[JayStrong]

This was presented as 'breaking news' and the first story reported on TV, just shows how serious they take this 'never blame the victim' doctrine

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/11/1...h-teacher/

Quote:

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com/AP) — The Los Angeles Unified School District cut ties with an attorney on Friday after he successfully defended the district from a sexual abuse lawsuit in which he told jurors that a 14-year-old girl was partly responsible for having sex with her middle school math teacher.

“Why is it her fault that she planned on having sex with her teacher? That she lied to her mother so she could have an opportunity to have sex with her teacher,” attorney W. Keith Wyatt said in a radio interview with KPCC. “That she went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn’t she be responsible for that?”

The jury ultimately found in favor of the LAUSD, accepting the district’s argument that it had no knowledge of the relationship and could not be held liable, according to KPCC.

The trial victory spared the cash-strapped district a potentially pricey verdict, but news of the trial strategy and remarks by attorney W. Keith Wyatt that crossing the street was more dangerous than deciding to have sex with a teacher drew criticism.

“Mr. Wyatt’s comments yesterday were completely inappropriate, and they undermine the spirit of the environment we strive to offer our students every day,” Dave Holmquist, general counsel for the school district, said in a statement. “Our deepest apologies go out to the young woman and her family, who were hurt by the insensitive remarks of Mr. Wyatt.”

Elkis Hermida, a teacher at Thomas Edison Middle School, was convicted of lewd acts against a child and sentenced in July 2011 to three years in state prison.

The student then filed the case to seek financial compensation from the LAUSD stating she suffered emotional trauma from the months-long relationship with Hermida, according to KPCC.

During the trial, Wyatt introduced the girl’s sexual history and argued she bore some of the responsibility.

The judge ruled in favor of the district.

KPCC reports the girl’s lawyer is appealing the case.

The case presents an apparent inconsistency in the standard for sexual consent in California criminal and civil cases.

In criminal cases, a 14-year-old girl is too young to consent to sex. Wyatt, however, cited a federal court decision that said a minor could consent to sex in some circumstances.

The federal case cited by Wyatt relies on a California Supreme Court decision about jury instructions in an incest case, said Mary Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington. The creative application of the language was probably never envisioned by the state’s high court.

“Some language plucked out of the original case has grown to monstrous proportions,” Fan said. “Pretty soon it looks like a viable argument. When a court accepts it, it just grows into its own beast.”

Lawyers and advocates for sexual abuse victims said the legal tactic was surprising.

“I was shocked. I’ve done sexual abuse cases against school districts before and I’ve never seen the persistence of this argument,” said Holly Boyer, who filed the appeal for the girl. “I’ve never seen this at all that the victim willingly participated in this and that they should bear some responsibility in their injuries.”

Boyer said there were enough red flags that the school should have been aware of the teacher’s conduct.

He was seen hugging other girls and began to groom the victim at age 13 through texting, phone calls and exchanging photos, Boyer said, adding that the sexual abuse began when the girl was 14 and some of it occurred in the classroom.

Boyer also plans to argue that the girl’s sexual past should not have been allowed into evidence. Such evidence is barred in criminal cases where rape shield laws exist, but not always in civil actions.

“It’s terrible, but not unusual that a school would try to muddy the waters” by presenting such evidence, said Fatima Goss Graves, a vice president at the National Women’s Law Center. “The law on whether and when that sort of evidence is permitted is sort of murky and one of the reasons why Congress is looking at additional law … that looks more like a criminal rape shield law.

I think he did his job and did it well, that he could be fired for presenting facts in court is mind boggling and just another step in this mental disorder dominating every aspect of western society. Now lawyers will think twice before presenting evidence that may exonerate their clients for fear of offending someone? Amazing

[Truck'n]

yeah.....there are several parts of our court system that are fucked. But I think some it is lawyers being lawyers. But for the LA school district to bend over backwards for feminism is not good. As the number of men who fall prety to feministic culture continue to rise, it is just a matter of time before some dude loses his shit and decides to take revenge against a person in the public spotlight. Sadly, this shit will go on until then.

[Kingsley Davis]

I'm going to hijack your thread since it's refering to lawyers. This fool took White Knighting to another level by breaking into his chubby lawyer wife's ex boss's home to torture the man and his wife only to have said chubby wife lawyer cunt turn on him to the authorities that she had no idea what he was up to. Another thing, he's also a...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crim...story.html

[Suits]

Since they fired the lawyer, I guess this means that the school board is going to cough up the cash demanded in the lawsuit, right?

[Captain Gh]

Talk about being shitted on big time!! On a better note, a California lawyer is probably on his way seek the Red Pill

[WanderingSoul]

So why didn't they fire him during the case? If what he was doing was so deplorable they should have fired him on the spot, not waited until he'd won the case for them.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

What the fuck? How can a lawyer be held liable for things he said during criminal proceedings? It's his sworn duty to help the client out in whatever way possible, even if it conflicts with his personal beliefs.

Him saying that in a courtroom doesn't mean that he is a sexist or rape apologist in real life. For all that they know, outside the courtroom he might very well be a vocal feminist and white knight.

What a farce.

[aphelion]

To be fair, in a case like that, he probably should have just taken his victory and shut up about it. Sometimes, whether you're right or wrong, you're wrong.

[Sp5]

The problem was he said it on a radio show, not in court.

[MoFoQ]

wait...they fired him after they won?

Are they still liable for the lawyer's fees?

makes yea wonder if they did it to get out of paying

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(11-15-2014 05:42 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The problem was he said it on a radio show, not in court.

But that still has nothing to do with him being sexist. In the worst case, that's a breach of court proceedings' secrecy or lawyer confidentiality, not his own belief? He was just citing what arguments he used during litigation.

Am I reading this wrong?