Another week, another story

Greetings!

Another week, another huge sports story with legal implications. I'm not sure how many of you have followed the rise of Oscar Pistorius, but he is a South African sprinter. The more important point is that Pistorius is a double amputee and that he runs on plastic blades. And he ran fast enough to compete in the Olympics. Tragically on Valentine's Day, Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The initial reports were that the death was a Valentine's Day surprise gone wrong as Pistorius mistook Steenkamp for a burglar. This theory has already been ruled out due to today's revevlations that Steenkamp was shot through the bathroom door of Pistorius' apartment. Here's some more info (courtesy of CNN):

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/world/africa/south-africa-pistorius-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There are so many different elements to this case it is hard to pick out just one. Violence against women is one facet that hopefully will get enough attention and won't be overshadowed by Pistorius' celebrity. Pistorius is considered a national hero in South Africa so the media coverage of his trial will be astounding. Police had apparently been called to Pistorius' apartment before to settle disputes between the two and there have been accusations that Pistorius' had a massive temper due to "roid-rage." As the trial unfolds more will come out about what exactly happened that night. Pistorius' has already lost some of his sponsors and more continue to leave. One very unfortunate ad that I saw was a picture of Pistorius leaving his starting blocks with the line, "I am the bullet in the chamber." Innocent at the time but now those words take on a whole new meaning.

I have found as I've gotten older that I have a harder time attempting to stay neutral in cases such as this. Crimes of this nature, especially if fueled by rage-inducing steroids are terrible. But, sometimes, these are the consequences from men who choose to do whatever possible to succeed. The case of Lance Armstrong is another example, though, many argue, that his cheating resulted in millions of dollars worth of funding for cancer research. The line continues to blur. And morality continues to suffer. Til next time.

Dave

Trying to Leave a Legacy

Hello All!

I hope this post finds you well. So much has happened. It has been some time since my last post and I apologize for the gap. Things have escalated quickly. When you start signing up for extracurricular's in law school, you can't exactly guess how much time you are going to have to dedicate to each enterprise. My personal pledge of time is usually quite significant as I get really into whatever I am doing and tend to zone everything else out. Well, in law school, that's not really an option as I still have to stay diligent with my classes. It's a constant balancing act, but with practice, it makes every day busy and interesting, and, at the end, that's all you can really ask for. To be challenged, as frequently as possible. I wanted to post a story about an issue that I have blogged about in the past, that of NCAA athletes being paid for their competition.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8895337/judge-rules-ncaa-athletes-legally-pursue-television-money

(link courtesy of ESPN). A judge has dismissed a motion by the NCAA to prevent college athletes from trying to pursue a share of television contracts. This isn't yet the knockout blow in the case against the NCAA, but it is a small victory for those players who maintain that they should be compensated for their competition. The case is a very big deal considering how much money (especially television contracts) is tied up in these conferences and NCAA championships. The case has been scheduled for argument on June 20.

In other news, I am now in my final semester of law school and am preparing to take the Bar exam. There will be many more posts concerning this upcoming test. I don't think I can compose all my thoughts as of right now. So much more to come!

All the best,
Dave

Athlete Compensation

Hey everyone!

I just wanted to post a piece I just read about compensating NBA players for participation in the Olympics. It's a good piece that highlights the relevant arguments by Kevin Arnovitz of Espn.com:

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/40532/should-nba-olympians-get-paid

I am also attaching a recent presentation I just made in Entertainment Law discussing whether or not college athletes should be compensated in some way. I will be posting later this week on the end of the semester and finals. Have an awesome day!

Best,
Dave

New Blog Piece on Regent Family Restoration

I wish to thank Professor Lynne Kohm for allowing me to once again serve as a guest blogger on her wonderful Family Restoration Blog. I authored a piece concerning the Huguely trial and some family issues within. It can be found here:

http://regentfamilyrestoration.blogspot.com/

More posts to come soon! Much going on! Happy Spring!

Best,
David

Huguely Trial Dialogue Continued

Next question:

What did you think of the lawyers in this case? Did they or did they
not perform well and why?

Full disclosure: I attended the University of Virginia from 2004-2007 and lived near the Corner until May 2009 and frequented some of the bars on the Corner to the degree that I either know or know of most of the individuals surrounding the case.

It is hard to say how a particular advocate performed if you did not see their performance in person. It is even more difficult to weigh in on a lawyer's performance when you followed the entire trial on Twitter, so do keep in mind that my impressions are based upon limited exposure to the actual trial. I also should note that I went to law school in California, so I'm more familiar with California's criminal statutes than I am Virginia's. However, I'm 95% sure that I have gotten the technical details correct in this case.

I'll start with the prosecution. Based solely on the outcome of the case, the prosecution did a pretty good job. He had absolutely no chance of securing a guilty verdict for First Degree Murder - we can talk about why later if you would like - so the prosecution got the best realistic outcome possible, second degree murder based upon malice, a major factor that separates second degree murder from voluntary manslaughter.

The prosecution, if anything, was remarkably thorough. The jury foreman has since credited the physical evidence provided by medical experts to pinpoint the cause of Love's death as blunt force trauma, so the exhaustive approach that the prosecution took in regards to physical evidence seemed to have paid off. It was hard to get a sense of the impact that all the medical testimony had on the jury from Twitter during the case, but this article from Salon suggests that it made a big difference. I was also massively impressed with the emotion that the prosecution showed during his closing argument. He was thorough, exhaustive - maybe a bit too exhaustive after an hour and a half of a closing argument - and it sounds like he really got the juries attention with his emotional description of the events surrounding Ms. Love's murder.

