Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

#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.

#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.

#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.

#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.

[FRPLG]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense..

i learned that from watching "my cousin vinny".

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.

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

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.

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

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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.