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

[4everwarriors]

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.

What other set of questions might that be. Can't I give anything away any time I so choose? Guaranteed Boyle comes without charge to Blue or MU.

[reinko]

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.

If only VB would have hit him with the upper cut, that sent this punk into flames, this would have all been settled on the street.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

And that might be one reason that Vander refused the deal to plead down to the DC charge...the other kid got no charge at all.  They can't make the assault and battery charge stick because there was consent.  With the DC, it is an issue of selective prosecution, and I can see why a kid wouldn't want to accept that.

/end speculation/

[Knight Commission]

Other than the inconvenience of going to trial and the attorney fees, are there any other deterrents for the plaintiff to elect to go forward with the trial? 

Also, could he pursue a "civil" claim?

[Rubie Q]

Other than the inconvenience of going to trial and the attorney fees, are there any other deterrents for the plaintiff to elect to go forward with the trial? 

Also, could he pursue a "civil" claim?

The plaintiff in this case is the City of Milwaukee. Did you mean defendant, or are you asking about the complaining witness?

[rocky_warrior]

If only VB would have hit him with the upper cut, that sent this punk into flames, this would have all been settled on the street.

I always preferred SubZero ripping out the spine


But in Vander's case, the friendship move would have been the smart one

[bilsu]

Without going back to reread all these posts and refer to a particular poster's post,  these are things that occurred to me when reading the previous posts.
1. Blue was offered to settle on a lessor charge and turn it down. I think this means he is going to trial on the original charge. That seems foolish to me, but I think Blue is more affraid of Buzz's punishment, which is going to based on whether he is guilty.
2. My guess is that Boyle is being paid by MU, because this has a negative effect on the bashketball programs reputation. Also, if Buzz feels he needs to discipline Blue based on the outcome, he will do whatever he can to give Blue the best defense.
3. The idea that a video from a camera on the outside of Qdouba is something they would want to use as evidence does not seem like a good idea to me. The camera is not going to show the discussion that went on inside Qdouba. Based on what I read here is that the video is going to show  Blue taking the first and maybe only swing.
4. Somebody wondered why it took 24 hrs for the other party to file a complaint with the police department. I thought I read that it went ot the police, because it was refered there by the MU.

[Pakuni]

4. Somebody wondered why it took 24 hrs for the other party to file a complaint with the police department. I thought I read that it went ot the police, because it was refered there by the MU.

Per Rosiak's timeline, the fight happened about 1:30 a.m., the kid who got punched reported it to DPS about 7:30 p.m. and then, at his request, DPS contacted MPD about it.

[macman320]

Why are these articles being written by Don Walker and not Todd Rosiak? Is he just on vacation for a bit?

[Chili]

Why are these articles being written by Don Walker and not Todd Rosiak? Is he just on vacation for a bit?

Todd is on the Brewers beat in the summer.

[Knight Commission]

The plaintiff in this case is the City of Milwaukee. Did you mean defendant, or are you asking about the complaining witness?

Oh ok. I thought perhaps the student initiated this lawsuit and therefore had control over whether it would go to the next step (trial).  I thought perhaps he may get cold feet, and drop the complaint in which case it wouldn't move forward.

If the City is the plaintiff, then am I correct in assuming this will ultimately go to trial (because the complaining witness will not bear the expense or have any other deterrent not to proceed with the trial)?

[redbirdwarrior]

I do not know this specific case, but I can tell you that complaining witnesses often want the State (or City in this case) to drop charges.  Often the complaining witnesses make themselves unavailable to be served or fail to attend these civil trials.  I know that earlier someone said the complaining witness was a Milwaukee resident, but in my cases, witnesses (especially the cases that come from a local college when trials are set at a break time) leave the jurisdiction and are unable to be served.

The complaining witness has nothing personal to gain other than a conviction to be arguably used if he pursues a civil (read:  CASH) legal option.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What other set of questions might that be. Can't I give anything away any time I so choose? Guaranteed Boyle comes without charge to Blue or MU.

Not without having the NCAA get really excited along with the MU Athletics Compliance office.


Think....Free Shoes Shoebox at Wisconsin-madison as just one of many examples.  One can't just give away free stuff or services to athletes only, that's a huge no-no.

[MU8285]

What is interesting about this is that if the original charge was disorderly conduct, instead of the DC charge being the offer to settle, I think Vander is in trouble.

Disorderly conduct is conduct that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance.  Clearly Vander’s conduct did that it would seem.  (Keep in mind that even though not charged in this case, both parties can be disorderly, so the defense of “the other guy did it too” doesn’t work for DC.  However, as Boyle is talking about, battery requires a lack of consent on the other party.  If two guys get in a heated verbal argument, as appears to be the case, and one invites the other outside to settle the matter, as appears to be the case, and the other goes, as appears to be the case, and since, as anybody with any common sense knows, the invitation to go outside and settle the matter is an invitation to a physical altercation; then the other guy is consenting to the fight by going outside, as appears to be the case. 

If I were the prosecutor I would amend this to the DC, or just issue a second charge since both could be charged.  In the end DC is easier to prove, doesn’t have the consent issue problem, and, since these are muni charges, are really almost equivalent since the forfeiture is likely to be the same for a college-age kid no matter which he charge he gets convicted of.

