Judge denied Harran 3 motions to dismiss-next date 10/3-details later from @mmtorrice at cenblog.orgThe Sangji case grinds onward.
UPDATE: Here's Patch's pretty decent write up of the today's Harran hearing, including this nice snippet of dialogue from the hearing:
Sangji's contract was with the university, not Harran, O'Kane argued. And the charges against the professor apply only to employers, not supervisors, according to the defense's interpretation.
Judge George G. Lomeli disagreed.
"The court concludes that he's an employer. Period," Lomeli said. Harran had the authority to recruit, interview and hire personnel, the judge said.
Even if that weren't true, Lomeli added, Harran was a "supervisorial employee" subject to criminal charges under the relevant labor laws.Also, here's C&EN's very detailed write-up of today's hearing, including this very key snippet about all of these legal issues:
Judge Lomeli denied this motion as well, stating that the district attorney’s evidence “managed to establish the requisite burden of proof of a ‘strong suspicion’” that Harran committed the charged crimes. He pointed out that the case had not reached a stage in which the district attorney had to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt.”That last sentence is key.
UPDATE 2: Here's the Los Angeles Times story. Nothing new in the story, but you should really click through to the story to see the picture of Professor Harran. I don't know him at all, so perhaps I project -- but I can see the wear of the process on his face.