Taking the stand

dog, will you get the chance to quote the school's lawyer in front of the entire courtroom?

 

No jury. Just the judge, lawyers, onlookers and me.

I don't think the confrontations between me and the attorney will come up. We went through my testimony and the questions our attorney would be asking yesterday and we didn't touch on anything that would lead down that path. Maybe the school's attorney will screw up and give me the chance, though. (Oh, you mean when you told me to go F myself?)

I've got to say, I was surprised by the amount of time I'll spend on the stand. When they first told me I was going to be testifying, they made it seem like no big deal. "We'll get you up there, ask a few questions and you'll be done."

Those few questions have turned into an hour's worth of testimony from just our attorney. Then I've got to deal with the other jackass asking God knows how many questions. I've got a good feeling that I'll not come out of that chair until either he embarrasses me or I bury him.

Should be fun.

 

Victory.

In an unexpected move, the judge felt we made such a strong case that she ruled from the bench in our favor -- something our attorney said rarely happens in these cases. (I'm thinking it was probably my testimony that did it, inspiring as it was.)

Not a bad experience overall. The school's attorney elected not to question me himself and left it up to one of his underlings. Not much was accomplished there. Basically, this poor girl stumbled her way along and proved one thing: That I was not an employee at the NCAA.

I learned a few things:

1. The NCAA has absolutely no bylaws which prevent a member institution from sharing information about an ongoing investigation. They ask the institutions to not compromise the investigations by releasing information deemed "sensitive," but the schools can say whatever they like and there are no penalties whatsoever. The confidentiality agreements are made between the individuals giving testimony and the NCAA. That's it.

2. A coach who is accused by a school of wrongdoing is SCREWED. The Enforcement Director for the NCAA testified that the NCAA's first priority in every case is to work with the university. So, if a school puts the blame on a coach for a bunch of violations, that coach has one hell of an uphill battle to clear his name, because the NCAA ain't interested in doing so.

3. Judges pretty much do whatever the hell they'd like. This woman set this hearing for today, forgot about it, showed up 30 minutes late, acted like we were an inconvenience to her, turned around in the middle of testimony and started talking to some clerk, started asking one witness questions about an old law school buddy during testimony and told me, as I left the stand, that she was a "fan" of mine and "really enjoyed" my work. (She also happened to look almost exactly like the judge Alan Shore slept with on "Boston Legal.")

4. It's amazing how easy it is to lose focus when you're in an unfamiliar setting. I'm on the stand for like two minutes before my mind starts wandering, as I'm being asked questions by our attorney. And I'm thinking about dumb shit, like, "This court reporter is typing up a freakin' storm over here. I should really learn shorthand." Or, "Damn, this guy (some other defense attorney) looks exactly like a guy I went to college with. I wonder if that's him? Nah. No way. That was one dumb bastard. No way he went to law school, much less graduated and had somebody entrust him with a case." I had to ask twice to have questions repeated. I felt like my grandfather.

5. One of the coolest things to me about this whole ordeal is the thought that someday this case might be used as precedent to help some other reporter get his/her hands on public documents they're being denied.

 

Well, jeez, I sure hope you hung around and asked her out to dinner after that.

'Fess up, dude.

 

A victory lap, so to speak.

Well done, dog. Good info, and good work.

 

I would have, but I'm thinking my wife might have had a problem with it.

Thanks, JD.

 

nice job, dog.

this is why lawyers hate judges but are forced to suck up to them. it's really disgusting how lawyers kiss judges' asses 24-7. see a judge at the gym? kiss his ass. see a judge at the supermarket? make a witty remark. see a judge at some law school alumni dinner? suck up.

 

Congrats, dog! ;D

I take it this was what the university was trying to argue?? That the NCAA prevented them from releasing the documents?

I would think it wouldn't really matter what the NCAA says anyway if you're dealing with a state school (don't know if you are.) I know of one case where coaches at a state school were ruled "state employees" (much to their chagrin), and the NCAA really couldn't do or say anything to change that.

 

NCAA rules have absolutely NO bearing in court. None. Zero. Zip. It is a private organization that can make whatever rules it wants, but those rules do not supersede any local, state or federal law. If the NCAA says no and the law says yes, the answer is yes.

 

Actually, the NCAA's rules have been given some authority by some courts, including the Alabama Supreme Court.

In a case from the early 90s, the Birmingham News sued Auburn University seeking a self-report it forwarded to the NCAA. The university refused, saying the report contained interviews that were given after a promise of confidentiality was signed. The lower court said the documents weren't public, the appeals court said they were and the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the lower court. The reasoning was that the NCAA has no subpoena power and relies on confidentiality to get information from various people.

I thought we should challenge that whole argument, given the various misdeeds by the NCAA over the past few years, including the Neuheisal stuff, the University of Alabama debacle, in which an opposing coach and an Internet guy were used as "sources," and the UNLV situation. There needs to be some sort of oversight in these cases, because whenever you have an organization the size of the NCAA and it serves as judge, jury and executioner, the problems are obvious. Not to mention, this case I'm dealing with is rather unprecedented. The school basically made up numerous rules violations in order to fire a head coach and not pay the remainder of his contract. (I say it's unprecedented, but a similar case popped up at FAMU a year ago.) The way the NCAA's set up, there's no protection for these coaches. When the enforcement system at the NCAA was set up, they never figured that a school would throw itself under the bus to get rid of a coach. So, even if the school completely fabricates a claim that a coach paid a player, fires the coach and imposes sanctions, the NCAA can't do anything. They can't go in and make the school hire the coach back and they can't undo self-imposed penalties.

Ultimately, we decided to go with an easier approach: We agreed that if the school turned over the documents, it could redact the names of anyone who gave confidential testimony.

But that's not what got us a win. According to the judge, after reviewing all the documents in question, she said there was nothing in there that I hadn't already reported at some point. Her exact words were: "You can't un-ring that bell."

Amazingly, our lawyer informed us this morning that the university plans to appeal the decision.

 

Did you tell him to go f--- himself?