High Court To Hear Don King Case

Dec. 11
, 2000 -- In the Ring With Don King Secondhand Smoke in the Sky A ‘Tricked’ Confession

In the Ring With Don KingThe Supreme Court stepped into the boxing ring today, agreeing to hear a fight promoter’s argument that he can sue rival promoter Don King for racketeering.

The high court will use the case to clarify when people can be sued for allegedly conducting racketeering activity through a business.

The federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawallows people to file civil lawsuits, seeking triple damages,against people accused of conducting an “enterprise’s affairsthrough a pattern of racketeering activity.”

Boxing promoter Cedric Kushner filed such a lawsuit against King in New York in 1998that accused him of interfering with Kushner’s contract with boxerHasim Rahman.

The lawsuit, which sought about $12 million in damages, said King paid Rahman not to go through with a fight that had been arranged through Rahman’s contract with Kushner.

A federal judge dismissed the case, saying the RICO law required the person and the enterprise to be “distinct” from each other.

King is president and sole shareholder of Don King Productions.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. King was “an employee acting within the scope of his authority” at Don KingProductions, the court said last July.

In the appeal acted on today, Kushner’s lawyer said the racketeering law was aimed at employees who “conduct the employer’s affairs as a vehicle to accomplish racketeering activity.” Under the 2nd Circuit Court’s ruling, “an organizedcrime family would merely need to incorporate to escape …liability altogether,” Kushner’s lawyer said.

King’s lawyer said the law aimed to attack the infiltration oforganized crime into legitimate organizations. The appeals court’sruling “keeps in check yet another unwarranted expansion of RICOtreble-damage liability,” the promoter’s lawyer said.

The case is Cedric Kushner Promotions vs. King, 00-549.

Secondhand Smoke in the Skies

The high court today let a flight attendant sue an airline for harm from secondhand smoke.

On a 6-3 vote, the justices declined to hear an appeal from Northwest Airlines arguing that a federal law deregulating the airline industry pre-empts state statutes requiring a healthy work environment.

Northwest’s lawyers said the lawsuit, brought by flight attendant Julie Duncan of Seattle, would effectively allow state regulation of a “service” provided by Northwest on its trans-Pacificflights.

Julie Duncan of Seattle sued Northwest, claiming she suffered lung problems and chronic infections related to secondhand smoke.

The suit, which sought class-action status, said Northwest violated its duty under Washington state law to provide a safe and healthy working environment.

Northwest prohibited smoking on domestic flights in 1988, before the ban was required by federal law, but continued to allow smokingon flights to and from Japan for another decade. The airline said it did so to compete with other airlines that let passengers smoke.

A federal judge dismissed Duncan’s lawsuit, saying that allowingher claim to proceed would amount to allowing state regulation of a “service” provided by Northwest on its trans-Pacificflights.

The 1978 Airline Deregulation Act pre-empts all state lawsuits related to airline rates, routes or services.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Duncan’s lawsuit last April. Allowing smoking on some flights is not a “service” provided by an airline, the court said.

In the appeal acted on today, Northwest’s lawyers said airlines should not have to “tailor their operations” to comply with laws in various states.

Duncan’s lawyers said the deregulation law was not intended to protect airlines from personal-injury claims.

The case is Northwest Airlines vs. Duncan, 00-404.

Considering a ‘Tricked’ Murder Confession

The Supreme Court also declined today to hear an appeal by man who claimed he was tricked into confessing to the killings of his parents when he was a high school senior.

The case tested whether a murder suspect’s confession, made after he was read his Miranda rights, was tainted by lengthy police questioning and incriminating statements he made beforehand.

The case concerned the aftermath of a lurid 1988 double killingin Belle Terre, N.Y., a wealthy section of Long Island. Thevictims’ son, then 17 years old, confessed but later claimed that police pressured him into it.

Martin Tankleff first told police that when he awoke for school he discovered his father, Seymour, gravely wounded in the study of the family home, and saw the body of his mother, Arlene, on herbedroom floor.

Tankleff named his father’s business partner as the probable killer, noting that the partner owed Seymour Tankleff money, and that he had been at the home for a poker game that lasted into thewee hours that morning.

After several hours of interviews and questioning at the home and at a Suffolk County, N.Y., police station, police falsely told Tankleff that his father had awakened from a coma and named him asthe killer.

At that point Tankleff wondered aloud if he might have “blackedout” and committed the crimes, and added, “It’s starting to cometo me.”

Police then read him his rights under the landmark Supreme CourtMiranda ruling, which states that suspects in custody must be told of their right to a lawyer and that anything they say may be used against them.

Tankleff waived his rights and confessed to attacking his parents. Seymour Tankleff died a few weeks later.

In their Supreme Court appeal, Tankleff’s lawyers argued that if the court found a Miranda violation itshould follow that the later confession was “fruit of a poisonedtree.”

Prosecutors said the appeals court correctly based its decision on another Supreme Court case that held “a suspect who has once responded to unwarned, yet uncoerced questioning, is not therebydisabled from waiving his rights and confessing after he has beengiven the requisite Miranda warnings.”

The cases are Tankleff vs. Superintendent of Clinton CorrectionalFacility, 00-327, and Superintendent of Clinton CorrectionalFacility vs. Tankleff, 00-519. The Associated Press contributed to this report.