Oh, boy. This really makes Butch look bad if true

[LouisVOL]

Actually, in today's litigious society, I don't think most people see a settlement as admission of guilt, but as an expedient method to "get it over with".  The days of fight because you're right are days of yore.  "Here's a few bucks, go away" is the basis of our legal system nowadays. 

I would say there's absolutely no chance that Tennessee DOESN'T settle. Is a settlement an admission of guilt in the eyes of the public? Sure. But it's going to receive a lot of bad press and then it's going to fade. Humans have short memories. Best to get it out of the way quickly so that everyone can start to move forward. Plus a settlement would likely include a nondisclosure agreement that would muzzle the plaintiffs, which certainly isn't a bad thing.

Unfortunately, I don't see how this can move forward in any way -- including a settlement -- until the pending criminal trials are resolved, so this is going to carry over into football season for sure.

[Creek Walker]

Btw, a state appeals court today granted Johnson and Williams a stay in their trial while it considers whether and how to allow the defense to subpoena social media accounts of witnesses in their case. This reverses the trial court's decision, in which the judge said that the defense attorneys didn't have the right to subpoena that information. The defense claims that things the victim said to witnesses before, during and after the encounter will prove that it was consensual and that she later claimed to have been raped in order to save her reputation.

Obviously if there was no rape, that changes things big time with regards to the allegations Bowles has made towards Butch Jones.

[murfvol]

How could social media posts and texts not be relevant?  That seems like a layup.

Also, I concur with Louis on the perception of settling. A quick payment beats a lengthy trial, and may be cheaper.

[Creek Walker]

How could social media posts and texts not be relevant?  That seems like a layup.

Also, I concur with Louis on the perception of settling. A quick payment beats a lengthy trial, and may be cheaper.

It should be, but as I understand it, it was complicated by the fact that Knoxville police failed to preserve that info because, for whatever reason, it apparently found it irrelevant. That probably also means it's far from a slam dunk that the info can even be retrieved, even if the court rules that it should be subpoenaed.

[HerbTarlekVol]

I doubt it takes proof of 51% "of the allegations."  The judicial standard (burden of proof) in most civil trials is "preponderance of the evidence."  In essence, that means enough evidence to convince the trier of fact (judge or jury) that more likely than not the facts the claimant seeks to prove are true.  For instance, one good witness may be believed over numerous less believable witnesses, so a judge/jury may rule based on that one witness's testimony that the case was proven by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not it happened as the witness testified).  Many people use the 51% comment, or the football analogy of "beyond the 50 yard line," to describe the standard, but I think that's too simplistic.  If there are 25 allegations and just one is clearly proved, that may lead the judge/jury to believe the others "more likely than not" also occurred.  It's the lowest possible burden of proof in the law, contrasted with the highest burden of beyond a reasonable doubt and the intermediary burden of clear and convincing evidence.  The low standard is one reason defendants are willing to settle rather than take the risk.

Thanks for the clarification.  That makes more sense to me than a "51%" explanation.