quote:

---

And Baylor's situation is different.

Pros for the plaintiff's case:
-because of the guilty verdict, Baylor would not have been able to deny the rape happened

Cons's:
-Venue would have been Federal court in Waco
-The federal district judge is double baylor 9undergrand and JD)
-Jurors in the Waco division tend to be very anti-individual
-Lots of those jurors would have had relatives who attended Baylor, were employed by baylor, or in some way wanted to see baylor win
-Most federal judges allow minimal or no jury selection- they just take the first 12

This would have been a difficult case to collect on for a plaintiff. At the same time, Baylor had a huge interest in paying hush money before a lawsuit was filed. Because the lawsuit was not filed, there was no public record.

I say the plaintiff's attorney probably did the right thing in squeezing baylor for as much as possible when the suit was worth the most.

It was probably a little easier, since in theory, the rapist was "brought to justice" and the victim was vindicated.

---

Any good attorney would have gotten the venue changed or asked the judge to recuse himself.

If I've learned anything from binge watching Making a Murder, that $700k will be used to hire the attorney to sue JW.

quote:

---

Hawg-
Would you take me through your reasoning?

(Edit- the initial post sounded argumentative- I really would like to understand how a practitioner dealing with civil cases like this do valuation)

---

Read this article from last year about the Title IX attorneys in Boulder. Which fact situations they look for, specifically, the amount of involvement administrators including coaches have in responding to claims of sexual violence. As you read the article, think about the Baylor case and the FSU case. Did the university do what it could for the victim?? Or for the accused athlete??

Two other things to remember. First, the complainant is often not seeking a huge payday, but rather a change in how the university addresses these situations going forward. Those procedures are included in the settlement agreements. (Like a consent decree.)

The second thing is to remember there are other potential defendants where a monetary award is available besides the university. The perpetrator himself and the local police departments.

LINK

quote:

---

And Baylor's situation is different.

Pros for the plaintiff's case:
-because of the guilty verdict, Baylor would not have been able to deny the rape happened

Cons's:
-Venue would have been Federal court in Waco
-The federal district judge is double baylor 9undergrand and JD)
-Jurors in the Waco division tend to be very anti-individual
-Lots of those jurors would have had relatives who attended Baylor, were employed by baylor, or in some way wanted to see baylor win
-Most federal judges allow minimal or no jury selection- they just take the first 12

This would have been a difficult case to collect on for a plaintiff. At the same time, Baylor had a huge interest in paying hush money before a lawsuit was filed. Because the lawsuit was not filed, there was no public record.

I say the plaintiff's attorney probably did the right thing in squeezing baylor for as much as possible when the suit was worth the most.

It was probably a little easier, since in theory, the rapist was "brought to justice" and the victim was vindicated.

---

If you're really going to be a lawyer, you'd better learn that "Cons" is already plural, AND, you don't use an apostrophe to form a plural in the first place. "Cons's?"

I'm on duty as the Grammar Nazi for the Day.

quote:

---

Any good attorney would have gotten the venue changed or asked the judge to recuse himself.

---

A change of venue simply because of the bias of a possible jury panel is nearly impossible in criminal cases. I cannot imagine it would be any lower in civil cases. If you doubt me, look up the case agaisnt Jeff Skilling.

Same with asking a judge to recuse himself- it is incredibly difficult. Your only grounds would be that Judge Walter Smith is an alumnus. Now if the Honorable Walter Smith declines to recuse himself, you have a very angry Judge Smith and a very difficult decision.

You can ask for a hearing in front of another judge, which you will probably lose. Then you will be at the mercy of an angy judge.

Or you can quit, and still deal with an angy judge. But you almost have to go forward with the motion, because by not going forward you are basically admitting that you did not have strong enough grounds


The bigger problem is this: Plaintiff does not get to look into the change of venue or recusal first, then decide whether to settle...PLT would have to file the petition and start the suit before any motion to recuse or change venue gets heard. Once filed, the settlement value of the case goes down because Baylor starts getting hit with the bad PR they would have paid to avoid.

So unless baylor is not willing to offer a reasonable settlement, you want to cut your deal without filing a suit, where the value is highest.

Note- by "value" I do not just mean monetary. Like Hawg said, there are often many objectives plaintiffs seek. They have more leverage to demand them before the suit gets filed, unless the university decides to be obstinate.

bulaw?? If you have some time, you might want to read this about the Honorable Judge Smith. (And, Paschall, one of the parties mentioned, has indeed been arrested and is working a deal right now.)

LINK

Chances of getting venue transfer: 5%

Changes of getting a recusal: 0% (actually less)

At least $250,000 for a night in the bag with Jamesis?

Hell, I'm not even a ***got and I'd probably do that.

quote:

---

At least $250,000 for a night in the bag with Jamesis?

Hell, I'm not even a ***got and I'd probably do that.

---

You are in denial

quote:

---

Same with asking a judge to recuse himself- it is incredibly difficult. Your only grounds would be that Judge Walter Smith is an alumnus.

---

I got sent home from jury duty (which is good, of course) for wearing an A&M shirt to voir dire. 'Murica.

Jury selection (which mostly only happens in state courts) and asking a judge to recuse himself (especially a federal judge) are 2 entirely different things.

In jury selection, both sides can ask the judge to kick a juror off for admitting to some bias. Each side also receives a number of preemptory strikes- meaning they just get to kick off 3 or 10, or however many strikes the juge allows for just about any reason (other than pure discrimination- which is almost impossible to prove).

One side probably exercised a strike against you because they assumed that your affiliation made you less favorable. That, or it was the pretext for striking because of your gender/race/religion/other impermissable reason.

bulaw?? Did you read that link I posted earlier??

Yes, I read both. Thank you, very informative on Title IX. The booger mafia is somebody else's problem.