Holding university officials responsible for alleged crimes in relation to the death of a student and the hospitalization of another, may be a new extension taken of vicarious criminal liability.  A local prosecutor in Mercer County, New Jersey has brought charges against school officials, including the dean of students, at Rider University for activities related to the death of a student. (see Fox News here)  The charges alleged are for a crime called "aggravated hazing." The school has adopted a new policy concerning matters of this nature.   

This prosecution raises important issues for those in a university setting.  Is it necessary for colleges and universities to establish corporate compliance programs to provide safeguards against criminal activity.  When the system fails will prosecutors be moving to charge the individuals who might fit the category of "responsible corporate officers" and will the next step be to charge the university or college as an entity. See also Higher Education law prof blog.

(esp)

It looks like NFL quarterback Michael Vick will stand alone to face a conspiracy charge arising from dog fighting on his Virginia property.  According to CNN.com (here), Vick’s two remaining co-defendants have plea hearings scheduled, and I suspect they will join a fourth defendant in the case who has already agreed to cooperate in the prosecution.  If all three defendants implicate Vick in the dog-fighting operation, it will be very difficult to defend the charges.  Vick has already been ordered to stay away from the Atlanta Falcons’ training camp, and rumors are swirling that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell will suspend him for the upcoming season.  If the two co-defendants do agree to cooperate against him, that increases the likelihood Vick will seek to enter a guilty plea that involves only a short prison sentence, if not probation, and some significant payment as "restitution."  As long as he’s going to miss the NFL season, he might as well get the criminal case and any punishment out of the way sooner so that he can look toward the future and rebuild his career — probably with another team. (ph)

John Rigas, former Adelphia chair, has decided to talk. But unlike James Brown, former Adelphia’s vice president of finance, Rigas’ discussion is post-trial and offers no benefit to the soon-to-be incarcerated defendant.  Reporting on the conversation is Lesly Cauley of USA Today, who presents the words of this 82 year old man who is facing 15 years incarceration.

With such incredible consequences faced by defendants if they risk going to trial, it is not surprising to see that a key witness chooses to provide witness testimony to the government as opposed to being prosecuted as a target.    And with a civil action to compare the testimony of this witness to that provided in the criminal case, issues of truth can be examined.

But irrespective of what Rigas says or does, one still has to wonder whether such a crime deserves such a harsh penalty.  Should first offenders be sentenced to 15 and 20 years in prison?  Should a former CEO be given a sentence of life minus 3 months (he is entitled to be released when an MD certifies that he has less than 3 months to live).  Will all of this really deter others, especially when Rigas continues to maintain that his actions do not constitute crimes?  And do they constitute crimes, or was this an example of blaming the driver of a wrecked vehicle, irrespective of whether he or she caused the accident.

(esp)

The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice announced that British Airways and Korean Air entered guilty pleas for violating the Sherman Act for fixing prices for passenger tickets and freight charges.  Each airline will pay a $300 million fine and cooperate in the government’s continuing investigation.  According to a DOJ press release (here):

The Department said that passengers who flew on British Airways flights between the United Kingdom and the United States during the charged period paid more for their tickets as a result of the illegal cartel. In 2004, British Airways’ fuel surcharge for round-trip passenger tickets was around $10 per ticket. By the time the passenger conspiracy was cracked in 2006, the surcharge was nearly $110 per ticket–a 10-fold increase, said the Department. The Department noted that during the air cargo conspiracy, British Airways’ fuel surcharge on shipments to and from the United States changed more than 20 times and increased from four cents per kilogram of cargo shipped to as high as 72 cents per kilogram.

The Department charged Korean Air with agreeing with air cargo competitors on rates charged to customers in the United States and elsewhere for international air cargo shipments. The Department noted that the conspirators agreed to increase the fuel surcharge over time from 10 cents per kilogram to as high as 60 cents for each kilogram of cargo shipped from the United States. The Department also charged that Korean Air reached an agreement with its rival to fix certain passenger fares for flights from the United States to Korea.

Two other airlines, Virgin Atlantic and Lufthansa, were admitted into the Antitrust Division’s Corporate Leniency Program, which allows the first company to report violations to avoid criminal charges, but not civil damages, by cooperating in the investigation.  (ph)

Washington Post’s Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein present yet another lead article on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and like some of the others before this one, it does not bode well for him.  The article, titled Gonzales Truthfulness Long Disputed, traces his history in a position associated Bush both before and during this Presidency.  It contains criticisms from several key Republicans. 

But irrespective of whether Gonzales has been candid with Congress, it is important to consider whether the standard he applies to corporate CEOs is being applied to him.  Was there wrongdoing occurring under his watch?  Was he the responsible corporate officer?  Did he have knowledge and fail to take action?  Should he have had knowledge?  Did he fail to secure the appropriate information to make certain that those under his watch were complying with the law?  Did he have in place an appropriate compliance program?

It is also interesting to examine the Office of the Attorney General and ask whether this office has become an arm of the President, as opposed to an office that operates independently above the political system.  Are we seeing the independence of this office slowly diminishing from the days prior to and including AG Janet Reno, to AG John Ashcroft, and now AG Alberto Gonzales.

(esp)