Quote:
|
Originally Posted by That Guy
he wont plead guilty to agravated assault, cause then all his options go out the window... the only thing he'd plead guilty to would be a lesser charge in the context of a plea bargain.
they can't convict for AA with reasonal doubt, so he said/she said might be enough to keep him clear (might because of his track record)... if there are recorded witnesses (ie, making a 911 call) then he could be done (in studies witnesses are notoriously bad at remembering details even a couple days after an event, so basing an entire legal system off the validity of eye witness testimony is a generally bad idea... but recording 911 calls and taking same day statements (and making sure their story matches up in court) do alleviate some of the concerns (and liars tend to be very bad at keeping made-up details straight)).
|
In practice, thousands of defendants are convicted on a daily basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony. Eye-witness testimony is really only questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity. That's not likely in the case of a well-known athelete. As for recorded 911 calls and "same day statements", those statements are inadmissible hearsay (i.e. out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted), unless they fall under one of the hearsay exceptions. In this case, there are likely not any exceptions. Furthermore, a witness's testimony is to be based entirely on their recollection of the events as of the time they take the stand.
As for reasonable doubt, I can't stress this enough that his past record, or lack of record, cannot be considered by the jury in determining guilt. The only time his clean record helps him is in the sentencing process. Prior acts (or lack thereof) are generally not admissible in determining guilt.