Following a battle of the medical experts, a jury tells the UCF Athletics Association to pay $10 million in the death of a student player who “collapsed and died following offseason conditioning drills at the UCF football complex.” [Chicago Tribune]
Following a battle of the medical experts, a jury tells the UCF Athletics Association to pay $10 million in the death of a student player who “collapsed and died following offseason conditioning drills at the UCF football complex.” [Chicago Tribune]
9 Comments
I have always thought it was more than a little bizarre to have dueling experts testify and then have their testimony evaluated by a jury that has absolutely no understanding as to the science involved. On what basis do they make their determination? Is it the expert that sounds most sincere or the one that looks most intelligent? It would seem that we could just as well get 12 chimpanzees together and get result of equal validity. (Given the jury trial that was just in the news, it appears that we are using people with the IQ of chimpanzees as jurors.)
By the way I am not commenting on whether or not this verdict was correct because I have no expertise in medicine.
Richard, I think there is something a little off in your idea about the jury here; as I understand, the prosecution could not prove cause of death in the coroner’s report; in such a case, how can a juror be expected to vote guilty under those circumstances? If the death was an accident, as I understand, one can not be charged with murder, particularly capital murder. If so, the jury did the right thing, as frustrating as it is. Her actions afterward are another matter, but also keep in mind there is no one way to “grieve” that is “correct” in the situation.
(In a sense, this is almost a reverse Scott Peterson verdict [not another OJ verdict as I have heard]: There, the jury convicted Peterson on little more–seemingly– than the fact he had an affair and an illegally taped series of phone calls by the mistress; there was no proof he actually did the murder, or where the murder took place…..but he was the “most likely” suspect, and (IIRC) he is up for the death sentence. If anyone knows the current status of that case, I’ll defer to them.)
Oops, a correction to my previous post: It should have said the coroner’s report did not give a cause of death due to decomposition, not the prosecution could not prove cause of death.
Melvin H. wrote:
>Richard, I think there is something a little off in your idea about the jury here; as I understand, the prosecution could not prove cause of death in the coroner’s report; in such a case, how can a juror be expected to vote guilty under those circumstances?
We seem to have strayed from the topic of the thread (Ereck Plancher) to the Casey Anthony trial. OK, I’ll bite…
The Casey Anthony jury were right to find “reasonable doubt” about murder first-degree and second-degree. They also rejected “aggravated manslaughter.” Did they have a chance to consider ordinary “manslaughter”? If they rejected that too, they got it wrong. They should acquit if there is “a reasonable” doubt, but I see no “reasonable” (non criminal) explanation as to why the defendant lied so long and consistently about her child’s location and presumed fate. Every day she withheld what she knew was an additional lie.
It looks like the prosecution over-charged. If the jury hadn’t been spooked by the idea of putting a beautiful woman to death, they might have been willing to give a manslaughter verdict the attention it deserved. On the other hand, prosecutors have sometimes found overcharging useful to scare defendants into the plea-bargain that prosecutors had in mind from the beginning, or to make it hard to raise bail.
The correct way to grieve always take a lot of someone else’s money.
Bob
Back to the Plancher case, there must be hundreds, if not thousands of NCAA student athletes who have sickle cell trait. Are they to get special precautions?
B.RAD,
If this award holds up, then those “special precautions” may include not allowing sickle-cell afflicted players to fully participate in sports. Of course, that will generate a racial discrimination lawsuit as well. The attorneys can get you coming and going on this one…
Melvin H. misstates the Scott Peterson case. Mr. Peterson went fishing 80 some miles from his house leaving his wife at home. Somebody murdered her and dumpe4d her body 80 some miles away where Mr. Petterson was fishing. That is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. As I remember the jury comment, the phone calls with the girlfriend were no more than icing on the cake.
I do not understand involving experts in the cited case. Clearly the student assumed a reasonable risk. The first Spector trial clearly showed the need to curb experts for hire. Although that jury except for one or two nuts did get it right.
As a former football player myself, I understand that it is an inherently risky activity with the possibility of being hurt or, in rare cases, dying, always present. I do not see that the university here could have done anything to prevent Mr. Plancher’s tragic death. There are many heart ailments that do not show up on an EKG and it would be prohibitively expensive to require a college to test all of their players to echo cardiograms or the intrusive cardiac catheterization (which is a somewhat risky procedure). Requiring all college football players to be tested for sickle cell trait (roughly 99% of Americans who have it are African American) would probably be attacked by the ideologues in the Justice Dept. as having a racially discriminatory impact and there would be suits brought by players barred from playing because of a positive test result. If college and high school football are killed off it will be due to a combination of lawsuits like this, the Title 9 extremists and academics who hate sports and the nannies who want to eliminate risks from life. As a final point, $10 million for a 20 year old with average skills (he was not an NFL prospect) is groosly excessive.