However, A few of the witnesses who came to the stand towards the end of the prosecution's case were utterly useless and an unnecessary distraction from the evidence that eventually made a difference in the case. Morgan Moses comes to mind - from what I can tell, she was called to the stand, said that she knew Huguely for about a week prior to Love's death and that he had texted her that night to see if she wanted to hang out. The same happened with Huguely's female neighbor, who testified that Huguely had asked if she really had a boyfriend in Charlotte and questioned if a man who had entered her apartment was her boyfriend. Brea Thomas shared similar testimony. It became apparent that Huguely had texted a number of women late at night after drinking in the weeks leading up to Love's death, which made me wonder if the jury would conclude that he was simply contacting a variety of women in the hopes of hooking up with one of them. If that were the case, the jury could have concluded that he simply went to Love's house in the hopes of sleeping with her.

I also found it somewhat bizarre that the end of the prosecution's case focused so heavily on how much Huguely had been drinking, both on the day of Love's death and in the weeks and months prior. The prosecution brought up a number of teammates who essentially testified that Huguely had a massive drinking problem, and I struggled to understand how the prosecution was using these witnesses to prove to the jury that Huguely had the malice necessary to find him guilty of second degree murder. Further, had the jury concluded that Huguely was so drunk to know what he was doing, they likely would have found him guilty of involuntary manslaughter instead of second degree murder.

I was most impressed with the prosecution's examination of Ken Clausen. More than any other witness, Clausen said that he knew that something was wrong with Huguely when he returned to the apartment and that something had drastically changed in his demeanor, suggesting that Huguely might have known how much physical damage that he had done to Love when he was in her apartment. Clausen described Huguely as an individual who needed an intervention from his friends, suggesting that Huguely very well may have been in a dark enough place to commit such a crime with the deliberate, willful, and cruel actions necessary to constitute malice.

I read commentary during the trial that, absent malice, the jury could have found Huguely guilty of felony murder had they concluded that even if her murder was not premeditated as long as he was found guilty of grand larceny and a homicide charge. To be guilty of grand larceny, the jury would have to believe that Huguely's taking of Ms. Love's computer was an after thought, but that the value of the computer was more than $200. Thus, the case could have turned on the value of the computer. Oddly, the prosecution brought out a local pawnshop owner with no specialization of computers to discuss the value of Ms. Love's computer. Further, the prosecution didn't seem to prep the witness very well because the defense noted that Ms. Love's computer did not have as much memory as most Dell laptops in the same condition. Had the case turned on the grand larceny charged instead of malice, the prosecution might have regretted the poor choice in witness in regards to the value of her computer.

The defense, on the other hand, was fairly unimpressive. I won't get into the way in which the defense handled Quagliana's illness because I was not privilege to the strategy concerns surrounding her absence, but I can discuss a few other points.

First of all, the defense should have painted Huguely as a chronically intoxicated drunk who was too drunk to know what he was doing when he killed Ms. Love. If that defense would have been successful, Huguely would have gotten involuntary manslaughter and would be facing a maximum of 10 years instead of 26. Instead, the defense portrayed Huguely as a simple lacrosse playing buffoon in the hopes of downplaying every action that Huguely took.

The defense also tried to prove that Huguely's behavior was similar to that of any other UVa student. They apparently either failed to take into consideration or disregarded the fact that one of the jurors went to UVa and could explain to the rest of the jury that while UVa students do tend to consume a lot of alcohol, they don't go around kicking down doors, vaguely threatening to kill their significant others, etc. That approach was, frankly, pretty damn pathetic.

The defense also totally mishandled one of its witnesses in regards to a technical evidence rule that deals with what an attorney can tell a witness about what another witness said during the trial and it cost them one of their two key medical witnesses. That's just bad lawyering, particularly after the prosecution did such a thorough job of explaining their medical case. If you're a juror, who are you going to believe - the side that brings half of a dozen medical witnesses or the side who only brought one expert, and that expert is hired solely to testify on behalf of the defense?

I also found it a little odd that the defense did not bring a single one of Huguely's family members other than his aunt to try to humanize him to the degree that the jury might struggle to find malice in his commitment of homicide against Love. The only opportunity that we had to see Huguely as anything other than a jaded lover or an alcoholic was when the prosecution - not the defense, but the prosecution - played the tape from the police's questioning of Huguely when he claimed that he did not know or believe that Love was dead. How could the jury conclude that Huguely was not malicious if they did not have any witnesses speak about him?

In all, it seems that the prosecution, despite its errors, vastly outperformed the defense.

