Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

whoa,bigskin!your video scares me

I'm thinking Taylor will go free once any jury sees this video!
Wow sometimes I'm glad I'm a Redskins fan. Those guys were loaded. And uh some didn't even have a clue when loaded....
Great video! Please post more! Beer bongs in the next one! PLEASE!!!

yeah. Lol i think those guys are from oakland. People are laughing about that video on other team's fans boards too. I thought everyone had seen it via the
Super Happy Fun Thread (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=8823) and as for more videos everyone knows that is the hottest place for funny stupid videos :)

I am not a lawyer but from my recollection there were multiple parties involved. 2 of which are Taylor and his associate. He has simply been charged with pointing a gun at one of the other parties. Now the one true legal discussion I read about this was months ago but the only known evidence at that time was the statements of the other parties. The state's attorney attempted to settle with both Taylor and his associate. This was noted as being revealing to some legal analysts as they viewed the attempt to settle with Taylor as an acknowledgement of the weakness of the state's case because the only evidence comes from being made by questionable characters. They also felt that the more serious crime commited has been attributed to Taylor's associate as he was charged with actually swining a bat at the other parties. The attempt to settle with Taylor's associate was seen as two fold. First it was another sign of the perceived weakness of evidence and second it was felt that the attempt was also a play to turn Taylor's associate; again another sign of weakness. Both Taylor and his associate did not settle. The basic consensus at the time I read this article was that one of two things will happen. Either Taylor will get off or he will settle to a much lower charge. A charge not requiring a mandatory 3 year sentence. This is of course assuming there was no unknown evidence and again this was months ago. I'd love if someone had a more recent outline of the case as it stands now.

I might be optimistic but when a prosecutor doesn't seem too eager to go to trial I am thinking he may know that he is going to have to settle at best. The prosecutor hasn't fought too hard against any continuances and he certainly can't still be investigating. It is a pretty basic situation. I would think if he felt he had an airtight case he'd be more eager to get this done. I hope.

FRPLG, nice post, you reminded me of some things. I had forgotten about the prosecution's attempt to settle. We may not know the evidence against Taylor (and I guess we might never know what the evidence is since we're not lawyer's with the DA's office down there). But the attempt at settlement by the prosecution is pretty telling; but Taylor's rejection of the settlement is even more telling. If a prosecutor tries to settle, his case could be weak, or maybe he's just got too many other cases on hand and just wants to clear a couple off his desk. The fact that Taylor and his lawyer decided to reject the plea seems to indicate that they too feel that the state's case is weak. I think if any good defense lawyer thought there was a chance Taylor could get convicted in a trial, he would advise Taylor to take the plea. But he didn't. We may not know the evidence, but I think that's pretty telling. You're right, he's probably good to go.

Anybody know when the trial date is?

#1. I have not heard any new information about Sean Taylor's case.

#2. I do not know what evidence the prosecution has and I don't think anyone does. It is highly unlikely that even Taylor's lawyer knows all of the evidence the prosecution has. It likely rests on eyewitness accounts. However, it could possibly also consist of a seized weapon with finger-prints, ballistics tests on bullets and the firearm used, etc. We simply do not know what they've got.

Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.

#3. In Florida, to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, or with the intent to commit a felony. An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

In other words, if the prosecution can convince a jury that Sean Taylor actually fired a firearm at a house, he's screwed.

Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.

#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.

Based on what experience? Eye witness testimony is relatively corruptable by a decent defense attorney. I don't know of too may proecutors who'd feel great about their chances with simple eye witness testimony. All it takes is one jury member to not believe the witnesses and in the case here I am guessing the questionable character issues make believeing them even that much harder. Especially since they as suspected of coming back to his hosue and firing at him.

#5. It is impossible to know whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Taylor. If you don't know the evidence against Taylor, you might as well flip a coin to decide whether he will be convicted.
Well duh. But that doesn't stop legal analysts from ever analyzing cases. No one can ever know if they have enough. So why should it stop us from discussing it. I'd love if we could find some people who really know what is going on here. Not just with this case but with Fla law and even with specific area and prosecutor.

Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.

Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.

I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense..




i learned that from watching "my cousin vinny".:)

I can't wait to see his knock the shit out of people in august.

as one, for a lack of a better term, passionate redskins fan said

KILL SEAN KILL!! KILL SEAN KILL!! (http://www.weakgame.com/data/Videos/20060118_006_go_redskins.wmv)

By the way i am glad he didn't actually kill anybody over ATVs

I need to look back at old stuff i wrote because i remember i convinced myself that he was completely innocent


Question: Was the Kill Sean Kill video shot by Trojan Man? Believe it or not I have met the guy who dropped the F-bomb 223 times. He asked me if I wanted 10W30 or 5W30.

Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.

By no means am I an expert. But, I worked as a paralegal for several years on several dozen felony cases in New York for a former state court judges-turned defense attorney. I drafted (not just typed) motions, attended numerous court hearings/trials, I attended in-chambers meetings between judges and the parties' attorneys, etc. I worked as intern for a federal court district judge and drafted decisions in both criminal and civil cases. I worked in a law clinic representing federal inmates in criminal appeals and I have been in law school for two years.

Discovery doesn't reveal everything. For example, in a case like this, where witness statements are going to be key, you don't get to depose the witnesses prior to trial. You know who the witnesses are going to be, but you don't know what the eyewitnesses are going to say. In some states (i.e. New York), you also aren't entitled to police reports. I know what discovery is and whether you believe me or not, there are many surprises at trials.


Based on what experience? Eye witness testimony is relatively corruptable by a decent defense attorney. I don't know of too may proecutors who'd feel great about their chances with simple eye witness testimony. All it takes is one jury member to not believe the witnesses and in the case here I am guessing the questionable character issues make believeing them even that much harder. Especially since they as suspected of coming back to his hosue and firing at him.

The question was whether eyewitness statements alone could support a conviction. If you notice what I said in the original post, eyewitness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction if it is believed by the jury. Of course, the defense attorney will try to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.


Well duh. But that doesn't stop legal analysts from ever analyzing cases. No one can ever know if they have enough. So why should it stop us from discussing it. I'd love if we could find some people who really know what is going on here. Not just with this case but with Fla law and even with specific area and prosecutor.

I wasn't trying to "shut down debate." I was just saying that I doubt people know enough about the case to even hazard an educated guess at this point.

KILL SEAN KILL!! KILL SEAN KILL!! (http://www.weakgame.com/data/Videos/20060118_006_go_redskins.wmv)







uuummmmmm.............can you say potty mouth:spank: