Mitch Carter testifies during the civil trail of his lawsuit against the Kern High School District for negligence as a result of injuries he sustained from a beating during a pep rally at Bakersfield High School in 2010. 
 
 Attorney Nicholas Rowley donned this costume to make a point during closing arguments in the case of his client Mitch Carter versus the Kern High School District. Carter was roughed up while wearing a similar chicken outfit at a 2010 BHS pep rally skit meant to mock Clovis West school’s mascot, the Golden Eagles. 
 
 Mitch Carter testifies during the civil trail of his lawsuit against the Kern High School District for negligence as a result of injuries he sustained from a beating during a pep rally at Bakersfield High School in 2010. 
 
 Attorney Nicholas Rowley donned this costume to make a point during closing arguments in the case of his client Mitch Carter versus the Kern High School District. Carter was roughed up while wearing a similar chicken outfit at a 2010 BHS pep rally skit meant to mock Clovis West school’s mascot, the Golden Eagles. 
 
 The Kern High School District agreed Wednesday to pay $10.5 million to a former student injured in a violent dog pile that broke out during a 2010 Bakersfield High School pep rally, cutting short an ongoing civil trial that threatened to cost the district’s insurance company even more money. 
 
 The student, Mitch Carter, will use that money for healthcare-related costs, his trial attorney Nicholas Rowley said during a press conference outside Kern County Superior Court. 
 
 A jury had already found the district liable for Carter’s injuries, which his lawyers said included brain damage. It was in the process of determining monetary damages and was expected to award more than $45 million, Rowley said based on interviews his side conducted with jurors in court Wednesday. 
 
 “They would have given him more, but the school district would have appealed,” Rowley said, adding the appeals process could have lasted years. Carter needs that money now, he said. 
 
 The district’s insurance company, New Jersey-based Everest National Insurance Company, will pay the lion’s share of that $10.5 million settlement, Rowley said. 
 
 “No matter what, I'd trade everything just to have a full functioning brain,” Carter said outside court Wednesday. “But I think that this is a good step in the right direction.” 
 
 INEXCUSABLE BUT A SURPRISE 
 
 Carter was mobbed by a group of students in 2010 when he put on a chicken costume meant to mock an opposing team’s mascot during a pep rally the day of a championship football game. Members of the football team pounced on him, punching, kicking and leaping onto a dog pile that Carter has said left him with a traumatic brain injury. 
 
 Jurors found the district negligent. 
 
 Defense attorney Michael Kellar on Wednesday described what happened to Carter in 2010 as “embarrassing and inexcusable,” and that it never should have occurred, “but came as a total surprise and sudden surprise to school staff.” 
 
 He said KHSD’s insurance company made the decision to settle, wanting to reduce the risk of an even higher jury award than the $10.5 million. 
 
 In an emailed statement, KHSD officials said they will reevaluate their safety policies in light of the incident and accept responsibility. 
 
 “We understand the reasons why Self-Insured Schools of California and the excess insurance carrier chose to settle this case,” the statement reads. “The District is going to take this opportunity to evaluate its standards, policies and practices to ensure that every student is educated in a safe and secure environment — because every parent and student should expect nothing less. 
 
 “We sincerely wish Mr. Carter and his family all the best as they move forward.” 
 
 The settlement ended a seven-day civil trial that shed light on shoddy safety practices at Kern High School District, revealed questionable policies and disorganization between the KHSD Police Department and school administrators, was fraught with accusations of conspiracy and cover-up and concluded with a lawyer donning a chicken suit in court. 
 
 At one point, when Kellar made an objection asking what the “chicken dance” was early in the trial, Rowley came close to demonstrating it in court. 
 
 “Do we need to go over what the chicken dance is?” Rowley asked. 
 
 A CHANGE IN POLICY 
 
 When Carter stepped into his chicken suit Dec 10, 2010, his attorneys said he became part of a tradition at Bakersfield High School. That tradition is one where students or teachers are asked to dress up in a costume of the opposing team's mascot and take a beating before a big game. 
 
 It happened to teacher Bob Stone in 2005, they said, something defense attorneys attempted to have excluded as evidence. 
 
 Rowley said he's confident the jury's verdict and the settlement will force KHSD to change policy and never allow this to happen again or else “we'll be at that next school board meeting. 
 
