Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
#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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
#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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
#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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
#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.