Sports Law Blog |
All things legal relating to the sports world... |
|
Main Page
Atom Feed RSS Feed Honored by Fast Company as one of Three Best Sports Business Blogs and by the American Bar Association Journal as a Top 100 Law Blog Contributors Rick Karcher Michael McCann Geoffrey Rapp Greg Skidmore Howard Wasserman Guest Contributors Mark Conrad andre douglas pond cummings Marc Edelman Ed Edmonds Timothy Epstein Gabriel Feldman Stijn Francis Paul Haberman David Katz Alan C. Milstein Other Guests Sports Law Blog (one word) -at- gmail -dot- com Recent Posts Sports Agencies Representing Both Players and Owne... SI.com Column on Isiah Thomas, MSG Verdict Thomas, MSG liable for sexual harassment The 2007 MLB Team Payroll Report Card Winning Sports and the Effect on Law Competitive Balance DOJ Plans Appeal of Second Circuit Ruling on FCC I... Did Eric Mangini Break an Unwritten Covenant Not t... Recap of Sonny Vaccaro's talk at the University of... Reversing Field Our Publications Rick Karcher's Law Review Articles on SSRN Michael McCann's Law Review Articles on SSRN Michael McCann's SI.com Columns Geoffrey Rapp's Law Review Articles on SSRN Greg Skidmore's A Proposal to Pay College Athletes and the Impending Conflict with Title IX Howard Wasserman's Law Review Articles on SSRN Our Social Network Pages  View Michael McCann's LinkedIn Profile
Sports Blogs & Links ACC BasketBlog AOL NBA Fanhouse Baseball Crank Baseball Musings BasketBloom Beaneball Big East Basketball Report Bioethics and Sport Blog Maverick Blog a Bull Boston Dirt Dogs Boston Sports Media Watch Celtics Blog Celtics Stuff Live Chris Isidore/CNN Money College Basketball Blog College Athletics Clips Darren Rovell's Gatorade Blog Darren Rovell's SportsBiz Deadspin Don Walker's Bus.-Sports Blog DraftExpress Duke Basketball Report ESPN Federal Baseball Hoya News I Heart Celtics Ian On Sports Infinite Intensity Jones On The NBA Just Another Blog on Sports Keeping Score: The Media and Women's Sports Legal Issues-College Athletics National Football Post NBA Draft Net Only Baseball Matters Off Wing Opinion Playbooks and Profits Remember Black Baseball Sabernomics Sports Blog Sports Business Daily Sports Business News Sports Central Sports Court Sports Crumedgeon Sports Filter Sports Illustrated Sports Judge Sports Media Review Sports Overload Sports Policy Blog Sports Prof Teal Sunglasses The Sports Economist True Hoop True Hoop ESPN USA Rugby Blog Women's Hoops Blog Zagsblog (Adam Zagoria) Sports Law Resources ABA Forum on Sports All Sports Agents Directory Athlete Agent Blog Connecticut Sports Law Denver Sports Ent. L.J. DePaul J. Sports L. Duke Center Sports Law/Policy Duke Sports & Ent. L. Society Find Law Sports FIU Sports & Entertainment Law Florida Coastal Center for Law and Sports Florida Coastal Database of College Coaches Contracts History of Sports and the Human Condition I Want to be a Sports Agent Illinois J. Bus. L. Society Lex Sportiva (Portugese) LII: Sports (Cornell University) Marquette Sports Law Program Mark Alesia's NCAA Study National Sports and Entertainment Law Society National Sports and Entertainment Law Society Blog Orpheus Sports and Entertainment Seton Hall J. Sports & Ent. L. Sports Law Review Sports Lawyers Assoc. Sports Litigation Alert Texas Rev. Ent. & Sports L. The Sports Lawyers Journal Title IX Blog Vanderbilt J. Ent. & Tech. L. Vermont Law School Sports and Entertainment Law Society Villanova Sports & Ent. L. J. Virginia Sports & Ent. L. J. Willamette Sports L. J. World Sports Law Report Law Blogs Antitrust Review Concurring Opinions Conglomerate Contracts Prof Blog Crim Prof Blog Crime and Federalism En Passant Franchise Law Blog Houston's Clear Thinkers How Appealing Inside Legal Blogs JD2B Law and Letters Law Career Blog LawCulture Legal Theory Blog Madisonian.Net Media Law Prof Blog MoneyLaw Neuroethics and Law Blog Overlawyered Harvard Law Professor Paul Weiler's Blog Real Lawyers :: Have Blogs Sex Crimes Law Blog Southern California Law Blog Sports Law Professor Supreme Court Blog Taxonomy of Legal Blogs TaxProf Blog The Legal Scoop The Situationist Trademark Blog Truth on the Market Volokh Conspiracy Wall Street Journal Law Blog Workplace Prof Blog Other Links Blog Search Engine Chris Uggen (Sociology Blog) Economics Roundtable Filsteu Florida Coastal School of Law Fuss is Human-Rant is Divine! Google Blog Search Harvard Business Sports Club Harvard Law Record Inside Higher Education Journeys of Jack Tripper Market Power Mississippi Coll. School of Law New Scientist Picks and Policy SSRN Technorati The Metropolis Times Univ. of Toledo College of Law Washington Monthly Wordsmith's Dance Disclaimer Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you. < ? law blogs # > Archives 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 
