Taylor & Courts

[Sociofan]

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

I just heard on sports talk 980 that the motion to dismiss the case by the defense was denied.

Yeah, I heard that. His trial is still scheduled to begin on Monday and I don't think it's going to last too long. I'm still saying that by next week, it will be over.

[dirthogs311]

Originally Posted by Sociofan

Yeah, I heard that. His trial is still scheduled to begin on Monday and I don't think it's going to last too long. I'm still saying that by next week, it will be over.

Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal

[Sociofan]

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal

He said (Professional Football Player) vs. He said (thugs still stealing vehicles and dealing drugs).

No gun found. No other witnesses. No other direct evidence. (from the stuff I've read)

The odds are good we'll see him in August.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by dirthogs311

Guilty or Innocent??

I also hearrd during the same broadcast that the Giants are close to aquiring Lavar Arrington on a six year multi million dollar deal

Innocent all the way. Unless the prosecution has the gun that Taylor allegedly brandished and has it linked to him somehow, or a caucasion (sp) middle-aged witness says that Taylor pointed and threatened the defendents with the gun.

But even then - I don't think he gets jail time because no one really got seriously hurt.

And if the Giants sign Lavar, hopefully Redskins can capitalize when they play - if he gets over emotional and gambles a little too much.

[Schneed10]

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I gather it's an interesting situation. Supposedly the prosecutor is supposed to tell the defense if the prosecution's witnesses get arrested. But the prosecutor has a point when he says that the county is so big, and it's impossible to know of all arrests that take place. In the end, I doubt the judge dismisses the whole case based on this technicality alone. But again I'm not a lawyer, I'm just guessing here.

What is interesting is, after reading this article, I wonder what everyone is saying about Sean Taylor now? People called him a thug and this and that back when this story first broke. Some of them never stopped to consider that he may have been the victim in this situation, especially considering there still is no firm evidence he actually brandished a weapon. Consider the criminal records of these "witnesses" in the case. Anyone who called Taylor a thug should be ashamed of themselves, IMO.

He could still get convicted, for sure (though the criminal records of these witnesses will only help the defense destroy their credibility in the courtroom). But I just hated how some jumped to conclusions on the guy. I think he made a mistake putting himself in that situation: hanging around low lifes in the first place. But there's no proof he brandished a weapon at this point, and it seems likely his ATVs really were stolen. He hardly seems like the thug in this situation to me.

[backrow]

I for one, never looked at this case as "Thug-ery". I only look at what is known from news reports. He-said vs. He-said.

The rest of the story, ST staying in Miami, missing team work-outs during off-season, hanging with his buddies, and such is all chalked up to a lot of youthfulness, and big-headedness. None of this other stuff is criminal at all. In fact, he had probably cultivated his friendships and associations throughout his formative and college years. All will be worked out over time, after ST realizes his home-boys, are really his Redskin teammates.

Reports even had him working out at the U last year, while missing work-outs here! A trade-off of sorts, because working out anywhere is actually a good thing!

The earlier DUI (Dismissed), and the spitting incident (NFL Fine), are not related at all to the He-said vs. He-said ATV incident.

One known constant in all of this, is the Lawyer for the Prosecution is using this "High Profile" case for his own betterment. He wants to be seen as a Tough-guy! Everyone wants his 15 minutes of fame!

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

He could still get convicted, for sure (though the criminal records of these witnesses will only help the defense destroy their credibility in the courtroom).

If all of the witnesses against the defense (Taylor) are the perpetrators of the alleged stealing of the ATV and also have been involved in other arrests since the incident - then I think it's an open and shut case. It's the words of criminals against Taylor, who to my knowledge has a clean record.

Even if they do have evidence of bullet holes and such, it would not matter much unless the gun was registered or found in the possession of Taylor. The only thing that would hurt Taylor would be witnesses (against him) at the scene that were credible and had no criminal record and had no association with the others who were involved with the ATV theft.