A couple of comments on some posts above:

“Looks like a justified battery to defend one self.”  I am not trying to take the other side, but I have yet to see the need for Vander to “defend” himself, at least not in a physical self-defense sense.  Even if Vander’s statement that he accidentally hit the guy when he pushed him back is true, it doesn’t really work as self-defense since Vander started the physical altercation by pushing the other guy first.  It does come back to the consent issue though, since now, instead of just coming outside (as I understand it the other guy is trying to claim he didn’t know that the invitation to go outside was to fight,) the other guy is actively engaging in the altercation.


Also, in discussing the burden of proof issue, above the comment was made that “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.”  Except an ordinance violation is not a criminal charge, and the burden of proof is by a clear, statisfatory and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Lethdorr]

Also, in discussing the burden of proof issue, above the comment was made that “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.”  Except an ordinance violation is not a criminal charge, and the burden of proof is by a clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indeed. However, I was expanding my point so as to also include two other, separate incident that are being investigated by authorities - authorities with the potential to bring felony/misdemeanor charges.

The same statement holds true. The findings of the Student Conduct Process bear no weight on the likelihood of being found guilty - whether the offense is municipal, state, or federal.

[77ncaachamps]

How many legal eagles are really in this thread?

[SaveOD238]

I dont think this has been posted yet, but Eamonn Brennan on ESPN blogged about the situation involving VB (or is it VO?) this morning

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/29991/dont-call-vander-blue-uncreative-names

[Knight Commission]

Any chance MU is footing the bill for this using an argument that he was a target because he was an athlete, and therefore it relates to his "involvement in athletic practice or events"? I recognize this is a stretch argument, but perhaps there is some precdent.

NCAA rule:


Expenses Related to Legal and Other Proceedings. 

Previous Cite: 16.3.1.2 Life Skills Programs.   Next Cite: 16.3.3 Expenses Related to Initial or Transfer-Eligibility Requirements. 
 
An institution may provide actual and necessary expenses to attend proceedings conducted by the institution, its athletics conference or the NCAA that relate to the student-athlete's eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics or legal proceedings that result from the student-athlete's involvement in athletics practice or competitive events.  The cost of legal representation in such proceedings also may be provided by the institution (or a representative of its athletics interests).  (Revised: 5/9/06)
 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I dont think this has been posted yet, but Eamonn Brennan on ESPN blogged about the situation involving VB (or is it VO?) this morning

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/29991/dont-call-vander-blue-uncreative-names

He's going to be called Vander Orange with plenty of chants at every road game.  Oh well.  Classic example of Sticks and Stones may break some bones....you have to ignore this crap when they call you that stuff.  Easier said than done, I realize.

[MerrittsMustache]

He's going to be called Vander Orange with plenty of chants at every road game.  Oh well.  Classic example of Sticks and Stones may break some bones....you have to ignore this crap when they call you that stuff.  Easier said than done, I realize.

I have a feeling that there was more to it than just some simple name-calling. Although, Jim Everett would probably tell you that name-calling can be enough to start an altercation.


(In regards to taunting crowd chants...If the Heat and Bulls play in the Conf Finals, I REALLY hope the crowds gets a good "Deloooonte...Deloooonte" chant going whenever LBJ is at the line. Seriously, how does he not hear that every place he goes?!)

[NCAARules]

I recognize this is a stretch argument, but perhaps there is some precdent.

KC - that is a stretch. I will tell you from my own involvement in some student-athlete cases, they were always left to their own devices to procure counsel. Not sure on the pro bono situation that others have suggested either.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have a feeling that there was more to it than just some simple name-calling. Although, Jim Everett would probably tell you that name-calling can be enough to start an altercation.


(In regards to taunting crowd chants...If the Heat and Bulls play in the Conf Finals, I REALLY hope the crowds gets a good "Deloooonte...Deloooonte" chant going whenever LBJ is at the line. Seriously, how does he not hear that every place he goes?!)

Jim Everett actually did.  I was paired up with him in Hawaii to play golf about 8 or 9 years ago.  A fun round of golf with Jim Kelly behind us drunk as a skunk and hitting into us.  Yeah, when he went after Rome there were some other things involved.

[reinko]

Care to share some deats CBB?  Or at least via PM?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Care to share some deats CBB?  Or at least via PM?

He didn't say.  We talked about it, along with the others in the 5 some....we were all there for the old Quarterback Challenge competition which hasn't aired in a few years.  Someone in our group asked if he would share the story...did he just get frustrated and attack Rome for the comments or was there a back story.  From what I recall, he said it was the last straw and the name calling was what put him over the edge.  He didn't get into what led up to it.  I believe Rome was attacking him publicly for some time and putting them both in the same room wasn't the best idea in the world.  Rome is about my size, Everett is a BIG BIG boy.

I found Everett to be a pretty good guy that day for 5+ hours.  Never liked Rome.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9HNgqQVHI_8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/9HNgqQVHI_8</a>

[Jay Bee]

Didn't realize Rome is a midget