[Rosiak's Blog] Blue's attorney wants case to go to trial

[Pakuni]

If its true that Blue came over to their table and basically instigated this.... not good.

And by instigate, you mean spoke with them?
A provocative act, indeed.

[tower912]

For me, the lynchpin here is Cottingham.  He, too, is an attorney.   I can't believe Boyle is representing Blue by coincidence or that he is choosing to challenge the ticket without Cottingham's either implicit or explicit approval, which to me means that Cottingham was presented with the information and made the judgement that this should be drop-kicked out of existence to remove a potential shadow/smear.   I just can't come up with a scenario where he did not sign off on this.   

[PGsHeroes32]

They gona call DJO up to the stand?

[Mr. Nielsen]

TMJ4 just was live outside Qdoba.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

Slow news night?

[foreverwarriors]

Hadn't seen this posted yet so apologies to mods if it's already posted, but here is article from wisn including quotes from Boyle http://www.wisn.com/r/27602300/detail.html

"The young man called Mr. Vander Blue, Vander Orange, and he invited the guy to step outside, and the guy said OK, and they both went outside, a little fisticuffs. I think one punch took place and that was it. That, in my opinion is not battery, because in order to have battery, you have to have it without the consent of, and it seems to me the invitation to step outside, which was taken, takes it out of the battery category," Boyle said

[Lethdorr]

Boyle is one of the best there is. Period.

In an unrelated incident where Boyle represented a group of students at an "Administrative Hearing" ** (a hearing in-front of University Administrators - more serious than a "Student Conduct Hearing", which is heard in-front of a panel of other students), Boyle was a relentless advocate for his clients. Boyle's vast expertise and uniquely polished style made Marquette's counsel - not a newbie, by any means - look fresh out of Law School.

If Boyle is demanding a trial (regardless of the true intent), he knows what he's doing.


** When students involved in the Student Conduct Process obtain counsel for a hearing (either administrative or in front of a student conduct board), as standard practice, Marquette will bring an attorney of their own to serve in a non-voting, strictly advisory capacity.

[mviale]

Looks like a justified battery to defend one self.

[GGGG]

For me, the lynchpin here is Cottingham.  He, too, is an attorney.   I can't believe Boyle is representing Blue by coincidence or that he is choosing to challenge the ticket without Cottingham's either implicit or explicit approval, which to me means that Cottingham was presented with the information and made the judgement that this should be drop-kicked out of existence to remove a potential shadow/smear.   I just can't come up with a scenario where he did not sign off on this.   

If Cottingham is smart, he stays pretty clear of this thing.  He doesn't want to be involved in the judicial affairs of a student athlete.

[Hamostradamus]

Boyle will cream this guy on the stand. He's a total pro. The only thing dumber than picking a fight with Vander is showing up to court so Jerry Boyle can make you look foolish in front of the media.

[mviale]

was the  victim drunk? why didnt he report it at the time of the incident? 

Blue's attorney will have a field day...

[Lethdorr]

Something that's of significant importance I didn't see mentioned elsewhere: while Blue was determined to be in violation of the Marquette Student Code of Conduct after a hearing, the standard of evidence at such hearings is not the common notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the typical standard of evidence in serious criminal cases).


This is going to be an in-depth post, but due to recent high-profile cases involving Marquette student athletes, a comparison providing a bit of insight into these processes - not only in this case - but in any case involving the Student Conduct Process - is sorely needed. Particularly, even though one may have been found "at-fault" through Marquette's internal processes - that in-and-of-itself does not necessarily equate to "guilt" in a legal sense.


Student Conduct Process vs. Court Process - A Brief Comparison

While there is no comparable legal standard of evidence to that which the University employs in the Student Conduct Process, the most similar is the standard of "by a preponderance of the evidence" - a common standard of evidence in civil trials (aka, lawsuits). Under this standard, if the weight of the evidence against you is greater than 50%, you are found to be at fault.

The University's disciplinary system is not a traditional "adversarial system" (think prosecutor vs. defense with both sides fighting to win), per se, as its goals are much different than a legal proceeding. Rather than "prosecuting students", the goals of the Student Conduct Process are (1) to allow the student to admit their mistake and make amends with themselves, the community, and (if applicable) the other part(ies) involved, and (2) to ensure the student does not repeat this action in the future.

