Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

The latest I saw, was on the continuation until March 20th.

Prosecution brought up the spitting incident, and wanted the hearing held regardless. Judge went with the continuence.


I have also heard the prosecution evidence is weak, but that may be media bias.

I've studied a little Criminal Law, some Administrative Law, some Appropriation Law, and some Business Law over the years.

I know enough that I don't want to hazard a guess on S. Taylor and the trial outcome.

This much I know. Prosecution has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

Defense only needs to bring in enough of a shadow, and so it all boils down to:

He said, He said.


S. Taylor may never make it to trial, or the charge may be reduced, or the jury may not buy the prosecution's proof.

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.

But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.

I hope this link works.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9163149

My question is: Does anyone know if a gun was actually seized? It is my understanding that FL law is pretty unforgiving if a handgun is in the picture.

whether it is pointing a gun or spitting in someones face (sean taylor)...
this is something we have come to expect from graduates from Miama U.

GOOOOOOO VIRGINIA TECH!!!!!!!!!!!!

but we will all forgive sean taylor b/c he hits hard

end of story.

o yeah, i think i stayed at a holiday inn once

it was nice there.

But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.

I see your point. You are right - defense attorneys are not guaranteed the right to interview witnesses. Practically speaking, however, they do interview witnesses (prosecutors can't prevent it) - and a lot of non-interested witnesses do cooperate with both sides. But, as you point out, there are definitely times when witnesses decline to talk to defense attorneys.

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

LOL

This can't be good

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060126-115354-2078r.htm

Funnily enough. This is the advertisement that came up when I checked the Taylor situation.

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1866/funy6zo.jpg