Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

[backrow]

The latest I saw, was on the continuation until March 20th.

Prosecution brought up the spitting incident, and wanted the hearing held regardless. Judge went with the continuence.


I have also heard the prosecution evidence is weak, but that may be media bias.

I've studied a little Criminal Law, some Administrative Law, some Appropriation Law, and some Business Law over the years.

I know enough that I don't want to hazard a guess on S. Taylor and the trial outcome.

This much I know. Prosecution has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

Defense only needs to bring in enough of a shadow, and so it all boils down to:

He said, He said.


S. Taylor may never make it to trial, or the charge may be reduced, or the jury may not buy the prosecution's proof.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 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.

But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.

[backrow]

I hope this link works.


http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9163149

[JoeRedskin]

My question is: Does anyone know if a gun was actually seized? It is my understanding that FL law is pretty unforgiving if a handgun is in the picture.

[Gibbs is God]

whether it is pointing a gun or spitting in someones face (sean taylor)...
this is something we have come to expect from graduates from Miama U.

GOOOOOOO VIRGINIA TECH!!!!!!!!!!!!

but we will all forgive sean taylor b/c he hits hard

end of story.

[Gibbs is God]

o yeah, i think i stayed at a holiday inn once

it was nice there.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.

I see your point. You are right - defense attorneys are not guaranteed the right to interview witnesses. Practically speaking, however, they do interview witnesses (prosecutors can't prevent it) - and a lot of non-interested witnesses do cooperate with both sides. But, as you point out, there are definitely times when witnesses decline to talk to defense attorneys.

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

LOL

[SmootSmack]

This can't be good

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2006...5354-2078r.htm

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Funnily enough. This is the advertisement that came up when I checked the Taylor situation.

[12thMan]

ESPN has reported that now Taylor faces up 46 yrs in prison after additional charges were added!!!!

[dmek25]

i read where this is way out of the ordinary,adding more charges this late in the game.are they trying to set an example out of #21?

[JWsleep]

For some reason, the prosecutor refiled the charge: it used to be one felony against 3 victims; now it's 3 felonys--each victim is being listed as a separate charge. Not sure how it's going to matter--if they believe he pointed the gun at one of the guys, they'll conclude he pointed it at all of them. Maybe one witness is credible-looking, but the other two are not, so the prosecutor is trying to split this guy off from the rest. Or maybe it's just intimidation and grandstanding--wow, what a tough DA. He's strong on crime and isn't intimidated by celebrities and their lawyers.

Here's the post article: More Charges Filed Against Redskins' Taylor

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

For some reason, the prosecutor refiled the charge: it used to be one felony against 3 victims; now it's 3 felonys--each victim is being listed as a separate charge. Not sure how it's going to matter--if they believe he pointed the gun at one of the guys, they'll conclude he pointed it at all of them. Maybe one witness is credible-looking, but the other two are not, so the prosecutor is trying to split this guy off from the rest. Or maybe it's just intimidation and grandstanding--wow, what a tough DA. He's strong on crime and isn't intimidated by celebrities and their lawyers.

Here's the post article: More Charges Filed Against Redskins' Taylor

I just hate the fact that he's trying to get "some" time for Taylor.

[mooby]

this sucks. The odds are bad for Taylor. I don't understand why they are so focused on taylor riding in jail. Honestly they are more focused on punishing the victim than punishing the guys who stole his atv's. I'm not saying it's okay for taylor to point the gun at them. It was just a man trying to get back what was rightfully his.