Baylor's Lacedarius Dunn Suspended for Assault

[wacobluedevil]

Police reports contain rather detailed accounts of what Edwards supposedly said to them at the hospital. At the same time we're being told by these same reports that she has a broken jaw that required extensive surgery. How does someone with this sort of injury also make verbal statements of the sort that she allegedly made to the police.

Of course, she could have written it down (but that's not what's in the reports), or some other explanation. Again by itself it may be explainable, but it is odd.

[wacobluedevil]

The conclusion of the university's Judicial Affairs Disciplinary Committee, which concluded after hearing from Edwards, Dunn and others, and reading the police reports, that Dunn was not guilty of assaulting a female which resulted in her jaw being broken.

(Again, as I understand it, the important question is whether there was an assault in this case, which as it has been explained to me requires intent to inflict bodily harm.)

Of course, this could be part of the giant conspiracy here at Baylor to whitewash the whole affair (I wish we could be so coordinated on other matters here). But I know some of the members of this committee, and I know that they would resign in a heartbeat rather than participate in any sort of cover-up. And while I am not privy to their deliberations, it is the first panel to hear the evidence and talk to the principals in the matter. And no, they have no legal authority, but they do have a legal advisor to consult as they deliberate.

Add these three anomalies to the normal presumption of innocence (lacrosse), and prudence dictates that this may, I repeat, may not be your garden variety domestic violence.

[Merlindevildog91]

I'm not presuming Dunn is guilty of anything, only using as my starting point the fact that he had been charged, and how hard these kinds of cases are. I learned long before the lacrosse case not to make assumptions. (Too bad Mike Nifong didn't figure that one out, isn't it?) In my jurisdiction, the police make the charges, we don't, though we can drop them, amend them, etc., if necessary.

I doubt Baylor is part of some greater conspiracy. I would expect the Judicial Affairs Disciplinary Committee did a careful review of information and testimony given. I don't know if they were privy to the hospital reports, which are oftentimes covered by HIPAA and can be a pain to retrieve absent a big-name defendant and $$. I also don't know how the hearsay rule is applied in DV cases in Texas, so any 911 calls and any medical reports made may or may not be admissible. (If there are any Texas lawyers in the house, feel free to enlighten us.)

But I agree entirely with wacobluedevil that there have been more questions brought up than answers given.

One other point. In the Texas Penal Code, and to be guilty of an assault, there does not have to be an intention of bodily harm. Sec.22.01(a) states "A person commits an offense if the person (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another,..." Aggravated assault requires assault under the above section, and "serious bodily injury to another..." Mere recklessness is enough.

[wacobluedevil]

I'm not presuming Dunn is guilty of anything, only using as my starting point the fact that he had been charged, and how hard these kinds of cases are. I learned long before the lacrosse case not to make assumptions. (Too bad Mike Nifong didn't figure that one out, isn't it?) In my jurisdiction, the police make the charges, we don't, though we can drop them, amend them, etc., if necessary.

I doubt Baylor is part of some greater conspiracy. I would expect the Judicial Affairs Disciplinary Committee did a careful review of information and testimony given. I don't know if they were privy to the hospital reports, which are oftentimes covered by HIPAA and can be a pain to retrieve absent a big-name defendant and $$. I also don't know how the hearsay rule is applied in DV cases in Texas, so any 911 calls and any medical reports made may or may not be admissible. (If there are any Texas lawyers in the house, feel free to enlighten us.)

But I agree entirely with wacobluedevil that there have been more questions brought up than answers given.

One other point. In the Texas Penal Code, and to be guilty of an assault, there does not have to be an intention of bodily harm. Sec.22.01(a) states "A person commits an offense if the person (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another,..." Aggravated assault requires assault under the above section, and "serious bodily injury to another..." Mere recklessness is enough.

Thank you for your clarification about the Texas code regarding assaults. Recklessness is another factor.

[BD80]

Police reports contain rather detailed accounts of what Edwards supposedly said to them at the hospital. At the same time we're being told by these same reports that she has a broken jaw that required extensive surgery. How does someone with this sort of injury also make verbal statements of the sort that she allegedly made to the police.

Of course, she could have written it down (but that's not what's in the reports), or some other explanation. Again by itself it may be explainable, but it is odd.

One can talk with a broken jaw. It is when the jaw is wired shut that it becomes very difficult to talk.

When I broke my jaw, I apparently was quite verbose (no shock to anyone who knows me). At least I believed I broke my jaw, now that I think about it, it could just have been a conspiracy to wire my mouth shut ... and then there was that petition to enjoin the dentist from removing the wires ... hmm ...

As for Dunn, given the admitted facts (I believe his lawyer's statements would constitute admissions) I cannot see how the kid can be allowed to play UNTIL the matter is resolved in his favor. He intentionally struck her, causing serious bodily injury (broken jaw requiring surgery).

Can someone someone offer a version of facts consistent with these admitted facts that exonerate Dunn?