Indeed, in cases where the weight of evidence is not in favor of the student (the "preponderance of evidence" not in the student's favor is greater than 50%), the student is expected to admit fault and express remorse so that the process of "personal growth" can begin. The notion is that if a student cannot admit fault and express remorse regarding what he or she did, the "breach of trust" that has been committed cannot begin to begin to heal. The belief is this "breach of trust" does not just affect victims, but the Marquette community as a whole. According to the University, this process "fully embodies the values embraced by Marquette University as Jesuit institution. We believe this process embraces the essential philosophy of cura personalis - care for the whole person".


In summary, a finding of fault through the Student Conduct Process for a violation has no bearing whatsoever on the likelihood of a successful criminal prosecution of the same offense.

[Lethdorr]

Boyle will cream this guy on the stand. He's a total pro. The only thing dumber than picking a fight with Vander is showing up to court so Jerry Boyle can make you look foolish in front of the media.

+1

Gerry Boyle's services command top-dollar for a very good reason.

[Lethdorr]

Something to keep in mind, as well:

Marquette's Department of Public Safety has cameras everywhere - particularly on Wells Street. These aren't just stationary cameras that record one location. Rather, there is an entire "command center" in the DPS Headquarters just one block south of where this "incident" took place with floor-to-ceiling flat-screen monitors so that officers can "see what the cameras see". At all times, though especially around bar close on the weekends, DPS officers constantly pan-and-scan, zooming in and out if they notice even the slightest hint of trouble.

Chances are, if this incident was caught on camera, when representing Blue in the Student Conduct Process, Boyle may have very well requested the footage of this incident. If it shows Blue only struck to defend himself, in the slim chance this ever goes to trial, that mitigating factor alone may very well be all Boyle needs to establish reasonable doubt.

[brewcity77]

My guess is Vander gets off of this. And with Boyle behind him, will probably end up in the clear of any other allegations he may or may not be currently facing. But the bottom line is that he shouldn't be putting himself in position to have to rely on someone like Boyle to pull his fat out of the fryer. If he isn't "settling something outside", or shoving other students, or engaged in these and other distasteful situations, there is no issue.

Blue represents Marquette. He should be doing so in a more responsible and mature manner.

[ChicosBailBonds]

+1

Gerry Boyle's services command top-dollar for a very good reason.

Which begs another question....who is paying for Mr. Boyle's services?  If he is doing this pro bono, does he do this pro bono for other MU students?   If not, that could raise another set of questions.

[groove]

yeah what happens if other MU students asked for his services.

[Lethdorr]

Which begs another question....who is paying for Mr. Boyle's services?  If he is doing this pro bono, does he do this pro bono for other MU students?   If not, that could raise another set of questions.

My guess is that, as a significant booster of the program (read: big-time $$$ to the Blue-and-Gold Fund), Boyle would do anything in his power to help the team. If he gives money, why not his time? He's in a prime position to help a cause he supports (MU Basketball) in more ways than just a monetary donation.

Regarding pro bono work, attorneys choose which cases they take pro bono. No requirements are imposed regarding selection of cases and no explanation necessary. In fact, some firms (though Boyle runs his own practice) such as Godfrey & Kahn reimburse their employees for up to 50 billable-hours of pro bono work per year. "True", unreimbursed pro bono work may also be considered tax deductible, depending on the circumstances.

yeah what happens if other MU students asked for his services.

Since technically he isn't representing the University, but rather, a private citizen (who just-so-happens to be the recipient an NCAA Division I scholarship), the University isn't caught in a conflict-of-interest regarding providing legal counsel to other students in similar situations.

And if other MU students asked for his services? If they can afford his initial retainer and hourly rate, I'm sure he would gladly provide his services.  

[Lethdorr]

I can't believe Boyle is representing Blue by coincidence or that he is choosing to challenge the ticket without Cottingham's either implicit or explicit approval.

Hardly a coincidence.

In a circumstance such as this, it's more than reasonable to assume representing Blue was at Boyle's own initiative...although one can reasonably make an assumption he checked with Cottingham, first. Cottingham couldn't explicitly endorse the idea in any way-shape-or-form, but it's reasonable to assume someone who's on a first name basis with the Athletic Director would call someone he considers a personal friend for a bit of advice - strictly as a friend, and not in any official capacity.

