Duke Redux - Back to the Court of Public Opinion

This story has its roots in the charges of sexual assault brought against members of the Duke University lacrosse team in 2006.  Charges were eventually dropped, and Nifong, the district attorney who oversaw the case, was disbarred.  In February, members of the lacrosse team and their families brought suit against Duke and the City of Durham, seeking monetary compensation for the damages they sustained during the prolonged period of time during which they were tried in the news and in the court of public opinion.  They are represented by Robert Bork, Jr., son of the nominee for the Supreme Court who failed to win approval from the Senate in hearings that gave us the verb "borked." 

The lawyers representing the lacrosse team members are keeping a blog detailing the procedural course of the lawsuit and, as is usual in blogs, larding their entries with statements of personal opinion.  Duke and its co-defendants requested that the court sanction the attorneys for violating the North Carolina Code of Professional Conduct by making statements "disseminated by means of public communication which would have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudication" on the lawsuit. Essentially,  Duke contended that Bork's blog would taint the jury pool in the jury trial defendants have requested.  Last week, US district court judge James Beaty denied their motion.

This case is an interesting look at the impact of Internet-mediated information on the course of justice.  Judge Beaty did not sanction the blogging attorneys, but issued guidance to both sides as to how they should conduct their relations with the media.  For more information, see the article in the April 14 issue of The National Law Journal

Comments

[Robicutus Hudsonious]

Interesting to note that the most recent litigation has to do with the blog itself!