Answer:

I'll agree that it is very hard to determine the quality of the
advocates in this case having only been able to follow actions through
online reporting. The material that was printed however, did paint a
picture of both sides, their strategies and shortcomings. I do want to
say quickly that we are mere law students, have never litigated a
criminal matter, and have no idea the difficulties that practicing
lawyers face when dealing with a first degree murder case. But we can
give our opinions, and here they are:

The first thing I do want to comment on, unlike my colleague, is the
defense counsel's illness that postponed the trial for two days. This
was bad for a number of reasons. Now I am not going to comment on the
severity of the ailment or if counsel could have continued on. From
all accounts, she seemed legitimately ill. The fact that both members
of the defense counsel were not able to question all witnesses that
they called seems, at first glance, a huge oversight. This delay came
in the middle of defense's case. It cost the defense two days when
they needed their case to be hard-hitting and quickly rebut the
prosecution's argument. Instead the prosecution's argument remained in
the jury's mind a little longer. Now, I do not mean to blame this one
incident on why the jury found the way they did. But, in a case such
as this where the facts do not seem overly complicated, it is very
important that both lawyers are up on all of their information. It
appears disorganized and nearsighted to only have one lawyer be able
to accomplish one aspect of the case. I am not sure if this is what
the jury felt in this case, but I do know that the judge did not
appreciate the delay. However, the judge could not step in and
continue the trial without the sick counsel because it may prevent a
fair trial.

Separately, in terms of strategy, I actually will commend the defense
on their portrait of Huguely. Time and time again they painted him as
a simple drunk, someone who could not hatch a scheme to kill. And this
was done without even calling his parents to the stand. It would seem
as if the prosecution did a lot of this work for the defense, most of
the prosecution witnesses who were acquainted with Huguely described
him as a jock with a drinking problem, but not someone with criminal
intent. The defense allowed this portrait to materialize by allowing
the prosecution to hammer home the number of drinks that Huguely
consumed the day of the murder. That number, around 20, would make
most jurors cringe and wonder how Huguely was even conscious. 20
drinks would cause such muddling of the mind that there is little
chance any intent could be made before actions. The prosecution did
not speak too much about intent, rather allowing their evidence of the
kicked in door and the threatening letter to fill in the gaps of
Huguely's intent. Rather, the prosecution focused more on malice
because they had to in order to get a conviction for second degree
murder.

George Huguely Trial Dialogue

This past month, my college hometown of Charlottesville, VA went through a very grisly and tragic murder trial. The trial of George Huguely related to the May 2010 death of senior lacrosse player Yeardley Love. Ms. Love and Mr. Huguely were in an on-again, off-again relationship that culminated in a physical altercation resulting in Ms. Love dying from "blunt force trauma" to her head. Here is a timeline of events, courtesy of Time.com:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/23/the-murder-of-yeardley-love-and-trial-of-george-huguely-v-a-timeline/

A friend of mine, and also a current law student, engaged in a dialogue discussing the case. I wanted to share our thoughts on the blog. Enjoy:

1. After the conviction and 26 year recommended sentence, do you feel
justice was served? Why or why not?

Answer:

To answer the question of whether justice was served, one has to first
define what justice is. I'm not a philosopher or an academic, so I
apologize for the likely simplicity of my approach and response.

There are three approaches to justice in regards to punishment -
utilitarianism, retributivism, and restorative justice. Each approach
has a variety of rationals for its own existence and critiques of the
other approaches. Instead of determining which approach is most
correct, I'll answer your question the best that I can according to
each school of thought.

Utilitarians believe that justice requires a maximization of utility
for all parties in question - the guilty, the victim, and society
generally. Because punishment takes away from the utility of the
guilty party, it must maximize the overall good for the other parties
to the degree that the guilty party's lost utility is balanced.
Punishing the guilty party can maximize utility in three ways - to
keep the guilty party from causing further harm to the victim, the
victim's family, or any others in order to maximize their utility; to
rehabilitate the guilty party and thus maximize his or her utility by
making them into a better person; and to deter others from doing that
which the guilty party did in order to maximize everyone's utility.

In regards to this case, keeping George Huguely behind bars for 26
years certainly keeps him from doing further harm to Yeardley Love or
her family. Personally, and based primarily on the reaction that
Huguely had to hearing the tape of his interrogation with the police
when he found out that Love was dead, I find it highly unlikely that
Huguely will do anything like this ever again to Love's family or
anyone else. Whether serving 26 years in prison will rehabilitate him
and make him a better person, I do not know. I struggle with the idea
that spending that much time away from society can make anyone a
better person, so I sort of doubt that Huguely's utility or his
ability to contribute positively to society once he leaves prison will
increase. I do think that this case has already made a positive
impact on college campuses because it has lead to further awareness of
domestic abuse and alcohol abuse, particularly within relationships,
which will hopefully deter this type of behavior in the future.
Because I think that a) Huguely isn't going to do anything like this
ever again, b) being thrown in prison for 26 years probably won't
rehabilitate him to the degree that he will maximize his own utility
or that of societies, and c) the case has already made a positive
impact in regards to domestic abuse, it seems that from a utilitarian
perspective the sentence might actually be too long to maximize
utility.

Retributivists argue that the utility of the guilty party should be
eliminated from the calculus of overall welfare and that justice
should emphasize retribution, or pay back. Thus, the guilty party
deserves to be punished and the punishment should be proportional to
the crime. Because Huguely was responsible for Love's death, from a
retributivist perspective, a 26 year sentence is too light. Instead,
retributivists might argue that Huguely should be in jail for life.