 “When a jury speaks, people listen,” he said. 
 
 Carter's lead attorney, Ralph Wegis, had in the past turned down settlement offers of $50,000 and $1 million before the trial began June 16. 
 
 KHSD IS ‘DESPICABLE’ 
 
 Rowley, who questioned the majority of witnesses, said he bears “no bad blood” with Bakersfield High School. But Wegis, who has called the district's actions “despicable,” won't be satisfied until administration reorganizes, he said. 
 
 “It's going to continue to be despicable until I hear from the school district that we have fired somebody and we have fired them because that's not who we want to be in the future,” Wegis said. 
 
 He'd start by eliminating top administrators, he said, and terminating anyone who lied during the trial. That includes Bakersfield High School Head Football Coach Paul Golla, whom Wegis says he was able to impeach as a witness. 
 
 Golla testified Thursday that he wasn’t in the gym when the dog pile took place. But a scout from USC testified Monday that he watched the dog pile form and was sitting next to Golla at the time. 
 
 “I would go down with every single person that had their fingerprints on this, so everybody who doesn't have their fingerprints on it says you could lose your job if safety isn't No. 1,” Wegis said. “If you lie in court you could lose your job. That’s not the example we're setting for our children.” 
 
 Rowley told reporters Wednesday that there “was some confusion” when Golla said he was not in the gym. Kellar remains steadfast in his Golla’s testimony. 
 
 “He said he wasn't there. So I'm taking him at his word, and you know, there may be some misunderstanding from the other coach as to when they did leave or if Golla left before him or if Coach Golla's attention was distracted somewhere else,” Kellar said. 
 
 That testimony, however, didn’t play a significant role in determining the district’s liability, Kellar said. 
 
 “I think it's incorrect to assign any claim that these employees lied or intentionally misled. Because I think that’s just the opposite and they had nothing to gain by it,” Kellar said. 
 
 CONSPIRACY THEORY ‘RIDICULOUS’ 
 
 Meanwhile, during his closing statements, Rowley accused the district of carrying on a “conspiracy” and “cover-up.” 
 
 Neither Golla nor BHS Activities Director Anna Lovan saw the dog pile form, they both testified. The lone KHSD police officer investigating the matter hadn’t seen the witness reports taken by school administrators until he was presented with them during the trial. 
 
 BHS Principal David Reese testified that he had no advance knowledge that a chicken suit would be used in a pep rally skit, but Lovan testified later that he approved it. 
 
 This was all orchestrated, Rowley asserted during trial. 
 
 Kellar called that assertion “ridiculous” Wednesday. 
 
 “There was no conspiracy,” Kellar said. “There may have been some lack of appreciation for what went down in the gym because the principal wasn't there, there was no video available immediately and Miss Lovan's view was obstructed in the initial moments of the dog pile.” 
 
 Rowley painted a picture during the trial of a school obsessed with football, creating a culture where star players are looked on as gods and protected by administrators. Students testified to that. 
 
 When Carter turned in a starting player who he said was stealing from backpacks, and later stole Carter’s wallet while he was in the shower, Golla shined him off, he testified. Golla offered Carter $20 from his wallet as consolation and didn’t discipline the player, Carter said. 
 
 “He's not 'Mitch the snitch' anymore, or the kid in the chicken suit,” Rowley said Wednesday. “He's somebody who stood up for himself in our justice system and made the world a safer place.” 
 
 Carter said he hopes to someday attend law school so he can stand up for those who need their voices heard. 
 
 “I had a great man stand up for me when no one else would,” Carter said. “I’d love to do that and stand up for the kid who needs to be stood up for.” ||||| Judge in Stanford sexual assault case previously allowed athletes accused of gang-raping a student to show a civil case jury provocative photos of her 
 
 The judge in the Stanford sexual assault case allowed defendants accused of gang-raping a 17-year-old high school student to show the jury photographs of her wearing a revealing outfit when he presided over another controversial case involving college athletes. 
 
 Judge Aaron Persky, who is under fire for his lenient sentencing of Brock Turner, a former Stanford swimmer convicted of sexual assault, made several controversial rulings in a 2011 civil trial stemming from the alleged gang rape by members of the baseball team at De Anza Community College in Cupertino, California. 
 
