Taylor Prosecution On Life Support - From Pft

[frommd]

Obviously ST was justified in wanting to kick some ass.

Agreed, he was justified in wanting to. But, in the future, I hope he let's the cops do the work for him. Save him a lot of court costs, or time in jail that way.

[TheGreek1973]

For all you people talking about plea bargaining, why the hell would Taylor ever agree to that? If this is so damaging to the prosecutor's case that they would consider offering a plea, then it seems just as likely ST would be found innocent of all charges. I know it's always a roll of the dice, but when was the last time a jury convicted a star athlete or celebrity of anything?

I don't like hearing talk about pleading out. I want to hear "dismissal" or "innocent of all charges". This is the weakest case I have ever heard...

My thoughts exactly. Why plea bargain.

Lets look at the facts

The gun as far as we know was never found.

The gun was never fired so there isn't evidence that Taylor had a gun in the first place.

These thugs have no credibility whatsoever to begin with.

Judging from what these thugs are all about, when Taylor says they stole my ATV what jury wouldn't believe him.

There is also the matter that a gun shot was fired at Taylor's house...how nice that this A-hole prosecution hasn't gone after those guys that ACTUALLY fired a gun.

No way a jury finds Taylor guilty with this type of evidence.

[thesecondquarter]

I have said it time & time again many of the sport stars keep doing this same stupid stuff. All Sean Taylor had to do is call the police & report this crime & say who what where & when. Some may call that snitching but look at what happen anyway he might go to jail. The newspapers & other media as well have the story. Sean can buy quite a few ATV franchises with the money he makes. He should have just called the police reported the theft & stayed on the police to do something if they did not. The blueprints for the way many of the sports stars should act has been drawn many times.Allen Iverson is a prime example you don't need to be dealing with thugs for stupid reasons. I hope Sean has learned his lesson.

[JimmiJo]

There are good and bad, ethical and unethical prosecutors just like there are good and bad, ethical and unethical everything else. Generalizing on such a thing doesn't get you very far.

The guy may personally not have known. I'm not saying he shouldn't have known, but maybe he didn't. If so, is that necessarily attributable to willful blindness like the defense team is saying, or to lack of organization or some other problem. People always jump to the worst conclusions first, but usually in my experience those are not the real explanation.

This PA appears to be less than ethical. At the least it seems he is trying to make a name off of going after a football player. He has no case (apparently) and he needs to get over it.

[tuna_h8r]

however,IF he showed a gun,he isnt.

yeah, i agree it's a nice bit for the paper that the witnesses are all felons, but they aren't on trial. ST is, and the charges don't seem to have an asterisk that say it's OK to (allegedly) pull a gun on a felon.

but does that info help the defense in showing that maybe a weapon wasn't unjustified? that maybe ST needed a weapon to keep from being a victim- of something worse than robbery- himself?

if this still goes to trial, as a last the defense puts this forth:

1- he felt he was robbed, and went looking for the culprit thinking they were some kids

2- when he got there, he realized his mistake in not contacting the authorities, and also realized he'd put himself in a dangerous situation

3- he had become threatened by the "victims" and felt his life was in danger

4- he'd brandished a weapon to give himself a way out of a bad situation.

if you were on the jury, does that make you a little sympathetic? i'd say maybe.

[red zone]

I have said it time & time again many of the sport stars keep doing this same stupid stuff. All Sean Taylor had to do is call the police & report this crime & say who what where & when. Some may call that snitching but look at what happen anyway he might go to jail. The newspapers & other media as well have the story. Sean can buy quite a few ATV franchises with the money he makes. He should have just called the police reported the theft & stayed on the police to do something if they did not. The blueprints for the way many of the sports stars should act has been drawn many times.Allen Iverson is a prime example you don't need to be dealing with thugs for stupid reasons. I hope Sean has learned his lesson.

I think it's unfair to continually throw rocks at "sports stars" because of the way they handle themselves. Sure, at our age we can easily look back and say how we would have done it, but would we have?

[jkam]

yeah, i agree it's a nice bit for the paper that the witnesses are all felons, but they aren't on trial. ST is, and the charges don't seem to have an asterisk that say it's OK to (allegedly) pull a gun on a felon.

but does that info help the defense in showing that maybe a weapon wasn't unjustified? that maybe ST needed a weapon to keep from being a victim- of something worse than robbery- himself?

if this still goes to trial, as a last the defense puts this forth:

1- he felt he was robbed, and went looking for the culprit thinking they were some kids

2- when he got there, he realized his mistake in not contacting the authorities, and also realized he'd put himself in a dangerous situation

3- he had become threatened by the "victims" and felt his life was in danger

4- he'd brandished a weapon to give himself a way out of a bad situation.

if you were on the jury, does that make you a little sympathetic? i'd say maybe.

No no no. With all due respect the defense does not admit that ST brandished a weapon. No gun in evidence so the entire prosecution case rests on the word of the thugs. The evidence of their criminal behavior is introduced to impeach their credibility. Clearly there is reasonable doubt. On Monday morning there will be a plea to a misdemeanor with some community service time and a fine, and that will be it.

