Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

Pocket$ $traight

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.

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

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.

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.

wolfeskins

uuummmmmm.............can you say potty mouth

__________________
Hail to Allen/Shanahan .... bring in some baby hogs and load up on diesel fuel !!! (budw38)

12thMan

March 20th.

onlydarksets

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/articl...2/ai_111496590


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

FRPLG

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.

onlydarksets

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.

skns03

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

PorterHouse

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

Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

onlydarksets

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.

Schneed10

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.

onlydarksets

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