[Schneed10]

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I gather it's an interesting situation. Supposedly the prosecutor is supposed to tell the defense if the prosecution's witnesses get arrested. But the prosecutor has a point when he says that the county is so big, and it's impossible to know of all arrests that take place. In the end, I doubt the judge dismisses the whole case based on this technicality alone. But again I'm not a lawyer, I'm just guessing here.

What is interesting is, after reading this article, I wonder what everyone is saying about Sean Taylor now? People called him a thug and this and that back when this story first broke. Some of them never stopped to consider that he may have been the victim in this situation, especially considering there still is no firm evidence he actually brandished a weapon. Consider the criminal records of these "witnesses" in the case. Anyone who called Taylor a thug should be ashamed of themselves, IMO.

He could still get convicted, for sure (though the criminal records of these witnesses will only help the defense destroy their credibility in the courtroom). But I just hated how some jumped to conclusions on the guy. I think he made a mistake putting himself in that situation: hanging around low lifes in the first place. But there's no proof he brandished a weapon at this point, and it seems likely his ATVs really were stolen. He hardly seems like the thug in this situation to me.