Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[QUOTE=scowan]It sounds to me like from the Washington Post Article that the guys who said Sean Taylor pointed a gun at them, have been stealing cars and getting arrested themselves. Maybe they should have guns pointed at them! Maybe Sean should not be pointing guns at them but the police should![/QUOTE]

That's the same thing I thought right after it happened. They stole from him and in the process of getting his stuff back, maybe a gun came out. They had it coming. I don't think that makes Sean Taylor a thug. If someone stole from me and I found them, they would damn sure wish I hadn't.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=amorentz]When cases are dismissed for lack of evidence, it is usually because the evidence being offered is found inadmissable.
[/quote]

So let me kind of get a handle on this, a case only gets dismissed on technicalities that find evidence/witnesses inadmissible (looking at it from the judge's eyes, probably to the point where they have no evidence/witnesses) . Or only if there are technicalities of wrong doing on the part of the prosecution that appear to be intentional.

And it has nothing to do with the merit of the case on either side ?

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

I just heard on sports talk 980 that the motion to dismiss the case by the defense was denied.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=dirthogs311]I just heard on sports talk 980 that the motion to dismiss the case by the defense was denied.[/quote]

Yeah, I heard that. His trial is still scheduled to begin on Monday and I don't think it's going to last too long. I'm still saying that by next week, it will be over.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Sociofan]Yeah, I heard that. His trial is still scheduled to begin on Monday and I don't think it's going to last too long. I'm still saying that by next week, it will be over.[/quote]

Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=dirthogs311]Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal[/quote]

He said (Professional Football Player) vs. He said (thugs still stealing vehicles and dealing drugs).

No gun found. No other witnesses. No other direct evidence. (from the stuff I've read)

The odds are good we'll see him in August.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Sociofan]He said (Professional Football Player) vs. He said (thugs still stealing vehicles and dealing drugs).

No gun found. No other witnesses. No other direct evidence. (from the stuff I've read)

The odds are good we'll see him in August.[/quote]

Not guilty Bruise Bros. will be back in business YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=dirthogs311]Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal[/quote]

Innocent all the way. Unless the prosecution has the gun that Taylor allegedly brandished and has it linked to him somehow, or a caucasion (sp) middle-aged witness says that Taylor pointed and threatened the defendents with the gun.

But even then - I don't think he gets jail time because no one really got seriously hurt.

And if the Giants sign Lavar, hopefully Redskins can capitalize when they play - if he gets over emotional and gambles a little too much.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

By the way, I don't think there's no way that the prosecutors were not aware of the witnesses' arrests since the Taylor incident. They have been too aggressive with this trial to overlook any of that.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Wow, where did LaVar come into this? Anyway, he'll be found innocent soon enough.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

As a reminder, here was the original article from the WP right after Taylor's arraignment:

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400535.html[/url]

My question is, "Why were the 'defendants' not charged with felony assault?" I'm sure those bullet holes in Taylor's SUV can be matched to a firearm owned by one of those clowns.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Here is the case: A bunch of already arrested Losers are saying that a Pro Football player pointed a gun at them after they (most likely) stole his car and he chased them down. Let's see, if I had the ability to chase down someone who stole my car and I happen to have a gun one me, Yes I would have probably pulled it out and pointed at them as well. I am still unsure of the case these Losers have against Taylor other than they probably got caught stealing his car and are trying to turn it around on him because he is a Pro Football player and has money to shut them up. Instead he says I did nothing wrong and a Prosocutor takes the case (out of the goodness of his heart, because you know these Losers aren't paying him anything) to make a name for himself. Have I got it right?!

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Taylor doesn't have much to worry about. A bunch of thugs who are severely lacking in credibility, no 3rd party witnesses, no solid evidence that he had a gun...

See ya in mini-camp ST!

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Sounds to me like the prosecuting attorney is some guy with his head up his own ass and loves the sound of his own voice.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Taylor doesn't have much to worry about. A bunch of thugs who are severely lacking in credibility, no 3rd party witnesses, no solid evidence that he had a gun...

See ya in mini-camp ST![/QUOTE]


Those same bunch of thugs got caught 3 weeks ago...........stealing ATV's. On top of that, every single one of them has a criminal record.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Wait, they got caught AGAIN stealing ATVs?

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]Wait, they got caught AGAIN stealing ATVs?[/QUOTE]


Yep. Just heard it on the radio (980 AM).

