Larry Meyer, now retired, was a controversial member of the Whitewater Police Department, and is the defendant in a federal civil suit. Meyer’s counsel filed a motion for summary judgment in March, but the Fourth Amendment federal constitutional claims of the Plaintiff, Steve Cvicker, survived that motion.
Previously, I have published posts about the damage that Meyer (and Chief Coan) have done to the reputation and administration of justice in Whitewater.
See, for example:
Burying the Story: Update on Larry Meyer
Larry Meyer’s Disgraceful Legacy
Jim Coan and Larry Meyer’s Shameful Legacy
Today, I’ll offer some questions about the supposed settlement in the suit against Larry Meyer. Questions in black, answers in blue.
Q1. In this case, how was announcement of a settlement communicated?
A. In a letter dated September 20, 2007, the attorney for Larry Meyer wrote the court, and stated that a settlement had been reached between the parties. These are the opening words of that letter, a public document: “I am pleased to report that the parties have reached a settlement agreement. We will be submitting a stipulation and order for dismissal in the near future.”
Q2. What does the time since September 20th without a final settlement suggest?
A: Two likely possibilities —
1. That no one’s concerned about rushing to memorialize the final details or
2. That the parties are now in dispute, and that there is not, completely, an agreement between them. Press coverage in the Gazette and The Week suggests that, at time reporting, there was not a full agreement.
Q3. If the parties are still in dispute, why would that be?
A. There are two possibilities –
1. Money. The parties may not be able to come to terms over money. I don’t think it’s money.
2. Wording of agreements: (1) Defendant’s settlement without acknowledgment of wrongdoing, (2) Dismissal of the lawsuit so that plaintiff cannot pursue any of the claims in the lawsuit subsequently, (3) Defendant may be insisting that the plaintiff agree not to discuss any aspect of the lawsuit as a condition of settlement. If number (3) is true, then it involves worry over embarrassment to someone bigger than Meyer.
Q4. If the parties are still in (partial) dispute, why did the defendant’s attorney talk about a settlement in the Gazette
and The Week?
A. There are three possibilities —
1. Defense counsel felt that the parties were very close, and wanted to communicate the fact.
2. Defense counsel felt that the parties were very close, and hoped that press coverage would pressure the other side to settle.
3. Defense counsel felt that the parties were close enough safely to contend at the time of the newspaper interview that settlement was close. That’s a matter of interpretation, though: one party might have a different view of ‘details’ than another party.
Q5. What did Larry Meyer’s counsel say about the settlement as reported in the Gazette and The Week?
A. The Week reported on October 24th that Meyer’s attorney said the sides were still working on settlement details.
Q6. The letter from Larry Meyer’s attorney to the court said that a settlement had been reached. If the press coverage 5 weeks later said that no settlement was final, does that mean that the letter to the court was false?
A. The letter to the court only had to have been true as of the date it was written, September 20th. If, at a later time, the negotiations stalled, the letter would not have been false. (If a letter to the court were knowingly false at the time it was written, then that letter would be a serious breach of legal ethics. Presumably, if the letter were false at the time made, an opposing counsel would seize the opportunity to dispute before the court the statements in the letter.)
Q7. Is settlement an embarrassment for the city and its police department?
A. Yes, definitely. As I noted before, Meyer “will contend that he’s admitted no wrong-doing, but that’s whistling past the graveyard. Meyer would not likely have settled — not Meyer, nor any other excuse-making, self-justifying member of the Whitewater Police Department — if he’d been more confident of his conduct.”
It’s interesting that the settlement story ran in two Bliss Communications publications, the Gazette and The Week, but not the Register. The Register is supernaturally supportive of the Whitewater Police Department and the county’s prosecutors in Elkhorn.
If the story about a possible settlement were wholly favorable to the city, the Register would have published the headline on page one, above the fold, in one-hundred point type. It didn’t, as those flacking for the defense/police must have realized that the story has a downside: settlement is far less than vindication before a jury. Meyer would have to take the stand in a civil suit, and that would be – put mildly – a disaster for him. Here’s the sensible quote that the defense probably didn’t want to see in print:
UW-Whitewater Assistant Professor of Political Science Jolly Emrey said most harassment suits settle because it is the quickest and cheapest. Settling could also save the city embarrassment from what could happen at a jury trial, Emrey said.
At the same time, the Gazette and The Week have been fair, and have had coverage on both sides of the case against Meyer. That’s about all one should hope, but it’s not adequate from the defense/police point of view: they’d surely prefer coverage like the Register’s coverage, with only one side of the story. (I’ve mentioned, though, that the Register offers less than meets the eye; it’s a dismal, failed paper.)
The Week has been fair. That newspaper gave Whitewater Police Chief Jim Coan ample copy to tell his side of the story, for example, on the Star Packaging raid. Coan’s problem is that, even when given a chance to speak, he reveals how weak and empty his claims are. If the city had a public relations firm, Coan would either have received basic media training, or would have been kept from the press. His statements are revealing self-parodies.
Q8. What do the prosecutors in Elkhorn have to do with a federal case?
A. One of them, Assistant District Attorney Dennis Krueger, now with the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office, offered an affidavit in which he stated that Meyer destroyed evidence gathered in an investigation, and did not follow prosecutor’s instructions.
If the case against Meyer progressed, through additional depositions or to trial, UWW Professor Emrey’s quote about “embarrassment” might prove all too true, for Meyer, Coan, others in Whitewater, and Elkhorn.