With the situation being so serious and him having prior infractions, I was just curious if anyone knew a timeframe for a decision on Coach Williams? I would think that they would want to get it resolved one way or another fairly quickly but I understand them making sure they have every bit of information they need.
TImeline for KW decision
- Thread starter cdriftt24
- Start date
This has to be nerve wracking for Williams. If they wait much longer, they're going to drive that man to drink.
I'd agree with this belief. I have never read his contract, but the news broke Sunday. It is now Thursday. That's five days for the lawyers to comb over the contract and determine if they have crossed all the Ts and dotted all the Is correctly to fire him. I could be wrong but I figured if he was getting fired, it would have happened by end of business hours today.
My feeling is that the powers that be are figuring out the best way to roll this out for all involved.
This is just a gut feeling, but I think if they wanted to fire him they would have done so already. The longer this drags on the more it seems to me they are working out the contingencies of his ongoing employment here.
My guess would be this time tomorrow there's an announcement, perfect timing with the weekend. If retained; just from a football perspective, I'd allow him to coach through fall camp but suspend him from the team for the three non conference games.
Curious to see how this all plays out.
Curious to see how this all plays out.
I'm sure they've been in contact with him, if for no other reason then to get all of the info. I'd be surprised at this point if he's not retained, though I'm sure there will be punishments and contingencies, some of which they may never make public. But yeah a Friday afternoon news dump seems like the likely way to go so I'll say tomorrow.
If it follows the long held Husker belief that "if there's no conviction, there can be no crime", then we will have to wait until after sentencing.
Is he coaching in practice yet? If he has returned to practices, I would be more inclined to believe he will be retained. The longer he is removed from practice (or games), the more likely he is to be released imo.
Is he coaching in practice yet? If he has returned to practices, I would be more inclined to believe he will be retained. The longer he is removed from practice (or games), the more likely he is to be released imo.
My gut tells me that if they were going to fire him it would have already happened... The longer we wait for an announcement, the more likely it is that he stays. I have no clue what kind of contingencies will be put in place, as I'm sure there will be, but I think he is gonna remain on staff. This has gone too long now for him to be fired, unless new information comes to light.
I don't know if he will be retained or not, but there is a lot of truth to that.. they will have a difficult time firing him without the conviction first.
He is going to need to get probation, and in order to do that, he has to get treatment.. He'll need to take a medical leave of absence or a lot of vacation days to do that.
I think the University will need to have assurances upfront on what the courts are going to do in order to retain him.
There will be a whole list of stuff KW has to do.. if he does all of it, he's probably ok.
What a mess.
If he wasn't one of the elite assistant coaches in the country, and had some major recruits already on the line, he'd a been gone yesterday. Other than this incident, he's done very well here so far. I believe his son is here as well now (sitting out this years as a transfer from Fresno St). His recruiting & coaching have been excellent. He's also pushed the envelope, in a positive manner, with social media for NU Football too.
With that said, he needs to commit and make a real change to act more responsibly as an adult going forward. He'll have, and rightfully so, a 0 margin for error going forward.
GBR
With that said, he needs to commit and make a real change to act more responsibly as an adult going forward. He'll have, and rightfully so, a 0 margin for error going forward.
GBR
Interesting point. I took a look at the conditions for termination with cause on BP's contract, they appear to be standard University provisions so I assume that they are attached to all of the coaches contracts. Two provisions have some relevance: (1) use of alcohol to the point that it affects the employees duties and (2) conviction of a crime other than a minor traffic offense. I'm not sure that a case could be made that No. 1 applies. For No. 2, they would have to wait until the conviction since he pled not guilty. So, the options would appear to be: fire him without cause (seems unlikely), wait until he is convicted (doesn't seem like that would be a first choice, who knows when the trial/hearing will actually take place) or present him with a plan of sanctions to avoid the possibility of termination upon conviction.
I'm guessing he is suspended for the season and immediately enters in patient treatment. His court date is in Oct. which is one reason I think he is suspended for the season. They can't have the drama. Under certain conditions they bring him back for next season.
If it is anything like political announcements, a Friday afternoon dump is not a good thing.
Nebraska is an employment 'at will' state, so I think you can be fired any time for any reason, the contract just will assure some sort of monetary settlement I think.
