|
|
|
My View (12/14/12):
- More on the The latest turn in the sexual
scandal publicity surrounding In order for the complainants to succeed they must prove that Boeheim’s comments were false and that as a result they have been damaged. Truth is an absolute defense in a defamation allegation. It seems to me that when Boeheim
made these comments he must have been aware of the University investigation that
found these allegations to be without merit.
(Keep in mind that whether the University’s findings were ultimately
correct or not is completely irrelevant to Boeheim’s state of mind and his
beliefs when he made those comments.) It
seems pretty reasonable to me that if the University found these accusers
unworthy of belief years ago Boeheim is justified in calling them liars.
The fact that they have clamored for publicity by hiring a lawyer such as
Gloria Allred (how many successful jury trials has she ever had?) proves the
point that they’re looking for money. She
has already publicized the complainants as saying they have suffered damages solely
as a result of Boeheim’s comments. I
seriously doubt any Any reasonable person in the shoes of Jim Boeheim who had the knowledge of the facts as they existed at the time his comments were made would be hard-pressed to believe that they were not made in a good faith belief on the part of Boeheim that the complainants were liars and were only looking for money. What evidence is there that says otherwise? My View (12/1/12): Bernie Fine, Bobby Davis et al I think one of the worst things that
can be done to someone is to react emotionally to a situation such as this and
condemn someone who has spent a lifetime building a reputation.
This is one of the main reasons I am proud to be a criminal defense
lawyer. These grandstand media plays
by ESPN in the wake of the The presumption of innocence is not some charade but is critical to a person’s liberty and when judgment is made you can’t go back a la former Sec. Ray Donovan after his acquittal in the early eighties when he asked, “Now where do I go to get my reputation back?” So, we don’t know if Bernie Fine committed any of the several allegations that have not even formally been made. We are exposed to a taped conversation of Bernie’s wife to the accuser that raises more questions than it is probative of guilt. What happens if she’s subpoenaed and given immunity? Would the prosecutor risk that her testimony would be that she was lying on the tape because she wanted to have sex with the boy? So, what corroboration is there? Before I sued ed Hanna the former
Mayor of Utica or Fr. Quinn for their sexual abuse I had the evidence.
There was no bluffing and no shakedown.
I had Hanna on several tapes and I had Quinn through witnesses, photos,
medical records, letters, etc. In
the Quinn case the Court of Appeals would not rule that the statute of
limitations can be tolled in The key to corroboration appears to be the taped conversations between Bernie’s wife and the alleged victim. In order for that tape to be damaging the wife has to testify. If she’s a lunatic and Bernie’s defense is “I’m married to a lunatic who is liable to say anything, anytime whether she means it or not” she will not be credited. That leaves us with the uncorroborated word of the alleged victim. His brother is no more corroboration than an accomplice would be. Corroboration must be something that can connect Bernie to the act claimed by the accuser. Self-serving statements do not suffice. The wife should get a lawyer. I think the approach that the victim concocted the tape isn’t going to fly unless you are 100% sure it has been doctored -- and of course the chances of that are pretty slim. But that tape standing alone without the wife’s testimony is hearsay to Bernie who would be denied his right of confrontation – so the tape would not be admissible. Send questions or comments on this blog to frankpolicelli@centralny.twcbc.com |
|
|