|
Post by hchoops on Apr 25, 2019 8:53:20 GMT -5
1- doubtful—this is the testimony of a convicted felon 2-always a possibility.See cesspool, NCAA.majors
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 25, 2019 9:17:30 GMT -5
This so called evidence came in a different trial from a convicted felon. Even if Dawkins is called in the Pitino trial, his veracity will be seriously attacked. Doubtful it will be believed, unless the jury wants to exonerate pitino
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Apr 25, 2019 9:18:35 GMT -5
Certainly does not exonerate him If he did not know(still doubtful imo), he should have known. CEOs are responsible for their underlings. He could have told his assistants do what you have to do, just do not tell me. Should Bill Carmody have known what was going on with Cohen (whose Twitter feed was troubling from the start) and the other ring of miscreants?
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 25, 2019 11:20:15 GMT -5
There's kind of two different things going on here. On one hand there is the criminal aspect. Is he personally criminally responsible if one of his direct reports breaks the law in the course of doing his job? Then there is institutional responsibility. Is he responsible to the organization for the action of his subordinates?
I could see this type of tape absolve him of criminal responsibility and keep him out of jail and at the same time not clear him of the just cause to terminate his contract
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 25, 2019 11:31:04 GMT -5
I have not followed this case, but am I right that Pitino has not been charged with a crime? He has a lawsuit against Louisville for breach of contract if I am not mistaken. Therefore, he bears the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was wrongfully terminated. This statement that he did not know what was going on is hearsay. The declarant would have to testify in court to it for it to come in and would be subject to cross examination.
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Apr 25, 2019 13:54:24 GMT -5
I have not followed this case, but am I right that Pitino has not been charged with a crime? He has a lawsuit against Louisville for breach of contract if I am not mistaken. Therefore, he bears the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was wrongfully terminated. This statement that he did not know what was going on is hearsay. The declarant would have to testify in court to it for it to come in and would be subject to cross examination. Even if he "proves" that he didn't know, that may or may not be the end of the story. If people he hired are, in the course of their duties, acting in a way harmful to the school, is that cause for termination even if he wasn't fully aware of his subordinates' wrong doing ? Even if there is no legal responsibility to know what your subordinates are doing, is it part of a job description, so that termination is for not fully preforming your duties? Ignorance might keep you out of jail, but it might not stop you from getting fired
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 25, 2019 14:04:03 GMT -5
I have not followed this case, but am I right that Pitino has not been charged with a crime? He has a lawsuit against Louisville for breach of contract if I am not mistaken. Therefore, he bears the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he was wrongfully terminated. This statement that he did not know what was going on is hearsay. The declarant would have to testify in court to it for it to come in and would be subject to cross examination. Even if he "proves" that he didn't know, that may or may not be the end of the story. If people he hired are, in the course of their duties, are acting in a way harmful to the school, is that cause for termination even if he wasn't fully aware of his subordinates' wrong doing ? Even if there is no legal responsibility to know what your subordinates are doing, is it part of a job description, so that termination is for not fully preforming your duties? Ignorance might keep you out of jail, but it might not stop you from getting fired Definitely. I have no idea exactly what he would have to prove as to the University's alleged breach of contract claim under Kentucky law. I am assuming that the University probably claims multiple grounds for terminating him including that he was not sufficiently attentive to the operation of his program so that this incident could happen under his watch. I was just making the point that this statement that he didn't know anything may well not even come into evidence.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Apr 25, 2019 14:38:56 GMT -5
And do not forget this is only the latest offense Remember 1-Strippers for recruits 2-sex on the restaurant table top Et al ?
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 25, 2019 14:50:59 GMT -5
I think the evidence may go beyond hearsay as the newspaper article states that a surveillance video captured Dawkins making his statement about Pitino being ignorant of the crime.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 25, 2019 15:13:27 GMT -5
I think the evidence may go beyond hearsay as the newspaper article states that a surveillance video captured Dawkins making his statement about Pitino being ignorant of the crime. The tape is still an out of court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It should not come in because it is not subject to cross examination. If Dawkins could be gotten before the jury (or perhaps his deposition taken and read at trial if the rules of court allow it) Pitino's attorney could ask him if Pitino knew anything, but that would draw an objection that was no foundation as to how Dawkins could know that. It is pretty hard for one person to testify what someone else did not know. The challenge for Pitino's attorney will be to offer evidence which would lead the jury to believe he was in the dark. Perhaps he could bring in all of the involved parties to say that they did not tell Pitino anything and an FBI agent testify that he uncovered no evidence that anyone told Pitino. Maybe that is possible, but I think that Pitino is going to have to sell the jury on it through his own testimony. Of course, as we discussed above, there may be other grounds for termination as well. .
|
|
|
Post by possum on Apr 25, 2019 16:08:26 GMT -5
Pitino should end his career where it started at UMass. The program is in shambles and despite what you may think of him personally he's a great coach and would quickly make them relevant again.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Apr 26, 2019 6:45:37 GMT -5
Would it be admissible in court for Dawkins to be asked by defense counsel if he ever discussed recruitment with Pitino or if Pitino's name ever came up in his discussions? Would this line of questioning have any value? Obviously, this is a sordid mess. LoveHC Yes. Dawkins could presumably testify from personal knowledge to either of those facts. Such testimony would be probative of whether Pitino should be held liable for what he actually knew about was going on around his program. It would leave open the question about what he should have known.
|
|