[wacobluedevil]

One can talk with a broken jaw. It is when the jaw is wired shut that it becomes very difficult to talk.

When I broke my jaw, I apparently was quite verbose (no shock to anyone who knows me). At least I believed I broke my jaw, now that I think about it, it could just have been a conspiracy to wire my mouth shut ... and then there was that petition to enjoin the dentist from removing the wires ... hmm ...

As for Dunn, given the admitted facts (I believe his lawyer's statements would constitute admissions) I cannot see how the kid can be allowed to play UNTIL the matter is resolved in his favor. He intentionally struck her, causing serious bodily injury (broken jaw requiring surgery).

Can someone someone offer a version of facts consistent with these admitted facts that exonerate Dunn?

Two responses: First, I'm not trying to exonerate Dunn, only to counsel patience as the proper procedures play out; second, while admitting he did strike her it is disputed that it was intentional.

As for his being able to play, I suspect that as long as felony charges are pending, he will not be allowed to play.

[dbluedevil222]

I think all of you are forgetting the law. The question isn't whether or not Lacedarius Dunn did something wrong. Something very wrong. The question is whether or not the prosecution can do anything about it. The law is much grayer when it comes to personal assault where the victim A) does not want to press charges, B) lies about what happened. They could charge him, but a jury cannot legally convict a person for assaulting a victim when that victim is willing to go in front of the jury and say it's not true.

We saw a slightly different version at Wake, where the victim didn't seek charges, but did not go back and lie about what happened. Tony Woods suffered very little damage, legally speeking (100 hours is very light when it comes to breaking a weaker woman's spine). In this case, because he pleaded GUILTY, Wake Forest University decided to take matters into their own hands. While WFU should be commended for this decision, there is very little Baylor can do. If they were to take the same path, when Lacedarius Dunn wins a Not Guilty verdict, then he would be able to sue the University (equivalent to Duke kicking the Lax players out of school when they were acquitted, when they very clearly did something wrong (at least in behavior).

The victim is to blame (in a weird way). Her character/willpower is not strong enough to stand up for herself and do what's in her best interest. Frankly, regardless if a player promises to marry you and give you money, domestic abuse is very rarely a one-time thing. It's going to happen again... but until SHE decides to do something about it, the rest of us have to sit here and be appalled.

[duke09hms]

(equivalent to Duke kicking the Lax players out of school when they were acquitted, when they very clearly did something wrong (at least in behavior).

This part really annoys me. What exactly did our lacrosse players do wrong? Have a party with alcohol and strippers? PLEASE, this is college, sports teams at every school around the country do the same.

Sorry for digressing into the lacrosse topic, but this just forced me to set the record straight. I think this thread may be veering off-course with this talk about old hoaxes.

[Merlindevildog91]

A not guilty verdict only means Dunn would not be punished criminally. It wouldn't necessarily help him out a whole lot in a civil case, where the standards of proof are different. If you recall, OJ was acquitted of murder criminally, but still found civilly liable for the death of Ronald Goldman.

[El_Diablo]

A not guilty verdict only means Dunn would not be punished criminally. It wouldn't necessarily help him out a whole lot in a civil case, where the standards of proof are different. If you recall, OJ was acquitted of murder criminally, but still found civilly liable for the death of Ronald Goldman.

But a civil suit needs a plaintiff.

[tommy]

A jury cannot legally convict a person for assaulting a victim when that victim is willing to go in front of the jury and say it's not true.

The victim is to blame (in a weird way). . . until SHE decides to do something about it, the rest of us have to sit here and be appalled.

This is not correct. Unless the law is real different in Texas than it is anywhere I've been (which, it being Texas, I guess is possible) juries can absolutely convict a person for assault even if the victim goes into court and says it's not true. Happens all the time, especially in DV cases. Victims go into court and say either "I never told the police he assaulted me, the police are lying about that" or "I told the police that, but I was lying for the following reasons . . . "

Then the prosecutor can bring in the evidence that immediately after the incident she in fact stated that he had assaulted her, and the circumstances of that statement being made. They then add in things like 911 calls, statements of other witnesses, medical evidence, statements to medical treatment providers, etc. Good prosecutors in these types of cases also bring in expert witnesses on the subject of DV and battered wife/girlfriend syndrome to explain to the jury why women who are beaten often change the story or deny the story entirely once they get to court, how routine it is, why they do it, etc. Defendants are convicted all the time on these types of cases with a victim who made initial statements to police that she was beaten and by the time it gets to court she says "no, never happened." Routine.

This is part of the reason why Baylor being so quick to find Dunn "not guilty" is so appalling. The police investigation is apparently not even complete yet, but somehow Baylor has all it needs. Predictable, but appalling nevertheless. Move on, nothing to see here.

[Duvall]

Lacedarius Dunn's suspension to end after three regular season games.

Looks like Evans had it right.

[slower]

Lacedarius Dunn's suspension to end after three regular season games.