You are correct on the employment at will. My opinion is with the October court date, he can demonstrate that he is in good faith trying to reform by entering a 30 day program and not be associated with football until he finishes. Court will have reason to act in a lenient manner. Anything less and MADD will make life rough.
A couple of things to consider. He plead not guilty so, if I were his attorney, I would advise him to not make any public comment. Admitting guilt would sort of be a losing strategy
Additionally, by pleading not guilty, his attorney was given until the October court date to reach a deal with the prosecutor. Had he plead guilty or nolo contendere, the judge could have begun the sentencing phase of his case. Which would have taken away any chances of a plea deal. And, because it was the 3rd offense DUI, he would have been subject to the mandatory minimum sentences. Under a plea agreement, a deal with the prosecutor may suspend the jail time in exchange for a longer probation period, for instance.
Additionally, by pleading not guilty, his attorney was given until the October court date to reach a deal with the prosecutor. Had he plead guilty or nolo contendere, the judge could have begun the sentencing phase of his case. Which would have taken away any chances of a plea deal. And, because it was the 3rd offense DUI, he would have been subject to the mandatory minimum sentences. Under a plea agreement, a deal with the prosecutor may suspend the jail time in exchange for a longer probation period, for instance.
If he somehow avoids jail time for this offense there will likely be a fairly strong blowback. For better or worse, his case will be widely publicized. It would not look kosher for a person with a 3rd DUI conviction to walk out of court with just a fine and probation. If that happens, future defendants with multiple non-fatal DUI convictions will be requesting a "Williams plea". I suppose it depends upon the Judge but it seems to me that it would be difficult to argue that they shouldn't get the same deal.
Not trying to be a wordsmith, but he hasn't been convicted of a third dui... Charged, but not convicted. If he walks out with a fine and probation he won't be convicted of a dui... It'll be a lesser charge. If what I have read from others, a 3rd dui carries a mandatory sentence that includes jail time.
If he pleads down and doesn't get jail time, the charge will be reduced to something less than dui.
It is my understanding that a plea deal between the prosecutor and the defendant, if made prior to the judge rendering a decision, is not bound to the mandatory minimum sentences. But Nebraska law may be different.
As far as this being a high profile case and future DUI defendants wanting the same deal or THIS case setting some sort of precedent. I can promise you that there is a previous case where a defendant has received a lesser sentence for the same charge or a defendant facing a 4th or 5th DUI received a lesser sentence in a plea. In fact, I would bet that Williams attorney is researching that now and will be using it in his negotiations with the prosecutor.
Edit- Another factor that could play into a more lenient sentence is if Williams had been living a sober lifestyle since his last DUI conviction. I have no idea if that is the case, but if he had been clean and sober, for an extended period of time, prior to this most recent arrest, that may indeed be a factor and allow for a reduced punishment.
As far as this being a high profile case and future DUI defendants wanting the same deal or THIS case setting some sort of precedent. I can promise you that there is a previous case where a defendant has received a lesser sentence for the same charge or a defendant facing a 4th or 5th DUI received a lesser sentence in a plea. In fact, I would bet that Williams attorney is researching that now and will be using it in his negotiations with the prosecutor.
Edit- Another factor that could play into a more lenient sentence is if Williams had been living a sober lifestyle since his last DUI conviction. I have no idea if that is the case, but if he had been clean and sober, for an extended period of time, prior to this most recent arrest, that may indeed be a factor and allow for a reduced punishment.
Last edited:
Completely a wild guess but I could really seeing it play out along the lines of KW retaining his job under conditions such as 30-45 day suspension w/o pay while attending treatment/counseling and subjection to testing and reporting for up to the length of his employment. I think it would be harsh enough to satisfy a majority of critics and also would probably assist KW in the legal realm to show he is managing his situation ahead of the October court date. Would also send a signal to recruits that they take the situation seriously but plan to remain stable in the position.
All this is only due to the fact that I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
All this is only due to the fact that I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
If that happens the prosecutor will take considerable heat because the police initially reported that Williams tested at almost 2X the legal limit (.15 BAC versus .08 legal limit). The State's prosecutor has already decided to formally charge the less serious misdemeanor DUI .08 instead of the aggravated DUI .15 which is itself a break for Williams because it avoids the felony charge. Dismissing the DUI charge altogether under these alleged facts would be highly irregular. I can only imagine the public backlash.