Finally, the school of restorative justice focuses on the needs of the
victims and desires that the guilty party take responsibility for his
or her actions. Because Love is dead, the remaining victims are her
family members and Love's friends. I have no way of knowing what the
Love family thinks about the sentence, but based on the smile on
Love's mother's face after the sentencing, one might conclude that she
was pleased with the outcome. Whether Huguely has taken
responsibility for his action might never be known by the public.
Based solely on Love's mother's reaction, those who believe in
restorative justice would probably say the sentence was just.

So, was justice served? It depends on who you ask. Utilitarians
would probably say that the sentence was too harsh, retributivists
would probably argue that the sentence wasn't harsh enough, and those
from the restorative camp would probably say that the sentence was
just right. I can't stress enough that I'm not an expert in this and
that learned individuals who identify with each approach might have a
different outcome, but I've attempted to answer the question as they
might the best that I can.

Answer:
Full disclosure: I attended the University of Virginia, where this
tragedy occurred from 2001-2005 and later worked on the Corner, a
string of restaurants and stores, from 2007-2009. Both George Huguely
and Yeardley Love were customers of mine so this case carried with it
some personal undertones. I did not know them well enough to explain
any of this tragedy, but I felt compelled to discuss it with a fellow
University of Virginia alum and friend.

I think you are exactly right that justice can be defined differently
by your mode of thought. Currently, with media outlets determining
coverage based on their feelings towards certain matters, it's hard
for viewers to not feel nudged one way or the other. I don't
necessarily think that happened in this case because the trial was not
telecast, but a more recent example is definitely the Casey Anthony
trial that occurred last summer.

In terms of whether I thought justice was served, I am going to answer
slightly differently. There are so many factors that must be
considered in sending someone to jail for the rest of their lives. I
am not going to be able to touch on all of them, however, I do believe
that the jury did what they believed to be right within the confines
of Virginia law. I believe a lot of times, that most of the general
populace almost have an "eye-for-an-eye" mentality when it comes to
cases like this. When you have a large male collegiate athlete
attacking a significantly smaller female victim, all kinds of issues
get brought up. Was this case about the impact of binge drinking in
colleges, and the assaults that occur from such binging? Partly, but
that topic will only be discussed when the community as a whole
rallies around this tragedy and makes wholesale changes. It is most
likely not going to happen because not everyone is going to agree on
what caused this. Everyone is going to blame George Huguely only, and
there is nothing out there to dismiss this claim.

The community that lives around Charlottesville is in many ways a
throwback. There is a bubble that exists around that city and
university that is hard to explain. The combined energy of so many
young people combines with a feeling of history and tradition that I
have never felt anywhere else. During my time in Charlottesville, I
cannot think of another episode so tragic as this one. One student
harming another in this way was not something that ever happened and I
believe that the community is shocked, angry, and still in a bit of
shock. I doubt the University community feels justice is served
because the only one to blame here is George Huguely. And they would
be right in feeling that way. Unfortunately, locking someone up and
throwing away the key is not how our criminal justice system works.

I tend to shy toward the retributivist model of punishment. However,
calculating the life of someone is an impossible task and one that
cannot be done by those that are left behind. What is the goal behind
retributivism? To punish the criminal for his actions in proportion to
that action. Bad actions deserve bad punishment. This mode of thought
also depends on how you view our system of jails and whether Huguely
will be "rehabilitated" when he spends the next 26 years in jail. If
the prosecution had been able to show any type of intent with Huguely
going over to Love's apartment, he would be in jail for the rest of
his life and we would not likely be having this discussion. But for
the recommended sentence to be 26 years out of a possible 60, this is
when discussion of the reasoning of the court needs to happen to
explain why, from the outside, it looks like Huguely got off easy.

So was justice done? Like a law student would answer: it depends. It
depends on many things, but most notably, it depends on how you view
punishment and what our goals are in punishing those who commit
crimes. I don't think we'll ever really know if justice was done until
George Huguely gets out of jail. If he has been rehabilitated and is
able to return to society and be a productive individual, then perhaps
justice has been done. But in a tragic case like this it is impossible
to judge. Yeardley Love is no longer here and her family and friends
must cope with that for the rest of their lives.

Next question:

What did you think of the lawyers in this case? Did they or did they
not perform well and why?

Entitlement and Pride in Modern Times

Hello,

After a number of devotions recently concerning the topic of entitlement and pride, I felt it was necessary to post my musings on the subjects. For some great biblical insight concerning pride, read the comment posted by a reader on my previous blog post. Thanks again for commenting!

Entitlement can take many forms. I think in a more modern perspective, it is the idea that we are owed something for being who we are or for being raised in a certain place. We feel society owes us something just for showing up. I don't know, historically, how long this sentiment has prevailed in the US but it is definitely an issue in all aspects of our society today. No one seems to want to do the little things anymore.

I'll use a fairly typical example: no one grows up thinking they want to be a garbage man. At least not anymore. Here's the issue with that mentality: we need garbage men. But since the job is not considered glamorous or well paying it is considered beneath us somehow. These menial jobs could be done by anyone, so the mindset is, let someone else do them. It's a pass the buck mentality. And it permeates everything we do.

Every job I have ever had had a "pass the buck" moment. A moment where I could go get somebody a cup of coffee or water or make copies, etc. I can't every remember turning those moments down but there was always a feeling that perhaps I was too good to be doing those things. And I am writing today to say that the feeling I was getting was this sense of entitlement that is akin to the sin of pride.

The little things we do speak volumes of who we are as people. There are going to be times when we don't like going to get a cup of coffee or making copies or taking out the garbage but we do them because they must get done. You are no better than your neighbor living beside you. And by thinking you are, your pride blinds you to make decisions that could hurt all those who are beneath you.

As one of our speakers recently stated, "seek excellence in the small and mundane things." I cannot think of a better way to combat pride and entitlement then this ideology. If we take the time to do the little things with excellence in mind, then we will have achieved our goal of combating our pride. It will never be easy. Pride is often disguised and hidden. But it is there in all of us. It has been engrained from our very birth. But being wary of our pride and fighting it will make us all better.

Best,
David

Back in Action

Hey everyone,

It's been awhile but we are back at this blog thing. I actually just wanted to write a quick note thanking everyone who has been reading so far and that I will have a more lengthy post later today. The topic, our generation's sense of entitlement. My entertainment law professor raised this issue in a recent devotion and coupled with a few more devotions concerning pride, I felt this was a good time to write something. So, thanks again and I will post later today.

God bless,
David

Law School Exam Survival Guide

I will say that the title to this blog post is a little bit of a misnomer. There is no such thing as a Law School Exam Survival Guide. It would be almost impossible to tailor an Exam guide to every law student. So here are a few helpful comments and suggestions to those 1L's out there who are just about to take their very first law school exam:

1. This is not an undergrad exam. This cannot be stressed enough. Think more LSAT, and less Spanish 102 Final. You probably will not see this test coming. It probably will feel pretty bad. But there are ways to make yourself feel not as bad and even a little good that you got through the test without keeling over.

2. Who you study with matters. We've all been in study groups and thought, "Wow, this person really know his/her stuff." It may help to ask this person questions and get answers but just remember: this person is not your professor. Only your professor will grade your test. No one else. And since the professor taught the course it would probably be smart to at least send an email to clear up any burning questions you may have. Don't get me wrong, studying with people is very beneficial. It helps you talk out loud about the issues, which in turn will help you type them better. But make sure you understand that people in your study group can be wrong about things. And sometimes you may not be benefiting from hearing other people ask questions. Do what is right for you.

3. Use your study materials. Getting commercial outlines is great, just remember they are not tailored to your particular professor. Your outlines, your notes, your memories; all these things are important when you are sitting down to study. Use them, don't just bank of remembering anything because sometimes your memory will fail you or become cloudy. This is why we take notes. I was told this as soon as I got into law school and it still applies now: You're not as smart as you think you are. Study hard.

4. De-stress when you get the chance. This can happy in many different ways. I will sometimes come home right after a test and work-out just to take my mind off of what just happened. It works for me. Do what works for you. Give yourself breaks and do a few other things to keep yourself balanced (and sane). Becoming super anxious and not sleeping are terrible things to do when you need to be able to analyze fact patterns and make rational arguments.

5. Move on after you're done. Don't sit around and mull how the test went. You have no idea how the test went. No one in your class has any idea how they did. You have another test so move on quickly and don't beat yourself up if you missed something. It happens. Your next professor does not care how you did on your previous exam. They will not take it easier on you. Trust me. Meet the challenge head on and stay focused.

6. Have fun with it. I know this makes no sense. But try with every fiber of your being to enjoy this phase of law school. It's very tough to do but try to see the forest for the trees. This single period will not define your law school experience. Every day you come in and work hard will. Enjoy the opportunity you're given yourself by being prepared and act on it.

(Editor's Note: After taking his first exam of this semester, David needed to vent a little and pump himself up for his coming exams. His efforts are appreciated)

Good luck to all law students currently in their exam period and God bless.

Best,
David

Penn State Scandal Highlights Lack of Accountability and Disregard for Child Safety

The country and Penn State University have been rocked this week with allegations of sexual assault by former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky has been charged with over 40 counts of molesting and sexual assaulting at least nine young boys, all having met Sandusky through the Second Mile Foundation, a charity founded by Sandusky in 1977 to improve the lives of disadvantaged children. The assaults occurred over a period of at least 13 years, though the Pennsylvania Attorney General has asked any other victims to please come forward. A Grand Jury released its presentment last Saturday, which described in graphic detail Sandusky's alleged assaults upon these victims. A link to the Grand Jury Presentment can be found here (please be warned of its graphic nature; courtesy of Beaver County Times): http://www.timesonline.com/news/police_fire_courts/jerry-sandusky-grand-jury-presentment/article_2e4c04d6-9f56-5dcb-895d-35a909e4b342.html

There has been a firestorm of criticism revolving around the case due to what administrators and head football coach Joe Paterno knew or should have know regarding these incidents, and a lack of reporting or even taking minimal action to prevent future incidents. Here is a story written by Penn State Alum and current ESPN reporter Dana O'Neil concerning the affect of the scandal on the community (courtesy of ESPN): http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7203559/penn-state-nittany-lions-scandal-stuns-community

Sandusky apparently used his ties to the Second Mile Foundation, a charity he co-founded in 1977, to spend time with all of the victims and prey upon them. As stated before, the Second Mile Foundation was a charity designed to improve the lives of disadvantaged children. The Second Mile Foundation has this to say on its website about its mission: "Many children face adversity even before they understand how to dream. The Second Mile, founded in 1977 in State College, Pennsylvania, is a statewide non-profit organization for children who need additional support and who would benefit from positive human contact." (http://www.thesecondmile.org/aboutUs.php) The Second Mile has done amazing things for Pennsylvania's disadvantaged youth. This scandal should not downgrade the good that the organization has done. But, the reasons for the foundation existing in the first place, and the seeming disregard for child safety raises many questions.

