For @bnwtwg
IAINWALOWTBAL but...
I listened a little and thought the following were interesting statements
Plaintiff's Attorney:
There is no defined bench
There was no ongoing contest
Not sure what video the NJSIAA is relying on
Discovery was not timely. Only received this morning.
Due process requires a meeting with legal representation, which implies the right to cross examine.
Even if it is determined the plaintiff did what is alleged, there are other penalties available.
Defendant's Attorney:
Plaintiff does not deny leaving the bench and joining melee or assaulting a member of the crowd
There is no dispute of the facts or the conduct of the plaintiff (the Plaintiff's Attorney disagreed with this statement)
Immediate relief is not required
This opens the court to more broadly spend time determining student/athlete eligibility. Do they want to do that?
Plaintiff was invited to submit evidence without limitation.
A victim identified the plaintiff as the person who punched him.
Motivation for attacking is not the issue as these are strict liability regulations, and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to decide what is reserved for the police.
The judge asked few questions. The only one I remember was whether anyone was arrested. The defendant's attorney said Knox Jr. and Knox Sr. were the only ones detained and that the police were investigating to determine if charges are warranted.
The judge pointed out that the plaintiff's statement of events seemed to leave out any mention of what happened between the conclusion of the bout and the defendant appearing in the stands during the melee.
Not sure what any of that means for the requested injunction, but found it interesting.