Sean Taylor Trial

[backrow]

I posted the below over in the AA thread. But it bears repeating.

"Last I heard, a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The case against ST is at best, a he-said, he-said argument.

That's why they try the case. The Prosecution tries to prove him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. The Defense only needs to cast a shadow of doubt.

For the purposes of this Forum, let us presume ST is innocent."


Juries do strange things. They look at the reasonable doubt portion during trials very closely.

Having foremanned a jury trial once, I can form an opinion, and still look at both sides. I suspect a one-to-two day trial.

Hung juries happen because it is hard to convince all 12 or 8 or however many in the jury.

That shadow of doubt is easier to cast with the highest paid defense lawyers available. They seemingly know the angles.

Do not look for a plea, do not look for a reduced charge. This prosecutor is using this trial for his own career furtherance.

So, almost as in FB, you have two very skilled contestants, the Prosecution, and the Defense, each with his "spin" on the issue. But the burden is on the Prosecution.

[amorentz]

Im thinking of ordering this custom jersey

http://waumadscn7.eastbay.com/is/ima...EAN!&$ENLARGE$

[PSUSkinsFan21]

People have been convicted with less evidence than the prosecution has in this case. The eye-witnesses may not be ideal, but they certainly may also be adequate.

Fact is none of us really know enough about this case to make any bets on the likelihood of success. If you're going simply off of what the media is reporting, I feel confident in saying you are going off of only a portion of all the facts of this case. As Skins fans we should be especially aware of media spin and inaccurate reporting.

What we do know is what he has been charged with.....and those charges are not to be taken lightly. We also know that ST confronted people he presumed stole his ATVs, when he should have called on the police to do so. That in-and-of-itself shows poor judgment on his part. We also know that the prosecution has shown little or no inclination to reduce the charges based on the information they have gathered. That's not good for ST. We may all sit here and say those witnesses aren't credible, but apparently the prosecution feels otherwise......and the prosecution knows more about this case than any of us.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

People have been convicted with less evidence than the prosecution has in this case. The eye-witnesses may not be ideal, but they certainly may also be adequate.

Fact is none of us really know enough about this case to make any bets on the likelihood of success. If you're going simply off of what the media is reporting, I feel confident in saying you are going off of only a portion of all the facts of this case. As Skins fans we should be especially aware of media spin and inaccurate reporting.

What we do know is what he has been charged with.....and those charges are not to be taken lightly. We also know that ST confronted people he presumed stole his ATVs, when he should have called on the police to do so. That in-and-of-itself shows poor judgment on his part. We also know that the prosecution has shown little or no inclination to reduce the charges based on the information they have gathered. That's not good for ST. We may all sit here and say those witnesses aren't credible, but apparently the prosecution feels otherwise......and the prosecution knows more about this case than any of us.

But the defense likely knows a lot about the case too. And they felt comfortable rejecting a plea deal outright. That tells me they're pretty confident in their stance. If you're going to try to read the prosecution's actions, you have to look at the defense's too.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But the defense likely knows a lot about the case too. And they felt comfortable rejecting a plea deal outright. That tells me they're pretty confident in their stance. If you're going to try to read the prosecution's actions, you have to look at the defense's too.

What plea deal were they offered? If the "deal" would have still required jail time, they could have rejected it regardless of the strength of the case. For ST, any "deal" that still requires jailtime may simply not be an option.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

What plea deal were they offered? If the "deal" would have still required jail time, they could have rejected it regardless of the strength of the case. For ST, any "deal" that still requires jailtime may simply not be an option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071200959.html

A deal was offered to Taylor with the minimum jail sentence, 3 years. By Florida law the DA can't offer any less than that for the charges he's facing. So you're right, Taylor probably found this completely unacceptable and is taking his chances.

But the co-defendant was offered a deal to roll on Taylor, and he rejected that outright, despite the fact that all charges would have been dropped in the deal. He rejected that even though he's facing up to 15 years. That's telling to me.

The attorney for Caughman, Evan Hoffman, said his client could have had the felony assault charge against him -- which carries a 15-year maximum sentence -- dropped had he agreed to cooperate against Taylor. Caughman was charged with allegedly wielding a bat in the incident in which Taylor was accused of pointing a handgun and hitting a man with his fist.
"We were ethically and morally obligated to turn down the offer because we are steadfast in maintaining his innocence," Hoffman said.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071200959.html

A deal was offered to Taylor with the minimum jail sentence, 3 years. By Florida law the DA can't offer any less than that for the charges he's facing. So you're right, Taylor probably found this completely unacceptable and is taking his chances.

But the co-defendant was offered a deal to roll on Taylor, and he rejected that outright, despite the fact that all charges would have been dropped in the deal. He rejected that even though he's facing up to 15 years. That's telling to me.

Thanks for the info. I haven't been following as closely as I should.

Yah, I think for ST it's either innocent or bust at this point. The mandatory minimum is going to make a plea bargain almost impossible for both sides. You could look at it either way, of course, but to avoid the mandatory 3 years all the prosecutor would have to do is drop the assault down to simple assault that does not involve a gun. It's interesting that he refuses (thusfar) to do so.

As for the co-defendant, that really is shocking to me. As a co-defendant, with his own legal counsel, I can't imagine any attorney that wouldn't have convinced his client to take a deal that wipes out all charges......unless, of course, ST has made some promises behind closed doors to his boy involving $$$. We may never know.

[wilsowilso]

The District Attorney can't lose in this case and that is why it's going to trial. He probably knows it's a long shot, but even if they don't get a conviction and I don't think they have a chance in hell without some really damning evidence that has been kept out of the press he can still say we are tough on people who use guns and no one is above the law. End of statement. He did his job and he looks tough on crime. Florida has maybe the toughest gun laws in the country. It's interesting to note that this is the very same DA that was involved with a case against Antrell Rolle a while back and he decided not to press charges?

[BigSKINBauer]

maybe taylor is innocent and he too is innocent and he has a conscience ?