Second Mile exists because children's home lives are no longer a positive atmosphere for them to grow. Whether it be due to divorce, inattention, or absence, the children of today find themselves alone more and more. Family breakdown has led these children to seek refuge in the homes of others and to trust individuals who are not their parents. These are opportunities for predators to exist, build trust, and then take advantage of these children. A recent figure indicated that in as many as 93 percent of child sexual cases, the child knows the person that commits the abuse (statistic courtesy of Child Sexual Abuse and Prevention Center: http://www.stopitnow.org/child_sexual_abuse_fact_sheet).

Parents sometimes have no choice but to partially out-source the raising of their children for many reasons. This is not to blame anyone but the defendant in this case, but the fact that Jerry Sandusky was repeatedly caught inappropriately touching young boys dating back to the 1990's and was still participating in Second Mile events until 2008 is extremely disturbing. It seems as though these children were marginalized and somehow portrayed as unbelievable when compared with Sandusky. Sandusky came under police investigation in 1998 for an incident with a young boy in a shower and nothing was done to prevent him from having more young boys sleep over at his home. During these sleep-overs, Sandusky would establish trust with the young boys and then "see how far they would let him go," according to the Grand Jury presentment.

Due to the young age of these boys, it is not known exactly who knew what about these incidents. Young boys subjected to these assaults would most definitely experience fear and agitation regarding the abuse and would be unsure as to what to do or who to talk to. Another recent statistic shows that 88% (!) of all sexual abuse cases are never reported to authorities. (statistic courtesy of Child Sexual Abuse and Prevention Center: http://www.stopitnow.org/child_sexual_abuse_fact_sheet). Sandusky's portrayal of himself as a trusted adult figure to these children would only increase the confusion. These victims have suffered immense psychological and emotional damage as a result of these assaults and will bear these scars for the rest of their lives. It is an immense tragedy that Jerry Sandusky was allowed to continue to be around children even after one allegation of inappropriateness with a child.

This country cannot simply give a person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cases of this nature. The protection of our children must be paramount in cases such as this, but so many times, individuals in positions of power are allowed a free pass because of who they are and who they know. There have been allegations that Sandusky was still allowed on Penn State's campus as recently as last week even though he has been under investigation since 2008. Additionally, after a 2002 incident with another boy in the locker room showers at Penn State, Sandusky's only apparent punishment was to tell him to stop bringing children onto campus. Nothing else was done. That failure in itself is abhorrent, and should raise serious questions about all aspects of this case.

College Athletics

Greetings,

There are a number of legal issues happening on a national level that I am almost not sure which one to write about. But, I have more information regarding a recent college athletics suit that I will begin there.

Recently (and if you're not a college sports fan a lot of this may be new information), the major football collegiate athletic conferences have experienced some dramatic realignments. Schools that have been competing against each other in the same conference for decades have moved on to greener pastures, mostly due to television and endorsement contracts. Three notable cases include Pittsburgh and Syracuse moving to the Atlantic Coast Conference, and Texas A&M moving from the Big 12 to the SEC. Some of these shifts, however, have come with a price.

Most conferences contract with their members to allow them to move to another conference as long as they pay some kind of exit fee. These fees run in excess of around $10 million when we talk about the larger conferences. And with the recent increase in conference realignments, some conferences have raised that exit fee even more. Additionally conferences have required schools to go through a waiting period as long as two years before they can join another conference.

West Virginia University is attempting to leave the Big East and enter the Big 12, a move that would increase their football revenue dramatically. The Big East is not sitting idly by and allowing West Virginia to exit quietly, and thus, West Virginia instituted a lawsuit against the Big East Conference which can be viewed here (all links courtesy of ESPN):

http://espn.go.com/photo/preview/!pdfs/ncaa_westvirginiasuit.pdf

This suit is very interesting, as West Virginia alleges a breach of contract action against the Big East Conference. Reading the complaint, it brings back memories of the first legal brief I wrote in law school, which was also set in Monongalia County, West Virginia. The case also paints a very real image of what college athletics, and especially football, is all about right now: money.

West Virginia wishes to get out of the Big East so it can take advantage of the lucrative television contracts owned by the Big 12. College Athletics departments are so dependent on their football revenue to keep them in the black that you can hardly blame West Virginia for jumping ship. The Big East continues to lose football members because it has allowed schools to join that don't have football and thus can't compete against other conferences that have big football money. It is sad to say but college football is very much a business that keeps most athletic departments afloat.

Being a former collegiate student-athlete, my feelings are mixed on these issues. Part of me really wishes that schools with such rich rivalries would stick together so that fans can continue to take part in annual games. But the reality is most schools are going to look out for themselves, especially when only a few schools turn a profit on athletics every year. College football is not as imbalanced as other college sports, but sometimes it does turn your stomach when you know that these athletes are killing themselves playing this game and the athletic department only cares about how many season tickets they have sold. Dare I say there needs to be more transparency in these decisions, but these schools are independent and can make their own choices. I just hope that all these conference shifts don't taint an otherwise great game.

