WP: Sean Taylor's Attorneys to File Motion to Dismiss

[Bucaro]

This is a DA trying to make a name with a very circumstantial case. The case is hinged upon the accounts of two criminals who plead out of a crime that preceeded the incedent. This will be dropped or resolved out of court as the pieces fall apart. Trust me, I live in Miami, with all that goes on down here if Taylor spends 5 minutes in jail it is NOT justice

[rvan1]

This is a DA trying to make a name with a very circumstantial case. The case is hinged upon the accounts of two criminals who plead out of a crime that preceeded the incedent. This will be dropped or resolved out of court as the pieces fall apart. Trust me, I live in Miami, with all that goes on down here if Taylor spends 5 minutes in jail it is NOT justice

while i dont think the argument "becuase everybody commits crime, ST should be found not guilty" holds up, 45 years for what he did or did not do is absolutely unreasonable punishment.

[Loxley]

While it looks like good news for him, i dont think hes clear yet. Admittedly you have to laugh at the head prosecutor here for a mo, as the defence got off a good one. However, i wouldnt break out the champagne yet. Not pessimism, realism.

[21KillzCowboys]

Since there's no tangible evidence, it all comes down to their testimonies. Whoever has more credibility will prevail. Right now it's ST

Been reading the threads and I think things are looking up but by no means is ST out of the woods....A trial costs money and the DA would not be spending tax payers money on a trial if he didnt think he has a shot at a conviction...There was another thread on this a few days ago and we had some people with a law background comment that they believe that the DA may be basing his case on things that ST said in his statements to police after the incident...This is the only thing that worries me...But if ST was smart he talked to the lawyers before he turned himself in and they coached his statements...Man I hope he did this....Remember he didnt turn himself in until a day or two later...

My gut feeling is that both sides posture up until the time of the trial and a deal is cut with no jail time...

ST turned himself him to the police with his attorney present.

[Abshir]

the whole case is a joke, hes not going to serve anytime.

probation at most.

Probation for what ??? A crime he will not get indicted for ? ST is a free man and I hope those punks get what they deserve ,,,, and that DA can eat a fat one.

[Coolinrastaboi]

Denied!!!!!!!!! Per WTEM.

[eeyeats]

Did they ever find the gun that they are alleging Sean Taylor of waiving at these punks that stole his ATV's.

Or is that just more hearsay?!?!?!

that actually would not be hearsay. hearsay is an out-of-court statement by a third party. the gun is not a statement. if the witness claims he himself saw a gun, then that testimony is perfectly legitimate.

now, if one of the witnesses gets on the stand and tries to tell the court what his buddy told him about the gun, that would be hearsay.

Denied!!!!!!!!! Per WTEM.

not surprised. since the defense team now knows about the witness' prior convictions, there isn't much prejudice to them, so i'm not surprised the motion was denied if those were the grounds. as far as insufficient evidence, while the evidentiary bar might be quite high to win once at trial, it's much easier to make a prima facie case to get to trial.

i still have a very good feeling about ST's chances.

[skins1972]

Though I am a Skins fan I hope justice prevails. I mean if we let every player off just because they are an NFL player then it just sends a message that if you are famous and have a lot of money then its ok to commit a crime.

So heres to justice. Which ever way it goes.

:doh:

[waterwagen]

i won't go cerebral on you. Sean Taylor has had a history of going against the grain. Wheter it is skipping the rookie symposium, getting a DUI or getting arressted and charged with felonies. Taylor has not shown himself to be a man.

I'm all for justice if he's guilty, but let's be fair here. He was acquitted of the DUI charge and he is innocent till proven guilty on this one.

My gut feeling on this case is that some guys stole his stuff, and, as a young, hot-headed guy, he felt compelled to "man up" and make the punks pay.

[onedrop]

its funny that grieco wanted to bring up ST's spitting because it happened in FL yet chose to "not be aware of" his star witnessess subsequent arrests. that in itself proves his motivations.

[skins4eva]

Been reading the threads and I think things are looking up but by no means is ST out of the woods....A trial costs money and the DA would not be spending tax payers money on a trial if he didnt think he has a shot at a conviction...There was another thread on this a few days ago and we had some people with a law background comment that they believe that the DA may be basing his case on things that ST said in his statements to police after the incident...This is the only thing that worries me...But if ST was smart he talked to the lawyers before he turned himself in and they coached his statements...Man I hope he did this....Remember he didnt turn himself in until a day or two later...

My gut feeling is that both sides posture up until the time of the trial and a deal is cut with no jail time...

ST turned himself him to the police with his attorney present.