Looks like Evans had it right.

Much as many of us suspected. It's all about the benjamins, folks.

[JasonEvans]

Lacedarius Dunn's suspension to end after three regular season games.

Looks like Evans had it right.

Sigh...

I hate being cynical... and right

--Jason "the notion that Baylor would be a beacon of honor and integrity was ludicrous" Evans

[wacobluedevil]

Sigh...

I hate being cynical... and right

--Jason "the notion that Baylor would be a beacon of honor and integrity was ludicrous" Evans

"Casey Sanders has had his day in court on assault charges and reached an agreement which should result in charges being dropped after six months.

"As part of the agreement, Sanders had to accept several conditions:
No criminal offenses other than minor traffic violations.
Stay in school or be employed full time.
Must not assault, threaten or harass any witnesses, including the victim.
He also has to get a substance abuse, mental health and domestic violence assessment by Dr. H. Keith Brodie and follow any suggestions Brodie makes.
Sanders was charged with assaulting his girlfriend on May 7. (<duke.scout.com/2/49844.html>)

Sauce, goose and gander?

[hurley1]

Much as many of us suspected. It's all about the benjamins, folks.

I wonder what Dunn's grades look like? Many times these types of crimes are committed on college campuses by people who should never be allowed there in the first place. Every coach should be like Coach K and you wouldn't have these types of problems.

[wacobluedevil]

I wonder what Dunn's grades look like? Many times these types of crimes are committed on college campuses by people who should never be allowed there in the first place. Every coach should be like Coach K and you wouldn't have these types of problems.

What crime? Whose suspension? Which coach and university? Sanders had his day in court; Dunn has not (the DA refuses to move one way or the other on what is by all indications the same charge). Sanders by all indications did not receive any suspension for his crime.

[hurley1]

What crime? Whose suspension? Which coach and university? Sanders had his day in court; Dunn has not (the DA refuses to move one way or the other on what is by all indications the same charge). Sanders by all indications did not receive any suspension for his crime.

I have 3 daughters from 16 - 23. People like me easily see the crime in his actions. You don't touch a woman. Nobody has ever touched one of mine, and they better not.

[CEF1959]

What crime? Whose suspension? Which coach and university? Sanders had his day in court; Dunn has not (the DA refuses to move one way or the other on what is by all indications the same charge). Sanders by all indications did not receive any suspension for his crime.

The charges against Casey Sanders were dropped. There never was a conviction. And I think we can distinguish between Casey Sanders (grabbed his girlfriend by the arm and pushed her against a wall, causing no injuries) and LaceDarius Dunn (punched his girlfriend in the face hard enough to break her jaw and require surgery).

Dunn will likely never be prosecuted, because the victim won't press the issue. She may be lying when she says (now) it was an accident. I don't know, but she has a huge incentive to lie. All I know is that Dunn's attorney said LaceDarius had punched her "after she got up in his face." Why would he say that about his own client if it weren't the case? The story only changed once the Dunn and Edwards families got their (income-protecting) story together. That's a pretty important distinction between this case and other famous cases of patently false accusations.

I predict this won't be the last time we hear about LaceDarius Dunn in connection with domestic violence.

Question: If a guy is caught on videotape in August shooting someone, is arrested for murder, but pleads not-guilty, does he play basketball for your team all season pending his trial that won't happen until summer? Not my team. The presumption of innocence is a criminal law concept that doesn't require a basketball coach to ignore common sense and the facts in front of him.

[wacobluedevil]

The charges against Casey Sanders were dropped. There never was a conviction. And I think we can distinguish between Casey Sanders (grabbed his girlfriend by the arm and pushed her against a wall, causing no injuries) and LaceDarius Dunn (punched his girlfriend in the face hard enough to break her jaw and require surgery).

Dunn will likely never be prosecuted, because the victim won't press the issue. She may be lying when she says (now) it was an accident. I don't know, but she has a huge incentive to lie. All I know is that Dunn's attorney said LaceDarius had punched her "after she got up in his face." Why would he say that about his own client if it weren't the case? The story only changed once the Dunn and Edwards families got their (income-protecting) story together. That's a pretty important distinction between this case and other famous cases of patently false accusations.

I predict this won't be the last time we hear about LaceDarius Dunn in connection with domestic violence.

I'm amazed at the omniscience that you and others on this website, most of whom are hundreds and even thousands of miles away, have about this case. You know why the DA hasn't brought the case to the grand jury (even though he has said absolutely nothing about it); you know in the midst of multiple and conflicting accounts what did in fact happen (amazing, since you were not there); you know that no person's jaw has ever been injured by accident, always by assault; you know that the disciplinary committee at Baylor was fixed or ignorant or duped. Amazing.

And the charges were dropped in Sanders' case because he pled out to deferred prosecution, and in spite of the arrangement was never suspended by Duke for even one game, and yet you have the chutzpah to claim the moral high ground for Duke (which is my school too).

Amazing.