Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

Anybody know when the trial date is?

March 20th.

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.

No, but this is a common misperception thanks to television shows. The prosecution has to disclose any exculpatory evidence. That is, they can't just sit on evidence that would tend to show the defendant is innocent. They don't have to open their files to the defendant, though.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_11_72/ai_111496590


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.
As someone posted above, it's more than that. There is an increased intent requirement on the part of the defendant.

No, but this is a common misperception thanks to television shows. The prosecution has to disclose any exculpatory evidence. That is, they can't just sit on evidence that would tend to show the defendant is innocent. They don't have to open their files to the defendant, though.

True but as we have all seen defense lawyers are very good at twisting and turning evidence to their advantage. For that reason generally isn't most evidence made available so as to avoid mistrials due to discovery failures? I thought most prosectors erred on the side of caution and let defenses see most anything. Then there isn't any chance that the defense can convince a judge that the evidence the prosection sees as merely damaging is in reality potentially exculpatory.

True but as we have all seen defense lawyers are very good at twisting and turning evidence to their advantage. For that reason generally isn't most evidence made available so as to avoid mistrials due to discovery failures? I thought most prosectors erred on the side of caution and let defenses see most anything. Then there isn't any chance that the defense can convince a judge that the evidence the prosection sees as merely damaging is in reality potentially exculpatory.

We need to distinsguish between mandatory discovery and permissive discovery. The prosecution MUST turn over exculpatory evidence. The defense has a right to REQUEST pretty much all non-work product evidence. If the defense doesn't ask for something that isn't mandatory, the prosecution has no duty to turn it over. Even failure to turn over exculpatory evidence isn't necessarily reversible error unless the defense can prove that it impacted the outcome on the case or that the prosecution acted maliciously.

Anyhow, the original statement was: "It is unlikely ST's lawyers know all the evidence against him." If they are good attorneys and know what to ask for, then they probably know pretty much everything.

i think that it will be miracle if sean taylor doesn't come back this season i think that sean taylor's lawyers will pull it through but you never know

I just hope they dont bring up how he assaulted other people, in court......................................like Terry Glenn, and Darryl Jackson just to name a few. lol sory had to do it

We need to distinsguish between mandatory discovery and permissive discovery. The prosecution MUST turn over exculpatory evidence. The defense has a right to REQUEST pretty much all non-work product evidence. If the defense doesn't ask for something that isn't mandatory, the prosecution has no duty to turn it over. Even failure to turn over exculpatory evidence isn't necessarily reversible error unless the defense can prove that it impacted the outcome on the case or that the prosecution acted maliciously.

Anyhow, the original statement was: "It is unlikely ST's lawyers know all the evidence against him." If they are good attorneys and know what to ask for, then they probably know pretty much everything.

They probably know a lot, but not everything. By that I mean, they likely don't know what exactly the witnesses saw or heard. They don't know what precisely they are going to testify to at trial. When you don't know exactly what the witnesses are going to testify to and their testimony is likely going to constitute the bulk of the evidence against ST, I'm not sure that you can say that they will know everything. Moreover, if they intend to tell half-truths on the stand, or ST is telling half-truths to his attorneys, it may make for some surprises. That's just my two cents.

They probably know a lot, but not everything. By that I mean, they likely don't know what exactly the witnesses saw or heard. They don't know what precisely they are going to testify to at trial. When you don't know exactly what the witnesses are going to testify to and their testimony is likely going to constitute the bulk of the evidence against ST, I'm not sure that you can say that they will know everything. Moreover, if they intend to tell half-truths on the stand, or ST is telling half-truths to his attorneys, it may make for some surprises. That's just my two cents.

The defense will know the testimonial evidence the prosecution plans to present (i.e., what witnesses they plan to present and for what reason). If the defense has not prepped properly, they might not ask the "right" questions of the witnesses during depositions and interviews and might not uncover a crucial fact. So, the defense will have the opportunity to get pretty much everything but could miss an opportunity.

That said, if the witnesses lie, you are correct, the defense will not know the truth.

Thanks for hittin us up with a clarification on the rules of discovery. But I still think the most telling part of all this was the prosecution's attempt to plea the case down. Though the prosecution may or may not be required to share evidence with the defense, I'm sure he does his business just like the rest of us do: he tries to work efficiently and save himself time. If he was totally confident in his case, I think he wouldn't even bother making a plea agreement with Taylor; he'd just go straight to trial. But the fact that he took the time to meet with him probably indicates he doesn't have an open and shut case.

Thanks for hittin us up with a clarification on the rules of discovery. But I still think the most telling part of all this was the prosecution's attempt to plea the case down. Though the prosecution may or may not be required to share evidence with the defense, I'm sure he does his business just like the rest of us do: he tries to work efficiently and save himself time. If he was totally confident in his case, I think he wouldn't even bother making a plea agreement with Taylor; he'd just go straight to trial. But the fact that he took the time to meet with him probably indicates he doesn't have an open and shut case.

I wouldn't read too much into to the plea agreement offer. Prosecutors usually try to reach an out-of-court agreement in every case for one reason or another. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good overview of the pros and cons of plea agreements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain