 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe Parents No. 1 v. State11/27/2002
ton queried why he had been placed on administrative leave, which he "felt was a judgment that he was guilty." In response, someone at the conference told him that the administrative leave was to protect him and the DOE "from further problems." Gordon's minutes of the conference conclude with an entry, which asserts that
t was agreed that the and HSTA would pursue avenues to expedite [Norton's criminal ] trial. This is important because of the transiency of the population of Mokapu Elementary School. If delayed for a long time, many potential witnesses would no longer be in Hawaii.
Mr. Norton was advised to have his attorney get depositions from potential witnesses.
On May 11, 1992, Sugino informed Sosa that the prosecutor assigned to Norton's case would be providing the DOE with a copy of a videotaped interview of T.Y. that had been conducted at the Children's Advocacy Center, as well as a transcript of the grand jury proceedings. Sugino's memorandum to Sosa notes that Sugino would inform Sosa when the DOE had actually obtained the videotape in order to "make the arrangements for the viewing by you and your principal." Sugino remarked that, " ith this additional information, the will be in a better position to determine the appropriate action." In closing, Sugino conveyed the importance of Sosa's investigation of Norton's alleged misconduct and reassured Sosa that, " ecause we recognize the individual's rights balanced with our concerns for the welfare of the students, every effort shall be made to assist you in your investigation of this matter, so that a proper decision can be determined." Susbequently, Sosa received and reviewed the videotape. At trial, Sosa asserted that he "was objective about looking at what was presented on the [video] tape" and acknowledged that it made him "concerned enough that wanted to sit down with Mr. Norton[,] . . . have him view [it,]" and hear Norton's "side of the story."
On June 18, 1992, Schlosser sent a memorandum to Sosa, recommending that "any action on Lawrence Norton by the be postponed until the outcome of his [criminal] trial[,] which is scheduled this month." In the memorandum, Schlosser stated that he had contacted Norton, requested an interview with him and his HSTA representative, and offered to "share a viewing" of the videotape with Norton. Norton initially replied that he would consult his attorney, but that he wanted to cooperate with the DOE. However, Norton's HSTA representative subsequently informed Schlosser that Norton's attorney had advised Norton not to talk to anyone about the case. Schlosser's memorandum closed with the observation that " ur consideration of the outcome of the court case will allow the to fairly judge Mr. Norton's conduct with regard to this accusation."
On June 26, 1992, Sosa mailed a memorandum to Norton that reiterated the substance of Schlosser's June 18, 1992 memorandum, renewed his offer to view the videotape, and invited Norton to a conference about the matter:
As part of the [DOE's] administrative investigation of the alleged sexual assault, I viewed the videotape, and I would like to afford you the opportunity to view this videotape, and to give your version of the facts giving rise to the allegations, and to respond to the questions which I have concerning the statements made by the student. . . .
Please call my secretary . . . on or before July 9, 1992 to schedule or decline this conference.
Norton accepted the offer to participate in a conference with Sosa, and, consequently, on July 7, 1992, Sosa and Gordon met with Norton, Moore (Norton's HSTA representative), and Norton's attorney, Clifford Hunt.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|