The reversal is a monumental setback to the National Association of TOOTH-PICKERS!!
Awwwwwww, Jawee and Karl .... your'e screwed now! The MOMENTUM has shifted ...as it RIGHTFULLY should have!
Printable View
The reversal is a monumental setback to the National Association of TOOTH-PICKERS!!
Awwwwwww, Jawee and Karl .... your'e screwed now! The MOMENTUM has shifted ...as it RIGHTFULLY should have!
You DON'T mean an ENTITLEMENT, do you? LOL :)Quote:
Originally Posted by UL_Cajuns
It does appear that the jurors had lots of inconsistencies in the way they answered questions. That makes me think the university's lawyers could have done a better job in screening jurors. I do understand that the judge allowed one juror to remain after the university questioned her ability to be fair. As far as the judge is concerned, his record is not stellar either as evidenced by the info in this post from the Scout board.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunch24
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=345&f=3397&t=4470094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunsmike
Wasn't one of the university's lead attorneys a REAL ESTATE lawyer who, by odd chance, lived next door an influential former university official?? Yoooo Hoooo!
This was/is (should have been) a slam dunk case.
The loss sits on the shoulders of a disinterested law firm.
This case could have been used to give UL a truck load of positive publicity.
igeaux.mobi
I don't know anything about the background on UL's attornies, but this case should not require F. Lee Bailey. Once a judge fails to support proper jury selection, it is in the best interest of the defense attornies to open that door wide for an appeal. This judgement had "toss" written all over it.Quote:
Originally Posted by GetTheFacts1st
With a reasonable judge and proper jury selection in the next trial, there is no way Baldwin comes out on top.
Quote:
<font color=#000000> <blockquote> <p align=justify>
The ball is back in Jerry Baldwin's court.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeal in Baton Rouge vacated a $2 million judgment against the UL Board of Supervisors and former Ragin' Cajun athletic director Nelson Schexnayder. That judgment came after a jury found that Baldwin, a former head football coach at UL, was terminated, in part, because of racial discrimination.
The appeals court remanded the case for a new trial. Baldwin also could appeal the ruling further to the state Supreme Court. Efforts to reach Karl Benard, lead counsel for Baldwin, as well as attorneys representing UL, were unsuccessful.
<center><p><a href="http://www.theadvertiser.com/article/20090702/NEWS01/907020308/1002/Baldwin-case-sent-back" target="_blank">The rest of the story</a>
Brady Aymond • baymond@theadvertiser.com • July 2, 2009
<!--
Baldwin, who served as UL's head football coach from 1999-2001, filed a lawsuit after being terminated following the 2001 season.
Claiming breach of contract, discrimination and emotional distress, Baldwin filed the suit naming UL, the UL System Board of Supervisors and then-Athletic Director Nelson Schexnayder as defendants. UL was later dismissed as a defendant.
The university argued that Baldwin's contract was terminated because of performance and dwindling attendance. Baldwin's teams went 6-27 during his three seasons as head coach and attendance at Cajun games dipped from 15,289 in Baldwin's first year to 13,323 in his final season.
In 2007, a jury ruled that Baldwin's race wasn't "the only reason he lost the job, but one of the reasons."
Baldwin was awarded $2 million in damages, including $600,000 for emotional distress.
The appellate court heard the appeal on Tuesday in Baton Rouge. In its ruling, the court cited, "more than one reversible error, ranging from juror selection to a judgment not reflective of the jury verdict" for vacating the judgment.
In their appeal, attorneys for the UL Board of Supervisors and Schexnayder argued the jury verdict form contradicted itself.
On the issue of racial discrimination, the jury answered no to the first question of whether Baldwin's termination was because of his race. However, the jury answered yes to the question of whether Baldwin's race played a determining factor in his termination.
On the issue of breach of contract, the jury answered yes to the question of whether UL breached its contract with Baldwin. But in a second question, the jury answered no to the question of whether the breach of contract was in bad faith only to answer yes to another question asking if the termination of Baldwin "violated moral rules or elementary fairness, or was in bad faith."
In a July 10, 2008 story in The Advertiser, Larry Marino, one of the attorneys representing the defendants cited numerous inconsistencies among the jurors.
"They held that Coach Baldwin was not fired because of his race, but they also held that race was a determining factor in his firing. That's inconsistent," Marino said at the time. "You also have them saying breach of contract, but in finding that, also finding there was an abuse of rights. ... How can you find an abuse of rights if there was a breach of contract?"
-->
Have you ever picked a jury?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunsmike
You're trying to predict the future behavior of strangers as a group based on their present behavior in a jury box for the few minutes you have to talk to them.
In most courts you don't get anything by way of backrground until the jurors fill out the questionnaire the morning of jury selection.
The best you can do is try to get rid of those witnesses you KNOW will vote against you. They tried that, and inexplicably, that juror with the pending discrimination case should have never been seated.
Once she was, the whole case was a farce.
On the other hand, the Judge knew that the case was going to get reviewed by the Court of Appeal regardless of what the Jury did.
Before you bash the Judge, remember, he was the one who threw the case out on Summary Judgment in the first place.
The National Tooth-Pick Society has just filed a legal brief with the State Supreme Court, declaring your post as hate speech!LOL!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GetTheFacts1st
From my limited experience with jury trials, I hope and pray my fate is never in their hands. I know it's the best system available, but expecting some people to leave a possible bias at the court house door is a reach at best. imoQuote:
Originally Posted by AstroCajun
I thought the defense had a certain # of jurors they could excuse from the pool without too much trouble. If that was attempted and it was pointed out to the judge that this juror had a "pending discrimination case" and he nevertheless sat her over objections...he needs not only to be bashed, but sanctioned. imo
But isnt that what the appeal courts are all about, to protect from unjust bias from jurors or judges, to take an abstract look at a case and make a judgment on whether the court case was fair or not. we need bias in our courts, because it keeps the judicial system honest. Because after all its run by humans just like all of us. You want people to have an opinion, you want people to care. If everybody just fell in line this whole existence would be kinda pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4LSU
Quote:
Originally Posted by CajunT
I do not know why they would do that......they look down on losers who use their product, just as (I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they) do!