More soon,
Dave

Fall in full Swing

Greetings!

With fall break over and classes resuming again this is more or less the home stretch for a law school semester. I had a few assignments due right before and right after break and as of right now it is grind time until finals. This may be my favorite part of the semester. Classes seem to find their identities as a group this time of the semester, which results in great discussions and healthy banter.

I have been battling a little bit of a flu lately so hopefully that clears up. Being sick right now is terrible for a number of reasons, including that fact that the weather in Virginia Beach is amazing right now. You just want to be outside.

The Regent Cup Competition is just beginning to get started, and I just wanted to say good luck to all the participants. If you live close to Virginia Beach, coming down and watching the finals of the Regent Cup is a really great way to see some of the skills you will pick up while in law school. Also, the finalists are quite amazing at what they do and you can tell all of the hard work that all of the participants put forth in the competition.

Also coming soon is the Chili Bowl Flag Football Championship Game, which is in a week or so. Flag football is an entirely different beast than regular football, but the games are always a blast and its nice to see that Regent has some real athletes on Campus. Maybe we can push Dr. Campo into starting an athletics program......maybe.

See you next time,
David

Amanda Knox Acquittal

Hi all,

To update an earlier post, American Amanda Knox has been acquitted of murder in Italy and has returned to the United States. Knox spent over 3 years in prison during her trail and appeal. Here is a link:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-acquitted-leaves-prison/story?id=14654317

In other news, its midterm time here at Regent and I am extremely busy. Not too busy though to not participate in the Regent Mentor Program, which I am glad to say was once again a great success. Its always great to have a chance to pass on some of the knowledge and experience you've gained, especially in a new environment such as law school. Kudos to the SBA for once again doing a fantastic job.

I will make sure to post more next week because it's fall break week!

Best,
David

Amanda Knox Saga

Hello all,

The Amanda Knox case has been brewing over in Italy for about 3 years now. Here is a nice recap story from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/europe/knox-court-saga/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

To make a long story short, Knox is charged (along with her then boyfriend) of killing her roommate, British student Meredith Kercher. Italian authorities collected DNA, along with other evidence to convict Knox, although Knox's lawyers vehemently contested the authenticity of much of the evidence due to contamination and mishandling by Italian police.

This case has numerous implications. First, Knox, an American citizen, has been painted as some kind of Femme Fatale by the Italian and European media. The Anti-US sentiment in Europe is still going strong and probably will not change anytime soon. Secondly, the fact that Knox has been held in an Italian jail during this entire process has upset many. There is no bond system in Europe, meaning Knox could not put up bail and get her freedom. She is being held and will be held until this appeal ends. Lastly, due to rules of European Law, Knox, who was sentenced to 25 years, could possibly receive a life sentence if Italian prosecutors can prove that the court's initial sentence was too lenient.

Being of Italian descent, I have kept an eye on this case for sometime. It is very scary to believe that Knox may never make it back to the United States. It also is a very scary proposition that DNA evidence can be mishandled so egregiously and still be admitted. The court of public opinion was against Knox from the word go, but this is not surprising considering Italian authorities told her that she should not hire an attorney when she was arrested. This case really highlights something my parents told me a long time ago. Be aware of your surroundings at all times. This is not to say that Knox could have foreseen any of this, but knowing your rights in a foreign country is extremely important at all times.

I hope that Knox gets a new trial although the outcome is slightly bleak. More to come on this case.

Best,
David

The Fall is Crazy

Wow,

Sorry it has been so long since I last posted. It has been a crazy couple of weeks. Here is a brief recap:

1. Classes and reading, obviously
2. A great concert
3. Regent Law's 25th Anniversary Spectacular
4. Regent Law First Annual Golf Invite and the beginning of Flag Football season.
5. More classes and more reading
6. 25th Anniversary CLE's, most notably Professor Kohm's great talk on the Intersection between Immigration and Family Law
7. And finally, occasional sleep.

Things have been amazing. The 25th Anniversary Celebration was unprecedented and it was great to see so many alums come back and enjoy themselves on campus. Regent already has a rich history at its silver anniversary. Much gratitude and congratulations goes to the entire faculty and staff and all the students who made this past weekend so memorable. As for me, I can't wait to come back to Regent down the road and meet with the current students.

In family law, we had a guest speaker recently. It was a current student's father, a practicing family law attorney, who graduated from Regent. It was really rewarding and encouraging to hear from an alum who learned all the things we are currently learning now and put them to good use.

We're not a month into the semester and the information is really piling up. These are usually the times when a really great outline saves you, and I am very glad that I have been pacing myself well in that department. In undergrad you think just your notes will get you by...not in law school. The level of detail goes so much deeper that you need to be able to note your notes....if that makes sense. It's a skill that takes time to develop and thankfully for us, the Student Activities department hosts workshops to teach us these vital skills.