Actually, DA's do this all the time to make a name for themselves. Remember Kobe Bryant's case? That was a black man accused of raping a white woman in Colorado no less...the DA there bascially looked at that way and ignored all the credibility issues surrounding the woman who accused Kobe of rape.

The situation here is even worse for the DA in Miami, in the sense that it is weaker. Is the prosecution really going to put 3 witnesses on the stand, all convicted felons, or soon to be as their shining stars? The prosecution is in big trouble. What's more, if the judge agrees with the defense and finds that the prosecution failed to turn over Brady material the charges would very likely be dismissed with prejudice.

[wskin44]

A judge doesn't HAVE TO do anything here. If a witness has committed a crime that involves dishonesty or deceit, that issue may be raised on cross examination by opposing counsel.

EDIT: Previous crimes may also be inquired into on cross if they were felonies punishable over 1 year in prison

Can the issue be raised on cross if a witness has been arrested but not yet convicted of the crime?

The value filing this motion to dismiss, so close to the beginning of the trial may be to make the arrests of the witnesses public knowledge, including the potential jury pool.

[skins4eva]

Can the issue be raised on cross if a witness has been arrested but not yet convicted of the crime?

The value filing this motion to dismiss, so close to the beginning of the trial may be to make the arrests of the witnesses public knowledge, including the potential jury pool.

Very good point, and probably valid. The other value of filing the motion is obvious--there's a very good chance a judge will throw it out. I never like evidence much, but I'm almost sure the witnesses reputation and opinion can be attacked, even if specific instances can't be used.

[wskin44]

The witnesses will be walking a fine line when they are being cross examined. Surely ST's lawyers will ask them about their actions & whereabouts prior to the incident with ST. They may also be able to ask more general questions about past arrests & convictions. The witnesses will have to be very careful not to perjure themselves under oath.

My guess is that ST's lawyers are much smarter than the witnesses and may have other witnesses who will contradict ST's accusers. The legal team is obviously trying to dig up everything they can on the witnesses. They can put a lot of pressure on folks to tell the truth about these guys.

[grhqofb5]

Can the issue be raised on cross if a witness has been arrested but not yet convicted of the crime?

The value filing this motion to dismiss, so close to the beginning of the trial may be to make the arrests of the witnesses public knowledge, including the potential jury pool.

No, the witness would actually have to be convicted of the crime. Credibility of a witness can be attacked on cross, but only evidence of untruthfulness can be used. There's also a balancing test used in these situations. The Judge will rule on the issue of whether the probative value of the subsequent arrests is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues by the jury, etc.

[eeyeats]

Very good point, and probably valid. The other value of filing the motion is obvious--there's a very good chance a judge will throw it out. I never like evidence much, but I'm almost sure the witnesses reputation and opinion can be attacked, even if specific instances can't be used.

correct me if i'm wrong, but under the federal rules of evidence, you can only be impeached by proof of a prior conviction only. arrests and indictments are not admissible. (rule 609).

i'm not sure what the state rules in florida are, but they usually conform to the federal rules.

[meetST]

this whole thing is driving me insane!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[rvan1]

correct me if i'm wrong, but under the federal rules of evidence, you can only be impeached by proof of a prior conviction only. arrests and indictments are not admissible. (rule 609).

i'm not sure what the state rules in florida are, but they usually conform to the federal rules.

state rules always conform to federal rules. federal rules are applied to all states.

[eeyeats]

state rules always conform to federal rules. federal rules are applied to all states.

you're thinking about federal laws. these are federal rules of evidence. for use in federal courts, not state courts. while most states have adopted the federal rules, there are always wrinkles in different jurisdictions.

[Fred Jones]

Assuming ST has good lawyers, they will try to get whatever they can admitted in open court. Since Taylor was arrested dealing with bad people stealing his ATV's the defense will probably try to bring into court at least one of the witnesses was charged with stealing an ATV. Also, we don't know what their testimony (witnesses) will be, but ST's lawyers will try to discredit them anyway they can.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

This is going to be an interesting trial because Sean Taylor's entire defense is going to be based around what happened to the ATV's prior to the incident and the character of the men he allegedly pointed the guns at. And I am not sure how much of that evidence they are going to be allowed to present.

The judge is certainly not going to allow them to try the witnesses.

This catch-22 Taylor finds himself is the reason you should never take the law into your own hands. The jury is not going to hear much of the backstory.

[eeyeats]

This is going to be an interesting trial because Sean Taylor's entire defense is going to be based around what happened to the ATV's prior to the incident and the character of the men he allegedly pointed the guns at. And I am not sure how much of that evidence they are going to be allowed to present.

