quote:
Why is Wade going to testify in April? Please explain to me his his testimony is relevant as to whether the defendants bribed Louisville, TCU, Creighton, NC State and Kansas coaches? Just because a lawyer is threatening a subpoena doesn't mean the judge will allow the testimony. Nothing that Wade could add is relevant. Let me guess, you read that he was subpoenaed in the paper, but have no idea what that means.

Here is the deal. The FBI has charged Dawkins with fraud and bribery.

The FBI contends the Univesities are the agrieved parties. That is Dawkins defrauded them.

Dawkins’ lawyer is basically WTF my client did not defraud anyone. The coaches knew what was going on and were active participants. That’s what they are trying to show.

Dawkins’ attorney is expected to subpoena Wade as a witness in a trial set to begin April 22, apparently hoping Wade’s testimony could undermine the prosecution’s case by demonstrating university officials were in on the scheme. Prosecutors have portrayed colleges as the victims.

4 ...

Report Post

Posted by PiscesTiger

Concrete, WA

Member since Feb 2004

53696 posts

Posted on 3/19/19 at 7:10 pm to NoGeaux

Once again...a frustrating day full of decent promises and ending in a great big shitburger.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Pmtiger

Member since Dec 2014

837 posts

Posted on 3/19/19 at 7:10 pm to NoGeaux

He will never testify. Has he even received the subpoena ? All I have read is he was served notice to expect a subpoena.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ellessuuuu

Member since Sep 2004

8541 posts

Posted on 3/19/19 at 7:11 pm to NoGeaux

There are problems with that theory.

First, LSU is not one of the schools identified in the indictment. So whether Wade was in on any scheme is irrelevant.

Second, whether or not other coaches at other schools participated voluntarily in a similar scheme (not saying Wade did) is not a defense to the crimes they have been charged with committing.

The only testimony or evidence that is relevant, is testimony or other evidence that relates to the elements of the crime or any legally recognized defense to the crime. The fact that other coaches may have been involved in similar schemes is not a fact that goes towards proving the elements of the crime or any legally recognized defense.

That is why Dawkins defense team is trying to tell this story through the media, because they will not be able to tell the story at trial.

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by minvielle

Youngsville, LA

Member since Nov 2014

3909 posts

Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:47 pm to NoGeaux

quote:
The FBI contends the Univesities are the agrieved parties. That is Dawkins defrauded them. Dawkins’ lawyer is basically WTF my client did not defraud anyone. The coaches knew what was going on and were active participants. That’s what they are trying to show.

So they’re arguing that bribery isn’t a crime if the beneficiary accepts said bribe knowingly and is complicit in an even larger bribery scheme? Good god if wade loses his job over this the entire administration needs to be flayed.