I don't know if he will be retained or not, but there is a lot of truth to that.. they will have a difficult time firing him without the conviction first.
Interesting point. I took a look at the conditions for termination with cause on BP's contract, they appear to be standard University provisions so I assume that they are attached to all of the coaches contracts. Two provisions have some relevance: (1) use of alcohol to the point that it affects the employees duties and (2) conviction of a crime other than a minor traffic offense. I'm not sure that a case could be made that No. 1 applies. For No. 2, they would have to wait until the conviction since he pled not guilty. So, the options would appear to be: fire him without cause (seems unlikely), wait until he is convicted (doesn't seem like that would be a first choice, who knows when the trial/hearing will actually take place) or present him with a plan of sanctions to avoid the possibility of termination upon conviction.
If it is anything like political announcements, a Friday afternoon dump is not a good thing.
Nebraska is an employment 'at will' state, so I think you can be fired any time for any reason, the contract just will assure some sort of monetary settlement I think.
You are correct on the employment at will. My opinion is with the October court date, he can demonstrate that he is in good faith trying to reform by entering a 30 day program and not be associated with football until he finishes. Court will have reason to act in a lenient manner. Anything less and MADD will make life rough.
Not trying to be a wordsmith, but he hasn't been convicted of a third dui... Charged, but not convicted. If he walks out with a fine and probation he won't be convicted of a dui... It'll be a lesser charge. If what I have read from others, a 3rd dui carries a mandatory sentence that includes jail time.
He was charged at misdemeanor level because there's no way the felony DUI would have stood up in court. So the prosecutor would have been a fool to charge him at the felony level. The other thing I'm not sure of is how closely the breathalyzer results correspond to the actual BAC. People on here keep referring to his BAC but I'm not sure if his BAC test has been released. IF he had just consumed alcohol his BAC might have been lower than what he blew. Sooo that still leaves open the possibility of a reduction of the charge in a plea agreement. I believe that KW has voluntarily started some type of alcohol program and I could be wrong but I would think at least some judges would take that in to consideration. With the cost of incarceration AND the overcrowding in jails, I would think there is some pressure on judges to avoid putting guys in jail that may be at a lower risk of repeating. The state of Nebraska loses a significant amount of income tax in addition to his jail costs in the short term, IF they stick him in jail
That is perhaps the least persuasive argument I have ever seen presented against imposition of a jail sentence.
You misinterpret what I posted. I said that some JUDGES are under some pressure to try to avoid sentencing non-violent offenders to jail time. IF you have a guy already undergoing alcohol treatment or an alcohol program of some type for several months before he goes to trial, I have a suspicion that it makes it more likely for the defendant to avoid jail time. Furthermore I did NOT suggest that a judge would take in to consideration a loss of income tax revenue. My point with that was as a taxpayer you should HOPE that judges try to avoid putting people in jail if there's a suitable alternative consequence. IF KW was in jail I believe that you are wrong about NU continuing to pay his salary and thus the loss of income tax revenue. Don't sneeze at the cost of incarceration being considered. In my state, they have developed drug courts and diversion programs for the very purpose of keeping non-violent offenders working and out of jail and I believe Nebraska has them too.
