DCBnG21 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It looks like it will be 4/26/06 at 2PM. http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/dockets.asp?0E6F8C72B37DB27DBA73C371C234B279B081B4738C547F82843E8081864786728534C17D8C40804F I looked for this, but didn't seem like anything had been in. I apologize if this is old news..... Just a question for the more legal types on here. What happens if there is no prosecutor assigned to the case when it goes for dismissal, will the motion date just get pushed back? How long does the DA have to appoint a prosecutor in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwpanic Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 didn't they already try this? i know the prosecutor was dismissed, and the accuser's criminal record was revealed, but has any evidence changed? free st! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCBnG21 Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 ADADJ Dirty Sanchez, ESQ "willingly" gave up his spot on the trial. This dismissal is in regards to him advertising the case on his myspace account to seemingly build his reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It looks like it will be 4/26/06 at 2PM. http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/dockets.asp?0E6F8C72B37DB27DBA73C371C234B279B081B4738C547F82843E8081864786728534C17D8C40804F I looked for this, but didn't seem like anything had been in. I apologize if this is old news..... Just a question for the more legal types on here. What happens if there is no prosecutor assigned to the case when it goes for dismissal, will the motion date just get pushed back? How long does the DA have to appoint a prosecutor in general? There is no doubt that someone at the DA's office has been assigned this case already. The DA probably had assigned the case to another prosecutor prior to Mr. Greico's withdrawal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCBnG21 Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 There is no doubt that someone at the DA's office has been assigned this case already. The DA probably had assigned the case to another prosecutor prior to Mr. Greico's withdrawal. Gotcha, that makes sense...apparently, whoever it is doesn't have the same love of news reporters that DJDS has, as we've yet to find out who it is.... That, or they don't want a horde of Redskins fans searching the net for all the dirt on them..... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 hopefully this time they will have it thrown out, and there will be much rejoice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOVA2Tampa Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 C'mon...we wanna see...ST...SCOT FREE!!! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Gotcha, that makes sense...apparently, whoever it is doesn't have the same love of news reporters that DJDS has, as we've yet to find out who it is.... That, or they don't want a horde of Redskins fans searching the net for all the dirt on them..... :laugh: I'm betting that the DA instructed the entire staff that absolutely no publicity on this case should come from their office. They've probably instituted a gag order for all office staff working on the case. The last thing you want as a prosecutor is allegations of grandstanding for personal gain on the eve of trial. Tust me, although I'm not in Miami, this is probably front page news down there and the jury pool is being tainted by all these allegations. It does not bode well for the prosecution to have their lead prosecutor paraded around through the press like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 i dont think STs legal team would try this again if they didnt think it had a legit shot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 i dont think STs legal team would try this again if they didnt think it had a legit shot In most situations, prosecutorial misconduct is grounds for reversal on appeal. Motions to dismiss the entire case based upon prosecutorial misconduct of this nature are rarely granted; however, they are analyzed on a case by case basis. If the facts are agregious enough, so as to impair the accused's right to a fair and imparitial trial, it may be granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPstretch Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 i hope this is one of those cases then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Just a question for the more legal types on here. What happens if there is no prosecutor assigned to the case when it goes for dismissal, will the motion date just get pushed back? How long does the DA have to appoint a prosecutor in general? 1. If there is no prosecutor assigned to the case, and no one shows up from the DA's office (assuming that's the proper counterparty), then the DA's office would default. I defer to those more familiar with criminal procedure than I am, but I'd imagine that it might lead to a default judgment in favor of the non-defaulting party on the motion that was to be heard. In this case, because it's a motion to dismiss, Sean Taylor's case would be dismissed if this were to happen. Given the notoriety of the case, I seriously doubt that the DA's office will have failed to appoint someone to represent the office at the hearing in question. So no default. 2. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Who else is nervous about the whole situation? Seriously? I know that recently, with the whole Greico stupidity instance(whenever anyone tries to show off now, I tell em "You pulled a Greico"), everything looks to be going Sean;s way... but, I think what's going to happen is now the DA will pursue this case even harder so as to shed any doubts of incompetence on their part. I know some have raised this concern before... but, geez... I'm starting to get nervous here. It'd hurt not seeing ST in our defensive backfield, and would definitely give opposing offenses a big boost of confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 It looks like it will be 4/26/06 at 2PM. http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/dockets.asp?0E6F8C72B37DB27DBA73C371C234B279B081B4738C547F82843E8081864786728534C17D8C40804F I looked for this, but didn't seem like anything had been in. I apologize if this is old news..... Just a question for the more legal types on here. What happens if there is no prosecutor assigned to the case when it goes for dismissal, will the motion date just get pushed back? How long does the DA have to appoint a prosecutor in general? There would be a default judgment in favor of Taylor and everyone at the DA's office would probably be immediately fired and investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skins11 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I