorney, Beattie Butler, told the jury, "Rapists don't ask for condoms, and they don't ask for forgiveness,'.  After nearly 5 hours of deliberation, jurors reached the verdicts and Meggett received his sentence.

Meggett has a troubled past with previous similar incidents in 1990, 1998, 2006, and 2008.  

• In 1990, Meggett was found not guilty of soliciting sex from an undercover police officer.  
• In 1998, Meggett was arrested for allegedly assaulting an escort worker in Toronto.  Those charges were dropped.  
• In 2006, Meggett was formally charged with Second Degree Rape of his girlfriend.  Meggett was convicted of sexual battery and given 2 years of probation in the case.  
• In 2008, Meggett was charged with third degree criminal sexual conduct of a 17 year old woman who also accused Meggett of rape.  

Meggett's criminal past is extensive, but not as prominent as other troubled New York Giants.  It is unfortunate to see a fan favorite go down like this, but it seems ability to elude the law just like he eluded defenders has caught up to him.  Meggett will attempt to appeal the case, but unless the decision is overturned, it is likely that Meggett will spend the remainder of his life behind bars.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NY Mets’ closer, Francisco Rodriguez, appeared in a Queens County courthouse today to continue to defend misdemeanor charges of third-degree assault of his girl-friend’s father and criminal contempt for contacting his estranged girl-friend in violation of a court order of protection.

As we have previously posted, the vast majority of misdemeanor criminal cases are disposed of by a plea deal. In fact, K-Rod’s lawyer told the media after court today: “This is not going to trial.”

He may be right.

The judge adjourned the case until December 3, 2010 for K-Rod’s next court appearance. Given the extremely busy misdemeanor criminal case backlog, this type of adjournment is known as a “short date.” In my experience as a former NYC prosecutor, when a case is put over for a “short date” it can mean that a plea deal is close.

Let’s face it; there is no way K-Rod can go to spring training with these criminal charges over his head. That situation will not endear him to a new GM, Sandy Alderson, and new Manager of the Mets. K-Rod needs to close his criminal case fiasco now to save his career in New York.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I previously wrote that it was surprising that the Prosecutor did not impeach the testimony of Jim Leyritz’s passenger, Paul Barger, who stated that Leyritz did not drive through a red light, since Barger had previously told police that Leyritz did run a red light.

Apparently realizing her mistake, the Prosecutor recalled Barger yesterday to confront him with his statement -- given on January 23, 2008 -- in which he never mentioned a yellow light. Although I have not read a transcript of Barger’s testimony, news reporters attending the trial have stated that Barger somewhat recanted on his trial testimony and now claims that the light was yellow when Leyritz entered the intersection and turned red while Leyritz was driving through the intersection. Barger’s modification of his prior testimony would seem to weaken his credibility. The Prosecutor should have immediately reminded Barger of his previous statement and asked him if his memory was better in January of 2008 when he first testified.

Judge Gold also precluded the Prosecutor from introducing evidence concerning a second blood test which was taken an hour after the first. Florida law permits one blood test of a suspect in a fatal motor vehicle accident even if the suspect (Leyritz) does not consent. The second test, however, was illegal, and the jury will not know about it. Nevertheless, the first blood test showed Leyritz’s blood alcohol content to be .14, well over the State’s limit of .08. This is not a setback for the prosecution as is being reported by many in the media.

The defense appears to be doing a decent job of casting doubt on the Prosecutor’s opening statement in which she claims that the State would prove that Leyritz ran a red light. However, the jury may determine that Leyritz could have avoided the accident. Barger’s testimony that Leyritz was looking down, and not at the road when the light turned yellow, is evidence that Leyritz was not making reasonable observations of his surroundings as the operator of a motor vehicle, which would be enough for a conviction. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Suffice to the say; it would be impossible to give the New York Mets another black eye because considering the fiasco of the last few years, poor Mr. Met’s eyes are pretty sore.