But to my knowledge no one got hurt, except for the scuffle - and this could be argued that this was instigated by the alleged ATV thieves once Taylor and friends came across them.

[scowan]

It sounds to me like from the Washington Post Article that the guys who said Sean Taylor pointed a gun at them, have been stealing cars and getting arrested themselves. Maybe they should have guns pointed at them! Maybe Sean should not be pointing guns at them but the police should!

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by scowan

It sounds to me like from the Washington Post Article that the guys who said Sean Taylor pointed a gun at them, have been stealing cars and getting arrested themselves. Maybe they should have guns pointed at them! Maybe Sean should not be pointing guns at them but the police should!

That's the same thing I thought right after it happened. They stole from him and in the process of getting his stuff back, maybe a gun came out. They had it coming. I don't think that makes Sean Taylor a thug. If someone stole from me and I found them, they would damn sure wish I hadn't.

[Sociofan]

Here was another article about it this morning:

TAYLOR PROSECUTION ON LIFE SUPPORT

The lawyers for Redskins safety Sean Taylor have filed a motion to dismiss the felony assault charges pending against their client, based on allegations that the prosecution failed to disclose evidence that Taylor's alleged victims have been arrested for thefts, drug possession, and other crimes since June 2005, when Taylor allegedly pointed a gun at them, after they allegedly stole his ATV.

"Once this kind of information comes to my attention I have an obligation to turn it over," prosecutor Mike Grieco said, "but only once that information comes to my attention. And it was never brought to my attention. Somebody in law enforcement knew, but it's a big county and there are hundreds of arrests every day, and I was unaware of any of this."

Hang on a second, Mike. These subsequent arrests supposedly occurred within Dade County, not North Dakota. How in the world is knowledge of these arrests not imputed to the prosecutor's office in, um, Dade County?

Sure Grieco didn't actually know about it. He didn't want to know about it. And his office doesn't apparently have a system in place to funnel to the prosecutors information regarding arrests and other potentially significant developments involving the alleged victims of crime and other persons of interest.

But it should. Otherwise, guys like Griece could conveniently stick their heads in the sand and then hope that the defense lawyers never find out on their own that the victims have some unsightly warts on their butts.

Think of it this way. If Sean Taylor had been arrested on other charges since June 2005, Grieco's cell phone would have been playing the theme from 21 Jump Street within minutes.

Even if Taylor's lawyers can't secure a dismissal of the felony charges pending against the former Miami Hurricane, the fact that the alleged victims are of apparently questionable character will make it much harder to secure a conviction via the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To meet that threshold, the jury must believe that the alleged victims are completely telling the truth and that Taylor is completely lying.

So even if the subsequent arrests ultimately aren't admissible to impeach the credibility of the alleged victims, our guess is that it'll be very difficult to coax a compelling performance out of them on the witness stand.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm


I'm betting Sean is off the hook by next week. I'm just hoping he takes it as a bit of good luck and takes out ALL his aggression on the field.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The case was on thin ice as it was.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

That's exactly what I'm saying. The case was on thin ice as it was.

There is a chance that this can be thrown out based on lack of evidence and lack of credible witnesses. I got my fingers crossed - so I don't have to worry about this stupid crap anymore.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

There is a chance that this can be thrown out based on lack of evidence and lack of credible witnesses. I got my fingers crossed - so I don't have to worry about this stupid crap anymore.

The judge doesnt have the discretion to decide whether or not the witnesses are credible. He can only decide questions of law; questions of fact (such as "Is this witness trustworthy?") can only be decided by the jury.

As for the lack of evidence, cases have gone to trial with far less than eyewitness testimony. When cases are dismissed for lack of evidence, it is usually because the evidence being offered is found inadmissable.

Pretty much every case that goes to trial, civil or criminal, has the defense filing a motion to dismiss. It is more or less a formality. That said I sure as hell hope this is the one in a million that works!

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

When cases are dismissed for lack of evidence, it is usually because the evidence being offered is found inadmissable.

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 ?

[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.