Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Sean Taylors name is ... THE GRIM REAPER


Recommended Posts

I don't see how he can be convicted...unless he confesses...which I doubt will happen...or someone made a home video of the actions which I also doubt...

Eye-witness accounts, priors, etc.

I love what he does on the field, but Taylor doesn't exactly have the best reputation right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's drop the "Hitstick" thing. It's stupid. For everyone who doesn't play madden, it doesn't even make sense. Most of the 40+ year olds who watch football wouldn't get it. Naming Dante Hall the "Joystick" is acceptable because everyone knows what a joystick is. THE MAJORITY OF FOOTBALL FANS DON'T KNOW WHAT A HITSTICK IS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only "eye-witnesses" are the ACCUSERS. and what "priors" are you referring to?

How are you so sure that the only eye-witnesses are the accusers? I certainly can't say for sure, based on the media reports that I've read.

And even if that was the case, the testimony of the accusers can be sufficient to convict if a jury were to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty. It's certainly happened before. Especially with Taylor's reputation as a bad-boy (probably unfairly propagated by his NFL publicity), I can't rule out a jury finding that way... especially since I haven't seen the evidence. Can you?

As for priors, prior acts of the defendant (character evidence, if you will) are admissible if used as evidence of his motive, opportunity, intent, plan, preparation, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake (what's known as the MOIPPKIA faux-exceptions to FRE 404(B)). It doesn't take much to imagine a clever prosecutor trying to create a name for himself taking Taylor's well-publicized missteps (spitting on players, intimidating others, even his drunk-driving conviction) to argue to a judge that this character evidence should be admitted under one of the above-listed exceptions.

Moreover, the prosecutor has already used evidence of his spitting on the field to unsuccessfully argue to the judge that the hearing shouldn't be delayed. I don't see why he would stop there.

Look, I don't want to see Taylor put away for this. But I certainly can't rule out the fact that it could conceivably happen with a crafty-enough prosecutor and the wrong jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...