 Brock Turner's statement blames sexual assault on Stanford ‘party culture’ Read more 
 
 Among those rulings was the decision to allow the defense to display photographs that showed the alleged victim “nestling a shot glass full of liquor in her exposed cleavage,” as one local reporter described it. Another photo showed the victim making a sexually provocative gesture. 
 
 The judge allowed the images to be shown to the jury in the civil case after the defense argued that they would help prove that the young woman was not, as she claimed, suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. 
 
 “Did you have PTSD when you did the acts shown in these pictures?” one defense attorney asked the woman in court, according to the San Jose Mercury News. 
 
 Barbara Spector, one of the attorneys for the alleged victim, who was known as Jane Doe, said that she felt at the time the images “were irrelevant”. 
 
 
 
 “The impact was very definitely prejudicial for Jane Doe and had a positive impact for the defendants on the jury,” she said. 
 
 
 
 Four of the defendants settled, three had charges dismissed and two went through the trial and were found not liable by the jury. 
 
 Persky is now facing international scrutiny, after the victim in the Stanford case released a viral statement on the trauma of her assault, prompting messages of support from vice-president Joe Biden and actor Lena Dunham. 
 
 Critics have also launched a recall campaign against Persky over his decision to sentence Turner to six months in county jail – a punishment that is much more lenient than the two years in prison prescribed by law. 
 
 Persky, who has reportedly faced death threats in the wake of the backlash has, however, received support from an unlikely source: the public defenders who represent indigent defendants in his Santa Clara county. 
 
 Several have told the Guardian the judge has a reputation for being fair to their clients and his apparent leniency in the Stanford swimmer case was in-keeping with his general approach to criminal cases. 
 
 However his role in the De Anza civil trial is likely to raise further questions about his handling of sexual assault cases. 
 
 On the night of 4 March 2007, three members of the De Anza women’s soccer team barged into the bedroom of an off-campus house during a birthday party. They claimed that they found a 17-year-old girl unconscious and being sexually assaulted by a group of men. 
 
 The witnesses testified that they tried to get inside the room, but men initially prevented them from entering. Inside, they said they saw a man thrusting on top of the woman. 
 
 The female soccer players were later hailed as heroes by the San Jose city council. 
 
 Stanford sexual assault case: victim impact statement in full Read more 
 
 Eight members of the baseball team were quickly suspended by the community college’s athletics department, but no arrests were made, even after a second woman came forward to say that she too had been sexually assaulted by De Anza college baseball players. 
 
 Two and a half months later, the Santa Clara County district attorney announced that she would not file criminal charges in the case, despite the fact that the sheriff, whose department investigated the case, stated publicly that she believed “a crime occurred”. 
 
 “The bottom line is it’s not about what we believe happened or think happened. It’s about what we can prove happened,” the district attorney, Dolores Carr, told the San Francisco Chronicle at the time, in the face of intense criticism of her decision not to prosecute. 
 
 The outcry against Carr in 2007 has been echoed by the torrent of anger directed at Persky since his sentencing of Turner. 
 
 “It sent a message to victims that they can’t find justice in Santa Clara County,” Irene Weiser, an advocate for victims of assault, told the Chronicle at the time of the De Anza case. “It also sent a message to perpetrators and would-be perpetrators. It gave them a green light.” 
 
 One year after the alleged 2007 assault took place, the young woman sought another avenue to have her day in court: a civil lawsuit seeking damages from her alleged attackers. 
 
 Looking at the most recent case, it seems that [Persky’s] ruling was rooted in something different Monica Burneikis, attorney 
 
 The case finally went in front of Persky and a jury in March 2011, following three years of legal wrangling overseen by a different judge. As a civil case, the plaintiff and her attorneys were tasked not with proving guilt, but with proving liability and culpability. 
 
 The photographs of Jane Doe at a party less than a year after the alleged assault were allowed by Judge Persky after defense attorneys argued that they contradicted the plaintiff’s claims about how the alleged gang rape had harmed her emotionally and psychologically. 
 
 At the time of the De Anza case, the plaintiff’s other lawyer, Monica Burneikis, speculated that at least one of Persky’s controversial rulings may have been because he was inexperienced in civil cases, but the Stanford case has changed her mind. 
 
 “Looking at the most recent case, it seems that [Persky’s] ruling was rooted in something different,” Burneikis said. 
 