In other words, "Hey Steve. I know you can't officially endorse this - nor would I ask you to - but I was thinking of representing Blue with his...recent issue...completely pro bono. Can you think of potential liabilities that it may cause......No? Ok."

[foreverwarriors]

Hardly a coincidence.

In a circumstance such as this, it's more than reasonable to assume representing Blue was at Boyle's own initiative...although one can reasonably make an assumption he checked with Cottingham, first. Cottingham couldn't explicitly endorse the idea in any way-shape-or-form, but it's reasonable to assume someone who's on a first name basis with the Athletic Director would call someone he considers a personal friend for a bit of advice - strictly as a friend, and not in any official capacity.

In other words, "Hey Steve. I know you can't officially endorse this - nor would I ask you to - but I was thinking of representing Blue with his...recent issue...completely pro bono. Can you think of potential liabilities that it may cause......No? Ok."

Gerry?! Is that you??????

[77ncaachamps]

TMJ4 just was live outside Qdoba.

Someone should have rocked Vander's jersey and did an "impromptu" fight with a friend - based on the details.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My guess is that, as a significant booster of the program (read: big-time $$$ to the Blue-and-Gold Fund), Boyle would do anything in his power to help the team. If he gives money, why not his time? He's in a prime position to help a cause he supports (MU Basketball) in more ways than just a monetary donation.

Regarding pro bono work, attorneys choose which cases they take pro bono. No requirements are imposed regarding selection of cases and no explanation necessary. In fact, some firms (though Boyle runs his own practice) such as Godfrey & Kahn reimburse their employees for up to 50 billable-hours of pro bono work per year. "True", unreimbursed pro bono work may also be considered tax deductible, depending on the circumstances.

Since technically he isn't representing the University, but rather, a private citizen (who just-so-happens to be the recipient an NCAA Division I scholarship), the University isn't caught in a conflict-of-interest regarding providing legal counsel to other students in similar situations.

And if other MU students asked for his services? If they can afford his initial retainer and hourly rate, I'm sure he would gladly provide his services.  

Totally get it, but there is a fine line with extra benefits and what student athletes can receive vs the "normal" student, that's why I asked the question.

[Pakuni]

Totally get it, but there is a fine line with extra benefits and what student athletes can receive vs the "normal" student, that's why I asked the question.

It's a fair question, but I can recall Boyle representing MU athletes - Damon Key in particular - way back when I was there.
So, I would hope that if there's a question about extra benefits, it's something that's been examined by now and dealt with appropriately.

[redbirdwarrior]

Stop all of this "crime" stuff.  Vander Blue is not charged with a crime.  The only possible penalty is a money forfeiture.  This was not charged by the District Attorney's office in circuit court, but rather was charged in municipal court.  It is equivalent to a traffic ticket, as there is no incarceration time available.  Why not roll the dice on this one?  I am an Assistant District Attorney in another county and deal with these all of the time.  Cases that are marginal often are referred over for charging as crimes, but I chose to charge as civil ordinance violations instead.  The standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," as it would be for a crime. I view these as nothing burgers, frankly.

Further, in order to prove a battery, the city will have to prove that Vander caused pain without the victim's permission.  Kind of hard to prove lack of permission in a mutual combat situation.  "I asked him outside to fight, but didn't give him permission to hit me," really doesn't work well.  Hence the Disorderly Conduct offer, which is much easier to prove.

Gerry Boyle is a veteran defense attorney.  He does have a fondness for Marquette.  His daughter graduated from the law school the year before I did.  I am not shocked that he is representing Vander.  For goodness sakes, he represented Dahmer.  Gerry is no stranger to the spotlight.  He will represent Vander well.

[Rubie Q]

Further, in order to prove a battery, the city will have to prove that Vander caused pain without the victim's permission.  Kind of hard to prove lack of permission in a mutual combat situation.  "I asked him outside to fight, but didn't give him permission to hit me," really doesn't work well.  Hence the Disorderly Conduct offer, which is much easier to prove.

To me, it sounds like the most sensible resolution would've been for MPD to give both of 'em DC tickets. Street fightin' certainly qualifies as disorderly conduct.