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection]Wait, they got caught AGAIN stealing ATVs?[/quote]

Yeah. I thought everyone had heard that part already.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Sociofan]Yeah. I thought everyone had heard that part already.[/quote]

BUT... they stole it from Santana Moss - so it looks like Moss is in trouble not them :) (just in case someone actually starts believing this post - just playin, april fools, whatever).

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Wow, those guys LOVE ATVs.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

This confirms Taylor is not a Thug.

"Taylor, who starred at the University of Miami, where he majored in criminology, and nearby Gulliver Prep High before the Redskins selected him as their No. 1 draft pick in 2004."


He is a Criminalist! CSI type of guy. Or he wanted to see why persons of a criminal nature do what they do. Or, he wanted to become a Police Officer. At any rate, he has some degree of understanding of the law, the courts, criminal nature, and investigative procedures. Criminology is an off-shoot of Sociology, the study of people and their problems, and what motivates them.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=backrow]This confirms Taylor is not a Thug.

"Taylor, who starred at the University of Miami, where he majored in criminology, and nearby Gulliver Prep High before the Redskins selected him as their No. 1 draft pick in 2004."


He is a Criminalist! CSI type of guy. Or he wanted to see why persons of a criminal nature do what they do. Or, he wanted to become a Police Officer. At any rate, he has some degree of understanding of the law, the courts, criminal nature, and investigative procedures. Criminology is an off-shoot of Sociology, the study of people and their problems, and what motivates them.[/quote]

Yeah, his dad's a cop (chief of police, if I'm not mistaken) - but I'm still a fan of his though :)

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Mattyk72]Taylor doesn't have much to worry about. A bunch of thugs who are severely lacking in credibility, no 3rd party witnesses, no solid evidence that he had a gun...

See ya in mini-camp ST![/quote]

That is exactly what ST's attorneys are teling him because today he declined to accept the plea bargain and chose to go to trial on Monday.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=warriorzpath]So let me kind of get a handle on this, a case only gets dismissed on technicalities that find evidence/witnesses inadmissible (looking at it from the judge's eyes, probably to the point where they have no evidence/witnesses) . Or only if there are technicalities of wrong doing on the part of the prosecution that appear to be intentional.

And it has nothing to do with the merit of the case on either side ?[/quote]

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=amorentz]Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.[/quote]

How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=amorentz]Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.[/quote]

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=warriorzpath]So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.[/quote]

To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=amorentz]To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)[/quote]

Do you think that if the prosecution was discovered to be lying about their knowledge of any kind of evidence or information, that it wouldn't be severe enough ?

I think if any side was caught lying about facts or information involving this case that it would affect the integrity of the entire case - what else could they be lying about ? I just don't think the doubt would stop there.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

I think with Dan Snyders money and influence, this will all blow over before camp even starts. ( I hope so anyway)

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Sociofan]How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?[/quote]

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[QUOTE=amorentz]Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=amorentz]Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.[/quote]

Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Did everybody see this?

[url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/04/04/bc.fbn.redskins.taylor.ap/index.html[/url]

You have to be pretty confident in your case to reject a plea deal for no jail time.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

Yeah, seriously. Sounds like the DA is just trying to save face with SOME kind of conviction.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=Carnage]Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.[/quote]

I was actually thinking the same thing at first, but here is the problem. He is not claiming self-defense or any other affirmative defense; he is simply saying there was no gun involved and he never pointed a gun at anyone. Therefore, what he reasonably believed about these people is irrelevant because it's not an element of his defense.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

I don't see how it is even an option for him to plea bargain to no jail time, but take the felony rap. This would allow the accusers to come after his money in Civil Court. This prosecutor is really starting to piss me off. I hope things go smoothly and he gets embarassed. I'm still worried this guy has some kind of trick up his sleeve and he is setting Taylor up. Otherwise this case should have been dropped a long time ago and now that this new eveidence comes out that all three witnesses are complete criminals I don't see how the prosecution can even proceed?

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

[quote=12thMan]Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.[/quote]

Thanks 12thMan :) I love that about Warpath too, the people are just great and are always willing to answer my questions. No question that its the quality of the people that keep me coming back all day at work. Well that and the fact that its much more interesting than my job!

I think that info should be mostly right...but I did only get a B+ in Evidence last semester, so perhaps I should punt the question to one of the A students!

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

what are your opinions of the resent news tha the won't make a deal and it's going to trial he's pleading not guilty. comments

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

His attorneys have analyzed his situation. If he did it they would tell him to take the plea. Plain and simple. You don't jeapordize your livelyhood and freedom to avoid a felony on your record.

This must be a slam dunk.

Re: Taylor & Courts
 

more important stuff,who sponsered the poll?