know some have raised this concern before... but, geez... I'm starting to get nervous here. It'd hurt not seeing ST in our defensive backfield, and would definitely give opposing offenses a big boost of confidence. So they weren't trying hard before? One important question to raise is: would a prosecutor that didn't have a personal interest in the case (eg. someone who isn't using an NFL star to gain popularity for his stupid DJ gig) still take this on? Maybe someone who didn't have a personal interest would have backed off because of the weakness of the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLusby Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 ....but I'd imagine that it might lead to a default judgment in favor of the non-defaulting party on the motion that was to be heard. You are using civil terminology with a civil case proceeding winding up with a default judgement fpr a plaintiff when the defendant doesn't counter the claim. Taylor's case would clearly be granted a dismissal since their (DA) side was not present to counter the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 beyond the dismissal attempt, in light of the recent "questions" surrounding the prosecuting attorney's witnesses (and their backgrounds), there is NO WAY that Taylor will be convicted BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The only evidence the prosecutor made public comes from witnesses who benefit from ST's conviction (via plea bargain). Unless there is something shocking that has not been made public (possible, but unlikely, as ST's attorneys seem to have a grip on the situation), ST will walk. That is precisely why ST turned down probation a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 So they weren't trying hard before?One important question to raise is: would a prosecutor that didn't have a personal interest in the case (eg. someone who isn't using an NFL star to gain popularity for his stupid DJ gig) still take this on? Maybe someone who didn't have a personal interest would have backed off because of the weakness of the case? Yeah, I understand where you're coming from... but what I'm saying is, doesn't this make matters worse? Doesn't it give them more incentive now to punish ST since it would repair their tarnished image? I'm looking at it from the view of the Prosecutors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSO Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 beyond the dismissal attempt, in light of the recent "questions" surrounding the prosecuting attorney's witnesses (and their backgrounds), there is NO WAY that Taylor will be convicted BEYOND a reasonable doubt. The only evidence the prosecutor made public comes from witnesses who benefit from ST's conviction (via plea bargain). Unless there is something shocking that has not been made public (possible, but unlikely, as ST's attorneys seem to have a grip on the situation), ST will walk. That is precisely why ST turned down probation a few weeks ago. I hope so... I really do. Just don't wanna get ****y about it, ya know? It's like a slap to the face when it doesn't go your way and you're sure that it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I can understand a prosecutor wanting to take a big case to make a name for him/herself--- thats understandable, as it is the business of law. However, to use and associate a defendents name to benefit in the community (whether in business or personally) is very poor of DJ Greico. I'd say if his myspace site is everything that ST's lawyers said it was prior to its termination, he may be on grounds for disbarment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 Yeah, I understand where you're coming from... but what I'm saying is, doesn't this make matters worse? Doesn't it give them more incentive now to punish ST since it would repair their tarnished image? I'm looking at it from the view of the DA. IMO, because they have been so badly embarassed they will chose to drop the charges and prevent further embarassment. At this point their case has been continually weakened and they are smart enough to know that they face a steep uphill battle. Upon analysis, they will realize that continuing will only cause further folly and bring unwanted negative attention on the DA's office. Of course, it is Florida, so who knows, Jeb Bush might make some sort of Guber proclaimation that all people named Sean Taylor are guilty until proven innocent. He is a Bush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvan1 Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 IMO, because they have been so badly embarassed they will chose to drop the charges and prevent further embarassment. At this point their case has been continually weakened and they are smart enough to know that they face a steep uphill battle. Upon analysis, they will realize that continuing will only cause further folly and bring unwanted negative attention on the DA's office. Of course, it is Florida, so who knows, Jeb Bush might make some sort of Guber proclaimation that all people named Sean Taylor are guilty until proven innocent. He is a Bush you almsot get the sense, in the picture of grieco with STs attorneys in the background, that the DA didnt have a chance from the beginning. STs attorneys really looked like they came to play hardball, and so far, theyve proved themselves in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 You are using civil terminology with a civil case proceeding winding up with a default judgement fpr a plaintiff when the defendant doesn't counter the claim. Taylor's case would clearly be granted a dismissal since their (DA) side was not present to counter the motion. Working with the tools I got TLusby. I never took Crim. Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCBnG21 Posted April 21, 2006 Author Share Posted April 21, 2006 There would be a default judgment in favor of Taylor and everyone at the DA's office would probably be immediately fired and investigated. Thanks for the answer on that... Hmmm, though the fallout may be interesting to watch (in a train wreck sort of way....) I'm gonna go ahead and guess that won't happen then.... Taylor's attorney's definitely came prepared to play on this one. I agree with Rvan...between the start witnesses' arrest and alleged prosecutor misconduct (that was credible enough to get the lead prosecutor out of there) they're bleeding credibility in the press right now. If they don't have some shocking evidence...I doubt they go to trial. I just don't see how they wouldn't get pummeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbcbu Posted April 21, 2006 Share Posted April 21, 2006 I wonder who Julius Gardner is. And what the letter is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.