Blogarama |
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
On Juries, Standards of Proof, and Isiah Thomas Two random, although somewhat related, comments on juries, trials, and standards of proof: First: In my post on the verdict in the Isiah Thomas trial, I wrote: To no one's surprise, Thomas continued to insist he did not do the things Browne Sanders accused him of doing (or more precisely, the things that the jury found he did, in fact, do). A reader e-mailed the following: To be precise, not "in fact" but "on the balance of probabilities" or All we ever really have in a jury verdict is a "balance of probabilities" because the jury cannot know with any certainty whether some fact is true or not (even with the benefit of video evidence). It only can draw its best inferences based on what it hears and sees. The difference between the standard of proof in a civil case (more likely than not) and criminal (beyond a reasonable doubt) is the level of balancing of these probabilities before we will say something has been proven as fact. But we operationalize this process as finding matters "as fact" and determining "the truth" about what happened in the real world simply because we have no choice if we want a judicial system that can firmly and finally resolve legal and factual disputes. For that reason, I stand by my shorthand description of the jury having found "as fact" that Thomas did make the comments and take the actions at issue. It does not mean that what the jury determined is true in any absolute sense; maybe it is, maybe it is not--we simply do not know. But, for legal purposes, the jury's determination establishes that X did occur. This does not mean, of course, that Thomas cannot continue to declare that the jury was wrong or to insist that he did not do anything wrong. And that would be true regardless of whether the verdict had been civil or criminal. But I was not derogating Thomas's right to continue to proclaim his non-liability. Instead, I was calling Thomas on a disingenuous rhetorical device. By continuing to speak in terms of not doing what he was accused of by Browne, rather than what the jury had concluded, he ignores the verdict. But the verdict changes the narrative. Thomas can continue to insist he did not do it. But he must refute not only what this interested woman says, but what 12 disinterested people not otherwise involved in the real-world events concluded that he did. Second: In his SI.com column on the Thomas verdict, Mike argues that the fact that Thomas was only held civilly liable but not criminally culpable, with the attendant differences in standards of proof, may be a "salient" consideration for Stern in determining whether to impose some NBA punishment (fine, suspension, etc.) immediately. This concern for standards of proof has come up a lot in other discussions of league punishments in the wake of judicial determinations. But I do not see why it makes a difference. We insist on findings "beyond a reasonable doubt" in criminal cases because it is the State seeking to punish someone by taking away their life and liberty, so we want to be a bit more certain (even if absolute certainty is impossible) before we permit the State to do so. But that requirement not carry into any other legal context. A person can be deprived of his property (e.g., forced to pay damages to another or forced to stop allowing his factory to pollute the stream or forced to rehire a wrongfully terminated worker) at the demand of another private person even if the evidence only makes it more likely than not that some legal rules were violated. If there was enough to support a civil jury's conclusion that Thomas and the Knicks engaged in unlawful conduct, I do not see why the NBA should hesitate to use that conclusion to impose its own punishment. The only difference is that the unlawful conduct in which Thomas engaged is defined by the legislature as a civil wrong (a wrong against another individual), while the unlawful conduct in which, say, Michael Vick, engaged is defined by the legislature as a criminal wrong (a breach of the societal peace). But either is unlawful conduct. And if the NBA wants to police its members, unlawful conduct should be all that matters. Consider that the NBA could, if it chose, set up its own private arbitration system and conduct a de novo trial of this case. And it could, and likely would, use "more likely than not" as the standard of proof in its hearings. If so, why should the NBA hesitate in, essentially, applying collateral estoppel to the jury findings on that same standard of proof by imposing league sanctions based just on the jury verdict? 1 Comments:
Mr. Wasserman, |