[HailYeah]

No no no. With all due respect the defense does not admit that ST brandished a weapon. No gun in evidence so the entire prosecution case rests on the word of the thugs. The evidence of their criminal behavior is introduced to impeach their credibility. Clearly there is reasonable doubt. On Monday morning there will be a plea to a misdemeanor with some community service time and a fine, and that will be it.

I agree. This has 11th hour accord written all over it. Mark my words: There will be no trial.

[redman]

It was a quick, cheap-shot one-liner for a laugh redman, something most folks know I do by now, but I should have remembered to put a smiley on it. I almost want to thank you for thinking I can be that simplistic for real since I'm often accused of the opposite :laugh:

But I do love lawyer jokes.

[Khun Kao]

I heard on the Sports Junkies show this AM that Taylors legal team's new motion to dismiss the trial was rejected by the judge...

[dreamshatterer]

I'm no lawyer, but IF the prosecution had the gun, wouldn't they have to present that evidence to the defense? Is that called due process or soemthing like that. (If I'm right, I got it from My Cousin Vinny. Great funny movie)

[HailYeah]

I'm no lawyer, but IF the prosecution had the gun, wouldn't they have to present that evidence to the defense? Is that called due process or soemthing like that. (If I'm right, I got it from My Cousin Vinny. Great funny movie)

Yeah. The prosecution cant just walk in and say "Surprise! Lookie what we got, a gun!" The defense has to be given time to prepare a (hello) defense against all evidence/witnesses, etc. If our legal system was set up to advocate blind-siding, it would be a joke.

The prosecution's whole case is based around the testimony of three or four individuals who apparently witnessed a crime.

[TD Riggo]

I have said from day one that the prosecutor was just some jerkoff trying to make a name for himself, so i'm more than happy to see it blow up in his face like it has. good thing too, we need ST.

Well .. he's CERTAINLY done THAT! I'd say he's made a name for himself down here in FLA as an incompetent DA!

No one is going to believe that he hasn't kept tabs on these hooligan victims and witnesses with this upcoming high-profile case! What he couldn't do with all of the resources at his disposable in the County and State law enforcement and with taxpayer dollars, the defense did with their "minimal" resources.

[dreamshatterer]

Even though the judge dismissed the motion to dismiss, I believe Taylor will win by a landslide.

[onedrop]

I'm no lawyer, but IF the prosecution had the gun, wouldn't they have to present that evidence to the defense? Is that called due process or soemthing like that. (If I'm right, I got it from My Cousin Vinny. Great funny movie)

its called "discovery".

[Doodie987]

This hole thing is starting piss me off--- i wnat it to end i want his worrys to end and i want him to get 10 INTs 100 tackels 30 pass deflections a pro bowl elcetion and some league round recognition-- thats what he deserves not this...

[Lil Kenzo]

Sean Taylor will be with in uniform for the skins' next season...don't trip.

[TODD]

Oh, NOW we believe PFT.

[gobigred]

In the Washington post article today it said he was charged with stealing another ATV earlier

[O-11]

Sean Taylor will be a free man. Prosecutors don't plea bargain from 46 years in prison to probation with no jail time this easily. Then we have the prosecutor saying that he had not known of his clients previous actions? HAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, right! That's why Sean won't plea bargain with them. These clients want some dollars, that's what this is about, don't kid yourselves. Sean Taylor will be a free man, I have absolutely no doubts.

[brandies]

The prosecutor has a duty to know, if the information was easily available to him.

[Joey T]

I don't believe some of you people get it. IMHO, ST wants to be exonerated of this charge. He seems to believe he is innocent and doesnt' want a plea stigma clouding his future.

He could have agreed to a plea long ago. Instead he chose to fight for his honor as most of us would. Some of you think he is a thug. I have not yet seen that in his background.

[onedrop]

The prosecutor has a duty to know, if the information was easily available to him.

as was the date of Passover, to him and the court. duh....its only been celebrated for what, 4,000 years?

[jschlesi]

I'm sure he knew. He was just hoping it didn't surface. This could be really good news for Sean. No matter what happens, Sean should learn a valuable lesson from all of this.

I sure hope so. As a fan I hope he gets out of this.

[brandies]

As the Court correctly notes at the outset of its opinion, ante, at 669, the holding in Brady was that "the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment." 373 U.S., at 87. We noted in United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976), that the rule of Brady arguably might apply in three different situations involving the discovery, after trial, of evidence that had been known prior to trial to the prosecution but not to the defense. Our holding in Agurs was that the Brady rule applies in two of the situations, but not in the third.

[107] The two situations in which the rule applies are those demonstrating the prosecution's knowing use of perjured testimony, exemplified by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935), and the prosecution's suppression of favorable evidence specifically requested by the defendant, exemplified by Brady itself. In both situations, the prosecution's deliberate nondisclosure constitutes constitutional error -- the conviction must be set aside if the suppressed or perjured evidence was "material" and there was "any reasonable likelihood" that it "could have affected" the outcome of the trial. 427 U.S., at 103.1[a] See Brady, supra, at 88 ("would tend to exculpate");