The judge is certainly not going to allow them to try the witnesses.

This catch-22 Taylor finds himself is the reason you should never take the law into your own hands. The jury is not going to hear much of the backstory.

the jury will absolutely hear the backstory. while it's true the witnesses are not on trial, they will certainly undergo a heated cross examination. the prior convictions are going to come into evidence on the issue of credibility, and they can certainly be questioned as to where they got the ATV's in the first place, whether or not they were the owners, and their actions at the scene of the incident.

he defense team isn't necessarily "trying" te witnesses, but they can attmepted to taint the witnesses testimony with their own questionable actions. remember, it's all about creating a reasonable doubt. even if the witnesses aren't on trial, if the jury thinks they are untrustworthy, or were really the thieves and they are making up this gun thing to cover themselves, it doesn't have to be proven, it simply means they cannot convict ST beyond a reasonable doubt.

[BestTravel]

the DA pretty much laughed at this motion, so I doubt the judge is gonna grant it

:logo: Fellow DIE-HARDS:

The following is an email which I sent to SEAN TAYLOR's Attorney, RICHARD A. SHARPSTEIN, Esq. ...

:helmet: In re: State of Florida v. Sean Taylor...

I'm a native Washingtonian (DC) - now residing in Philadelphia, PA - who is a lifelong Washington Redskins fan, and, therefore, very much concerned about the "travesty of justice" which permeates the State's "sensational and politically-charged" case (however "weak") against Redskins Free Safety, Sean Taylor.

In light of the Trial Judge's absurd denial of Mr. Sharpstein's "Motion to Dismiss...", on behalf of Defendant Taylor, please allow me to cite the following hyperlink, in further support of Mr. Sharpstein's "Motion..."; to wit, as follows:

:doh: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/sc04-914/04-914commentsflpaa.pdf.

This is directly in support of Mr. Sharpstein's (presumed) assertions of "Brady Act Violations" by the Dade County Prosecutor against Mr. Taylor; citing:

Florida Bar, Rule 4-3.8 [re: Responsibilities of a Prosecutor].

I am merely a self-trained Paralegal Specialist [District of Columbia, State of Maryland, and Federal Ex-Convict: Maximum-Security Lorton Reformatory, Lorton, Virginia (CB-2); Maximum-Security Maryland Penitentiary, Baltimore (South Wing); U.S. North Eastern Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania (B & D-Blocks); U.S. South Eastern Penitentiary, Atlanta, Georgia (C-Block); U.S. Super-Maximum-Security Special Housing Unit, U.S. Penitentiary, Marion, Illinois (F, G, & H-Units) -- 1981 thru 1996], who successfully overturned several hundred of my contemporaries' "bogus" Federal, State, and Territorial Convictions & Sentences (including my own) - via: Writs, Petitions and/or Motions under 18 USC 241, 242, 2241 & 2254/2255 (primarily).

I do not pretend to even begin to know as much law as any of the Partners in your Firm. However, I humbly and respectfully seek to assist "the Side of TRUTH", in any way I am able.

Brady v. Maryland, (1963) 373 U.S. 83, S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 -- was a "frequently re-occuring theme" in the overwhelming majority of the cases which I presented to the respective Courts.

:point2sky What am I seeking out of your Firm?!? A JOB, perhaps?!? (I'd be most honored, as well as appreciative thereof!) At the very least, I am seeking the pure satisfaction that I was able to assist "another surreptitiously, maliciously, and wantonly prosecuted national minority" in the realization of judicial justice.

:2cents: Has Mr. Sharpstein thought of filing an "Abrogation of Mr. Taylor's Constitutionally-Protected Civil Rights" lawsuit against the Prosecutor (in both his official & individual capacities), the County of Dade, the City of Miami, and the State of Florida?!?

:2cents: Has Mr. Sharpstein entertained the idea of the application of U.S. Constitutional Amendments V & XIV in Mr. Taylor's cause?!?

"Unconventional" Strategies?!? Yes! Effective Strategies?!? Again, Yes!

Just my thoughts/ideas...

I am...

Very Truly and Respectfully,

:helmet: BestTravel [Real Name Omitted for Privacy...]

:dallasuck :gaintsuck :eaglesuck

[ddub52]

lets picket!!

[browncl]

The question I've got is whether or not Taylor's ATV's were on these guys property or not... has that ever been answered? In this article it mentions that one of them at least has been accused of stealing an ATV, but I have never heard if Taylor's ATV's were recovered, etc. It BY NO MEANS excuses the IDIOCY of Taylor IF he did half of what he is accused of, but I would love to know the facts of the case one of these days.