Even if the prosecutor agreed to a deal which dismisses the 3rd DUI charge, I assume the Judge could either (a) reject the plea deal or (b) accept the plea but decide to impose a stricter sentence than agreed to between Williams and the prosecutor. Plea deals include sentence recommendations. Only a Judge can impose a sentence. Not sure about Nebraska but in a number of states, Judges have the discretion to accept the plea deal without being bound by the sentence recommendation. This route is risky because it places the defendant in jeopardy of incarceration and it relies on the mercy of the court.
If Nebraska law allows it, one way out for Williams may be a suspended imposition of sentence. Under that type of arrangement, the judge could accept a guilty plea to the misdemeanor DUI charge, impose a sentence which includes jail time but then suspends the jail time with conditions which would include, for example, completion of treatment, payment of fine, and no other criminal offenses for a set term of years. In the end, that may end up being the best legal option if NE law permits it and the Judge agrees that it is an appropriate judgment in this case. This route avoids jail time but the defendant is left with a 3rd DUI conviction on his record.
Last edited:
A third offense DUI under 0.08 in Nebraska has a MANDATORY minimum 90 days in jail according to transportation.nebraska.gov
The attorneys here can tell me different if I am missing something, but I don't think it is possible to plea this offense to anything else since it was so far over 0.08 and since there was an accident, so I assume he will have to do at least 90 days.
The attorneys here can tell me different if I am missing something, but I don't think it is possible to plea this offense to anything else since it was so far over 0.08 and since there was an accident, so I assume he will have to do at least 90 days.
What I understand is that if a plea agreement is reached between the prosecutor and defense, the judge can accept the deal even if the punishment doesn't meet the mandatory minimum. I believe there is also a requirement to lessen the charges filed
He was charged at misdemeanor level because there's no way the felony DUI would have stood up in court. So the prosecutor would have been a fool to charge him at the felony level. The other thing I'm not sure of is how closely the breathalyzer results correspond to the actual BAC. People on here keep referring to his BAC but I'm not sure if his BAC test has been released. IF he had just consumed alcohol his BAC might have been lower than what he blew. Sooo that still leaves open the possibility of a reduction of the charge in a plea agreement. I believe that KW has voluntarily started some type of alcohol program and I could be wrong but I would think at least some judges would take that in to consideration. With the cost of incarceration AND the overcrowding in jails, I would think there is some pressure on judges to avoid putting guys in jail that may be at a lower risk of repeating. The state of Nebraska loses a significant amount of income tax in addition to his jail costs in the short term, IF they stick him in jail
That is perhaps the least persuasive argument I have ever seen presented against imposition of a jail sentence.
C'mon, jail costs? I will concede that it is a novel approach for a convict to argue that he should be spared jail time because incarceration will cause the state to incur the expense but said out loud in open court would risk additional time for assault (you never want to assault the intelligence of the person deciding your fate). Jail space overcrowding? Mention that in an effort to get off the hook and the Judge will find a cell even if it means a bank thief would need to be released early.
In addition, in this case the supposed loss of income tax revenue, if any, bears no relation to sentencing and whether or not Williams is ordered to jail. Williams' income is earned and distributed according to his employment agreement with the University. NU will continue to pay his salary (or a portion thereof if they determine disciplinary measures apply) as the administration, not the Judge, deems legally permissible and appropriate under his contract.
You misinterpret what I posted. I said that some JUDGES are under some pressure to try to avoid sentencing non-violent offenders to jail time. IF you have a guy already undergoing alcohol treatment or an alcohol program of some type for several months before he goes to trial, I have a suspicion that it makes it more likely for the defendant to avoid jail time. Furthermore I did NOT suggest that a judge would take in to consideration a loss of income tax revenue. My point with that was as a taxpayer you should HOPE that judges try to avoid putting people in jail if there's a suitable alternative consequence. IF KW was in jail I believe that you are wrong about NU continuing to pay his salary and thus the loss of income tax revenue. Don't sneeze at the cost of incarceration being considered. In my state, they have developed drug courts and diversion programs for the very purpose of keeping non-violent offenders working and out of jail and I believe Nebraska has them too.