 ‘Nail in a coffin’ 
 
 Jane Doe’s lawyers said the photographs were not the only evidence that Persky unfairly permitted. 
 
 Another controversy related to Persky’s handling of the case stemmed from his decision over testimony from the alleged attackers. 
 
 Four of the baseball players invoked fifth amendment rights not to self-incriminate during the discovery phase of the litigation. 
 
 According to Burneikis, that was a critical juncture: preventing the young woman’s team from obtaining evidence that could have helped them pursue their case. 
 
 The original judge in the case ruled in 2010 that the defendants could stay silent, but that would also mean that they would be prohibited from testifying in a later part of the case. 
 
 
 
 That ruling was, however, overturned by Persky, a move that Jane Doe’s attorneys now say undermined her case. 
 
 Persky, taking over the trail in 2011, allowed one of the defendants, Christopher Knopf, to enter evidence that the woman’s lawyers believed should have been covered by the earlier judge’s order. 
 
 “It was shocking to see judge Persky disregard that order,” Burneikis said. “One judge completely disregarding an order that another judge has entered: yes, that was unusual.” 
 
 “It was devastating,” she continued. “I can remember how I felt the moment the ruling came down and it was like a nail in a coffin. I could not comprehend it.” 
 
 Persky did not respond to requests for comment. Alison Crane, attorney for the defendants, who asked the woman about the questionable photos, also did not respond to requests for comment. 
 
 Persky’s defenders 
 
 Persky was only in the position to influence the outcome of the De Anza case because it was brought in civil, rather than criminal, court, after prosecutors did not bring charges. Such an outcome is indicative of a criminal justice system which, advocates for survivors of sexual assault say, fails to hold perpetrators accountable. Research has repeatedly shown that only a small fraction of rape cases lead to prosecution. 
 
 The Stanford rape case: a white privilege cake with vanilla frosting on top Read more 
 
 Persky’s critics have argued that his actions in the De Anza case and the Stanford assault reflect a lack of empathy for victims, noting that the judge himself was a former Stanford athlete. 
 
 But defenders of the judge have come forward in recent days and argued that it’s critical for judges to have discretion and that he should be applauded for avoiding overly harsh sentences. 
 
 “Persky has a reputation for being a thoughtful jurist and he has been fair and decent to our clients, many of whom come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds,” said Jennifer Redding, a public defender in Santa Clara. 
 
 “Based on my experience and knowledge of judge Persky’s reputation I do not believe that he granted [Turner] probation because the defendant reportedly came from a privileged background,” said Andy Gutierrez, deputy public defender for Santa Clara county. 
 
 Gutierrez noted that it can be especially challenging for judges to issue appropriate sentences when the crimes are violent or horrendous. But sometimes, he said, it’s the right thing to do. 
 
 “In notorious cases, whether it involves a sexual assault, a child molestation, or even a gang crime, there is often public clamor for a heavy sentence. A judge must resist the temptation to be swallowed by such public sentiment. That is one of the toughest things for a judge to do.” 
 
 This article was amended on 9 June 2016. Two quotes attributed to Barbara Spector were actually made by the plaintiff’s other lawyer, Monica Burneikis.
– A California man whose life was forever altered by donning a chicken suit for a high school pep rally has been awarded a lot more than chicken scratch in a lawsuit against Kern High School District. Mitch Carter was a 17-year-old student at Bakersfield High School in 2010 when he dressed up in the suit to mock the Golden Hawk mascot of arch-rival Golden West High School for an ill-fated skit, the Los Angeles Times reports. Students—including plenty of football players—piled on top of him, delivering kicks and punches in a beating that lawyers said left Carter with a traumatic brain injury. After a jury found the district liable for his injuries, it decided to settle with him for $10.5 million, most of which will be covered by insurance. Lawyers said Carter, once an honor roll student, has struggled with depression and poor grades in college since the beating. His future medical care costs will be more than $5 million, according to the lawyers. "I would trade everything just to have a full functioning brain," he said after the award was announced. The Bakersfield Californian recaps the wild trial that was brought to an end by the settlement. It included accusations of conspiracy and cover-up from Carter's lawyers, who brought in students to testify that the high school was obsessed with football and protected star players. During closing arguments, attorney Nicholas Rowley donned a chicken costume to make a point.