Taylor & Courts

[backrow]

This confirms Taylor is not a Thug.

"Taylor, who starred at the University of Miami, where he majored in criminology, and nearby Gulliver Prep High before the Redskins selected him as their No. 1 draft pick in 2004."


He is a Criminalist! CSI type of guy. Or he wanted to see why persons of a criminal nature do what they do. Or, he wanted to become a Police Officer. At any rate, he has some degree of understanding of the law, the courts, criminal nature, and investigative procedures. Criminology is an off-shoot of Sociology, the study of people and their problems, and what motivates them.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by backrow

This confirms Taylor is not a Thug.

"Taylor, who starred at the University of Miami, where he majored in criminology, and nearby Gulliver Prep High before the Redskins selected him as their No. 1 draft pick in 2004."


He is a Criminalist! CSI type of guy. Or he wanted to see why persons of a criminal nature do what they do. Or, he wanted to become a Police Officer. At any rate, he has some degree of understanding of the law, the courts, criminal nature, and investigative procedures. Criminology is an off-shoot of Sociology, the study of people and their problems, and what motivates them.

Yeah, his dad's a cop (chief of police, if I'm not mistaken) - but I'm still a fan of his though

[LINEBACKER]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Taylor doesn't have much to worry about. A bunch of thugs who are severely lacking in credibility, no 3rd party witnesses, no solid evidence that he had a gun...

See ya in mini-camp ST!

That is exactly what ST's attorneys are teling him because today he declined to accept the plea bargain and chose to go to trial on Monday.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

So let me kind of get a handle on this, a case only gets dismissed on technicalities that find evidence/witnesses inadmissible (looking at it from the judge's eyes, probably to the point where they have no evidence/witnesses) . Or only if there are technicalities of wrong doing on the part of the prosecution that appear to be intentional.

And it has nothing to do with the merit of the case on either side ?

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

[Sociofan]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)

Do you think that if the prosecution was discovered to be lying about their knowledge of any kind of evidence or information, that it wouldn't be severe enough ?

I think if any side was caught lying about facts or information involving this case that it would affect the integrity of the entire case - what else could they be lying about ? I just don't think the doubt would stop there.

[PorterHouse]

I think with Dan Snyders money and influence, this will all blow over before camp even starts. ( I hope so anyway)

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by Sociofan

How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.

[Schneed10]

Did everybody see this?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....ap/index.html

You have to be pretty confident in your case to reject a plea deal for no jail time.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Yeah, seriously. Sounds like the DA is just trying to save face with SOME kind of conviction.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by Carnage

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

I was actually thinking the same thing at first, but here is the problem. He is not claiming self-defense or any other affirmative defense; he is simply saying there was no gun involved and he never pointed a gun at anyone. Therefore, what he reasonably believed about these people is irrelevant because it's not an element of his defense.