But the suspension and criminal investigation of the Mets’ longtime (27 years) clubhouse manager is extremely disturbing. The allegations surrounding Samuels involve suspected sports betting (including on baseball) through the mob and alleged embezzlement of funds from the team. It has also come to light that former Met (and now Texas Ranger) Jeff Francoeur gave Samuels a “tip” for $50,000 as he left the team.

Now, apparently it is common place for players to have their club-house manager do innocent favors for them, like personal errands and arranging for family to have tickets to certain games. But Francoeur gave Samuels fifty grand, not a couple hundred or even a thousand bucks. The Queens (NYC) District Attorney’s office needs to spend some time getting to the bottom of Francoeur’s generosity. Was Francoeur giving a “gratuity “or was this a payoff for gambling (debt or win)? If this “tip” was related to gambling, what sport did it relate to?

The next question the Queens DA must investigate is whether Samuels was a conduit for other players to gamble on sports (whether or not on the Mets).

I sincerely hope Samuels only placed bets for himself but the “former prosecutor in me” is senses deep trouble. We will be following this story.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ernest Lorch, founder of the Riverside Church basketball program in Harlem (which has produced several NBA stars), was arrested last week after failing to appear for an arraignment in a Massachusetts Court. Lorch, now 77, resides in a convalescent home in Westchester County, New York, and is reportedly in poor health. However, he now faces extradition to Massachusetts, due to allegations that he sexually assaulted a minor in approximately 1977-78.

During that time period, Lorch's Riverside Hawks team participated in a tournament in Massachusetts, where he allegedly sexually abused his seventeen year old victim. The indictment claims that Lorch also attempted to rape the victim, and charges him with indecent assault and battery of a person over 14 years of age, and attempted rape.

In Massachusetts, assault with the intent to commit rape carries a prison sentence of no more than twenty years. The statute of limitations on this crime is fifteen years. However, “any period during which the defendant is not usually and publicly a resident within the commonwealth shall be excluded in determining the time limited.” Thus, since Lorch left Massachusetts after the tournament, the clock was not ticking, so to speak.

Indecent assault and battery on a person over fourteen years of age, carries a prison sentence of no more than 5 years. Lorch also could have been charged with reckless endangerment of child. However, this is difficult to prove; since the act is alleged to have occurred more than 27 years ago, Massachusetts law requires independent evidence corroborating the victim’s allegations.

The victim, now approximately 50 years old, has never come forward with this occurrence, until recently.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Notre Dame President, the Rev. John Jenkins, sent a campus-wide email yesterday that stated the school “failed to protect” its student Declan Sullivan. Sullivan was a student videographer who was ordered onto a 50 foot scissor lift to film football practice during a massive wind storm. He was killed when the lift tipped over.

In his email, President Jenkins said that ND was “responsible” for this avoidable tragedy.

The effect of this email is that Notre Dame has admitted liability for Sullivan’s death. In the practice of law, we would now refer to this incident as a “damages case.” Notre Dame has taken the issue of liability off the table (which is admirable) and now is left to reach a financial settlement with Declan’s family.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I had previously posted, the trial judge excluded any evidence that the victim, Ms. Veitch, had been drinking that evening. However, on Wednesday, Leyritz's attorney repeatedly asked Kevin Lane, a friend of Ms. Veitch, questions about how much Ms. Veitch had to drink. The Prosecutor (who was admitted to practice almost 20 years ago) apparently failed to object to these questions, angering Judge Gold, who nevertheless allowed the case to proceed, rather than declare a mistrial. However, the damage may have been done, as the jury has now heard that Ms. Veitch had plenty to drink that night, which is not relevant to the determination as to whether Leyritz is guilty of manslaughter.

Later in the day, Bruce Barger, a front seat passenger in Leyritz's car at the time of the accident, surprisingly testified that Leyritz did not drive through a red light, but rather the light turned yellow when Leyritz was 10 feet from the "stop bar". Prior to the trial, it had been reported that Mr. Barger was going to testify that Leyritz ran the red light, because that it what he told police. The Prosecutor surprisingly did not cross examine Mr. Barger on his differing testimony. Mr. Barger added that Leyritz was not looking at the road when the light turned yellow, and instead was looking down, such that Mr. Barger had to alert Leyritz that the light turned yellow. Of course, if this testimony is accurate, it casts doubt upon whether Ms. Veitch had a green light - her light could not have turned green until after Leyritz' light turned red.

