Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz
1. The poster, regardless of who he or she may actually be, by admission has no particular insight into the criminal matter. Indeed, as to the murder, this poster merely rehashes talking points that we have seen all over the place already - nothing of note is added, just a rehash of prior points.
2. It is hard not to recognize that the poster purportedly represented the County in the civil lawsuit and therefore could be biased.
3. I have doubts as to whether this poster really was an attorney for the county (or, technically, for the insurance policy covering the county). The settlement would undoubtedly be "confidential" thus no attorney can speak about the settlement terms or material facts of the case. I would have a hard time believing that this quasi-anonymous (but not really anonymous) poster would risk civil penalties for these disclosures.
4. Under this posters analysis, the civil settlement was worth $0.00 (as it is claimed S.A. was going to get $400,000.00 from restitution fund). This comment was to lead the reader to believe S.A.'s case was without merit. It wasn't: even with S.A. being charged with murder, the matter settled for $400,000.00. That fact matters - with the plaintiff in the worst possible light, the case still settled for $400k. It is easy to conclude that if S.A. was not charged with murder and the case continued, that the settlement would have been as analyzed previously - millions, perhaps over 10 million.
5. I don't buy the "well, S.A. was not railroaded in the first trial because it was a reasonable mistake." If you read closely, the poster relies on an untested legal theory that the M.C.S.D. did not have a duty to investigate the information provided in the phone call from Brown County or information from M.C.S.D. That nicely skirts the question - why was this potentially exculpatory phone call essentially ignored? The "lawyer" does not explain why there would be no duty in the context of a Civil Rights suit - maybe under the doctrine of negligence a duty could not be established, but the Civil Rights action is a different matter.
6. Coverage issues. I will take the poster at his or her word - that no motion to bifurcate coverage issues was filed. I will also point out that given how far along the case was (one year from filing, but discovery just beginning) that doing so would be premature. The insurance would want to see how the claim develops before taking that next step - also, at least for the County, the duty to defend was not at issue. It was an issue to at least one of the individuals, but I do not know how far along they were (for example, if the case had gone through demurrers and other challenges to the complaint, the case would have only started in earnest). Often an insurance defense will try to defend the case by attacking the pleading showing no legal duty as a matter of law. From the timing of things, I would surmise this portion of the proceedings had concluded early summer, and then the parties were moving forward with written discovery and depositions.
7. In that same vein (poster attempting to point to lack of a specific legal filing to indicate strength of case) I also note that no defendant filed for summary judgment, either. Of course, just like with the motion to bifurcate coverage issues that would have also been premature.
So, regardless of the poster's bona fides, I don't believe his or her opinion adds anything of note to the debate.