One piece of current events that I have mentioned a few times and is now going forward once again is the Roger Clemens trial. The judge has declared a re-trial and now Clemens will get his day in court...if he really wants it, that is to be seen. Linkage:

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-02/justice/us.baseball.clemens_1_michael-attanasio-laura-pettitte-clemens-defense-attorney?_s=PM:CRIME

The Clemens trial still remains very interesting to me. Another case that just came to my attention and has really captured the attention in the Hampton Roads area is this:

http://www.wavy.com/dpp/news/local_news/norfolk/widow-sues-police-over-recruit%27s-death

This case is incredibly sad and involves a police recruit dying from head trauma. His widow has sued the police chief and academy instructors in a wrongful death action. It will be interesting to see if this case makes it to trial, though I can see a settlement in the works.

Will make more posts soon. All the best,
David

A Tribute to My First Dog

Hello everyone,

This past weekend my dog, Nike, passed away. He was 11 years old, and he was the first dog my family ever had. He loved my family very much and we loved him back. He was part of the family almost immediately and will always be remembered as such. We did not get Nike until I was 17 years old, so he grew up at a time when my family was separated by college or work, but we always knew that when we came home he would be there to greet us.

I was struck by a few things my parents said to me regarding Nike's passing. He lived with my parents exclusively and he was very attached to my mother, who he spent the most time with. My parents were very saddened by his passing and they could not believe that people could keep getting a dog after their predecessor passes. It was too painful for them and they could not consider ever doing it again. As raw as that wound is right now, in a few years things may be different. I think it speaks more of my parents loyalty to Nike than to anything else. He was their companion for a long time and the thought of him not being around hadn't really occurred to anyone.

Despite the sadness that exists now, their is a very distinct gratitude I feel. Nike was a good dog, he always kept my family company and protected the house, which is what dogs are supposed to do. We will miss him very much. My apologies for this downer post but I wanted to make sure Nike got a good send-off. More positive info coming soon!

Best,
David

Current Events

Greetings,

After a recent post talking about the Roger Clemens case, I felt it necessary to post an update about the proceedings. Clemens' defense team has apparently violated an order by the judge to not speak to any member of the jury. The judge has told Clemens that he will have to be tried again on perjury charges despite a mistrial. Link attached:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6940500/judge-says-roger-clemens-defense-team-contacted-jurors-violation-court-order

In other news, we're getting close to Regent Law's 25th Anniversary Celebration in a couple weeks. It should be a very fun and exciting weekend for the entire Regent Community. Information can be found here:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/events/law25celebration/

Things are just getting started this semester. It's gonna be a good one.

Best,
David

Slightly Inclement Weather Ahead

Greetings,



This being the end of my first week of 2L year I felt compelled to throw out another blog post. This weekend comes with a chance of very bad weather as Hurricane Irene is bearing down on Hampton Roads. It is my first Hurricane in the area and I am officially excited, which probably is not a good thing. I do believe though that I have taken the correct precautions and made a solid Costco trip to ensure my survival. For all those being affected by the Hurricane, be safe and God bless.



On to more legal things. This week in Evidence we spoke about the judge being the ultimate fact-finder in jury cases and that a judge is less likely to be swayed by inadmissible evidence than a jury. When a jury hears inadmissible evidence, it usually is very bad for whoever proffered that evidence. The judge cannot "unring" that bell, so to speak. I had heard this term used before and thought it would be an interesting read for anyone who is likes federal evidence procedure (who doesn't?). This summer I was following the Roger Clemens perjury trial. Being a die-hard Yankees fan it came naturally to follow the proceedings, even if my opinion of Clemens definitely took a major hit when he was named in the Mitchell Report for possibly using performance enhancing drugs. So, long story short, Clemens is on trial for lying to Congress about using steroids. The prosecutors have a rather good case against him. However, after the judge TWICE tells them not to play a video in front of the jury containing inadmissible evidence, the prosecutors do it anyway. And the judge declares a mistrial, saying he cannot "unring" the proverbial bell. It was a very current example of our discussion and I was glad that my ESPN addiction seemed to give me a better understanding of a topic.



Here is a link to the story for those interested:



http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/6768625/roger-clemens-trial-judge-declares-mistrial



It is very interesting and raises a lot of questions about why so much taxpayer money was used to prosecute a sports figure when perhaps that money could have been better used elsewhere. That is a discussion for another time.



Baton down the hatches,

David

Welcome

Hello!



This being my first post in the blog, I feel as though this should be my welcome to whoever decides to read it. So hello and welcome. I will be filling this space with my law school and life events, and hopefully all my readers will get a great picture of Regent University and Virginia Beach and what great places they are.



Today marks the second full day of classes. I had four yesterday and considering they were my first classes in four months, it was a very exciting day. Being back to campus and seeing all the new 1L's was great. It doesn't seem that long ago that I was in their shoes. But being back in Robertson Hall and seeing all my classmates for the first time in a few months was really exciting.



Yesterday, I had Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Family Law, and Virginia Procedure. Each one of them is going to be challenging, and I know my reading amounts have shot up from last year. Not getting behind on reading is a huge issue early in the semester as everyone re-acclimates after the summer break.



My summer was very busy. I interned at Joseph W. Hood & Associates, a family law firm in Virginia Beach, and got a chance to work closely with attorneys and legal assistants on all kinds of cases and issues. It was a wonderful experience and I owe everyone there a sincere debt of gratitude.



I am going to try and post as much as I can, and will discuss legal issues we discuss in class as well as events going on around Regent and the rest of the world. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy writing it.



All the best,

David