On Thursday, there was conflicting testimony among officers and the nurse that drew Leyritz's blood, as to whether Leyritz was exhibiting signs of intoxication. This could seemingly create reasonable doubt as to whether Leyritz was intoxicated, except that Leyritz was given a blood test, which is very difficult to challenge and much more reliable than a breathalyzer test. It appears that Leyritz failed the field sobriety test, and that alone would give the police probable cause to test Leyritz's blood alcohol level. Thus, the defense's best strategy should be to sieze on the differing accounts as to whether Leyritz drove through a red light, as the Prosecution must prove that Leyritz's actions caused or contributed to Ms. Veitch's death.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, it was reported that Jenn Sterger would meet with the NFL’s investigators concerning the alleged sexual harassment by Viking’s QB Brett Favre. Now, it looks like she may be cancelling. Sterger cannot be allowed to hold up this investigation at her unreasonable option.

Sterger is not an unsophisticated person. She is an experienced media personality with a team of lawyers. The bottom line is her delaying is hurting the investigation. Either she wants to help the NFL get to the truth or not. These types of cases are only as good as the credibility of the “complaining witness”

Sterger’s endless delays are starting to make it look like she got a story sell into of a story to tell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a lawsuit filed in an Ohio trial court on September 10, 2010, VaNeisha Robinson, a nineteen (19) year-old resident of Akron, claims that, approximately five (5) years ago, she purchased a box of stuffed animals at a garage sale, for $5.00.  After she returned home with the box, Ms. Robinson noticed a LeBron James pendant inside the box.  Although the pendant is diamond encrusted, Ms. Robinson believed that it was fake “costume jewelry,” and for the next five (5) years, thought it was worthless.  Ms. Robinson, out of curiosity, recently decided to have the pendant appraised, and was told that it was worth $9,670.00.  On June 16, 2010, she listed the pendant for sale on eBay.  The listing was apparently unsuccessful, so Ms. Robinson contacted the media with her story.  The story made its way to Katherine Powers (mother of Maverick Carter, CEO of LeBron James’ marketing company), who then contacted Ms. Robinson, and told Ms. Robinson that she would make an offer that she (Ms. Robinson) “could not refuse.”  Ms. Powers also promised Ms. Robinson that she would meet LeBron James. 

 On July 14, 2010, Ms. Robinson, her mother, sister and friend arrived at Ms. Powers’ house.  Ms. Robinson and her mother (who happened to be friendly with Ms. Powers from church) went inside, and the others remained in the vehicle.  Ms. Robinson was surprised when eight (8) or nine (9) other individuals, along with Ms. Powers, were waiting.  Ms. Robinson claims she felt threatened, and went to the car to retrieve her friend and sister.  Upon returning to Ms. Powers’ house, Ms. Robinson checked her phone and realized that someone had purchased the pendant from her eBay listing.  When Ms. Robinson informed Ms. Powers of this, she was confronted and was told she could not sell the pendant, because it belonged to Ms. Powers. 

Due to there being several angry persons inside the house, Ms. Robinson requested that Ms. Powers accompany her outside.  Ms. Robinson then gave her friend the pendant to take outside to the vehicle.  At that point, two unknown individuals blocked the vehicle in the driveway and prevented Ms. Robinson and her party from leaving.  One of the individuals went back inside, and informed Ms. Robinson’s mother, who was still inside, that she “ain’t going nowhere.”  Apparently, due to yelling and screaming, a neighbor called the police.  Plaintiff’s mother then told her to hand over the pendant, because “it was not worth getting hurt over.”  Ms. Robinson, fearing for her safety, reluctantly did so, and was then permitted to leave.

Ms. Robinson sued Ms. Powers and Mr. Carter, alleging false imprisonment, for detaining her at the Powers home against her will, theft of the pendant in violation of Ohio state law, replevin (to obtain possession of the pendant) and intentionally inflicting Ms. Robinson with emotional distress.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link