Official Sean Taylor Trial Thread

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:46 pm

It's my understanding that Sean's trial was moved from March 20th until some time in April; however, I don't know the exact day in April.

Notwithstanding, I offer this thread as the avenue by which we can all discuss his charges and trial when it approaches, during, and afterwards.

If the MODs have another suggestion, that would be cool. I just thought I'd just start this to help reduce all of the potential Sean Taylor threads when the trial begins.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:54 pm

Sean Taylor has a trial coming up? I haven't heard anything about this. Did he do something wrong? :roll:

The Hogster · Post by **The Hogster** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:09 pm

I anticipate that he will be acquitted. Based on the information that was leaked pertaining to the investigation, it appears that the individuals who are now so-called victims may have shot at Taylor and not the other way around.

The prosecution will have a serious obstacle with their star witnesses's credibility. Taylor also has outstanding counsel from what I understand and a case like this will be hard to prove if and when his attorneys get a hold of the witnesses on cross examination.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 1:14 pm

http://www.thehogs.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18027&highlight=

Lots of interesting tidbits in that thread

SkinsFreak wrote:
My guess is that it became increasingly clear the original charges had little to no merit so they went back to the grand jury to determine exactly how many things they can throw at him. The DA, in what is likely an act of career-boosting grandstanding that amounts to little more than a total waste of the taxpayers' money, now has a chance to say "blah blah blah he was guilty of this" rather than coming back empty handed.

Fios - This is right on!!! Well done. As I mentioned on another thread regarding this topic, I live in South Florida and we've seen this before on other cases prosecuted by Mike Grieco. Wasting local tax dollars seems to be his area of expertise.

The fact that no shots were fired, no one got injured, and it's his word against the other guys word. The most he will get is Probation before Judgement. Or the case will be put on "Stet Docket" which means that the case is held in an inactive file for a few years and then discarded if nothing further happens.

Ummmm, actually, the "fact" is that there were several shots fired. It's just that they were fired AT Sean Taylor by the accusers. Sean's SUV was hit several times.

I'm actually not surprised by these new charges at all. An uninformed jury might get overwhelmed with numerous charges on a defendant. The prosecution will hope this plays into their favor. But it won't. The jury will be selected from here in Florida and Sean Taylor is VERY popular here. Hail!

NC43Hog · Post by **NC43Hog** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:11 pm

At this point, I just wish they would get on with it. No more delays please!!!!

redskins12287 · Post by **redskins12287** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:37 pm

NC43Hog wrote:At this point, I just wish they would get on with it. No more delays please!!!!

agreed.

Skinsfan55 · Post by **Skinsfan55** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:17 pm

If Sean is acquitted, will we be happy or sad?

If he DID do anything wrong, I'd like him to pay for it.

If not, then I hope he gets all this behind him and stops associating with the sorts of people, and putting himself in the sorts of situations that lead to this kind of trouble.

xhadow · Post by **xhadow** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 5:14 pm

I don't belive this trial is going anywhere if there was something in it that would cause him to be found guilty 9 times out of 10 they would have already had the trial. I work as a paralegal and while the military may handle things a little differently I seriously doubt that if there was enough evidence to lock him up the judge would have a while ago, the fact that this is still lingering on many months after his original court date go to show that the judge doesn't see him as a risk to public saftey and the most he may end up with is probation and or community service.

USAFSkinFan · Post by **USAFSkinFan** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:00 pm

JSPB22 wrote:Sean Taylor has a trial coming up? I haven't heard anything about this. Did he do something wrong?

actually, no he didn't do anything wrong... just trying to protect his property...

redskinz4ever · Post by **redskinz4ever** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:07 pm

ok someone get me up to speed on this please,i remember it in bits but not all of it ...what did he do ???

skinsRin · Post by **skinsRin** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:49 pm

redskinz4ever wrote:ok someone get me up to speed on this please,i remember it in bits but not all of it ...what did he do ???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00959.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

WuSkinsFan · Post by **WuSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:01 pm

I believe in justice as much as the next man but these fools did steal ST's property first. Now I don't know all the facts and I don't agree with gun play but the so-called witnesses against Sean cannot exactly be paragon's of virtue if they are running around stealing peoples property for the heck of it.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:03 pm

WuSkinsFan wrote:I believe in justice as much as the next man but these fools did steal ST's property first. Now I don't know all the facts and I don't agree with gun play but the so-called witnesses against Sean cannot exactly be paragon's of virtue if they are running around stealing peoples property for the heck of it.

I don't think one has the right to shoot (and possibly kill) another person simply because the other person stole from them. Let's see what happens. I think "credibility" will be a big issue here for the State's witness(es).

WuSkinsFan · Post by **WuSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:11 pm

Which is why I said I don't agree with gun play. Of course I don't know who, if anybody, had a gun or fired shots. So I can't speak on that as it pertains to Sean's trial.

I agree on the credibility issue. And that was my only point. How is the jury going to take the word of thieves who victimized ST in the first place? They have a big hole to climb out.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:28 pm

Finally found this:

SkinsFreak wrote:OK, here we go. I was waiting until the end of the season to share this but since a thread was started, I will share a few tidbits with you.

I was born and raised in Maryland however my career has brought me to South Florida, specifically Miami / Dade County. I believe that the current known facts of this case are not being offered or articulated to the public on a national basis the way they are here in Florida, or to say, in a manor that reflects the true and known facts of this case. Here are some KNOWN facts:

1. Sean Taylor did show up with friend Charles Caughman to recover his stolen ATV's and punched a guy. This is true and Sean does not dipute this.

2. More than a dozen eyewitnesses submitted signed affidavits to the State Attorney's office and all said they would testify on Sean's behalf, that he never had a gun or pulled a gun on anyone.

3. The two accusers, including 21 year old Ryan Hill, are known gang members in the area with prior arrest records.

4. Sean Taylor submitted a "passed" lie detector test. (A guilty person would not subject themselves to this, )

5. The State Attorney did try to get Sean's friend Charles Coughman to testify against Sean. Obviously Coughman declined and said he will only testify on Sean's behalf.

6. The only "shooting" took place back at Seans or his mothers place (not sure on this one) But it was definately after Sean left the scene. SEAN'S SUV has the bullet holes in it. The police recovered bullet casings at this location. Everyone seems to forget that Sean is actually the victim in this case.

7. The prosecutor, Mike Grieco, has in the past tried to prosecute several well known public figures. This has been in the news here several times over the past few years. I believe he is just trying to make a name for himself by attacking celeb's just prior to his career as a defense lawyer. This is common for some DA's.

It is logical that the accusers would say that Sean had a gun first (...well he hit me first kind of thing) They are trying to to wiggle out of this and say it was self defense. But the KNOWN facts are much to the contrary. And further, it is NOT self defense when you go to another scene, away from the original location, and start shooting. Sorry, but from my perspective, Mike Grieco has no case and he knows it.

WuSkinsFan · Post by **WuSkinsFan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:35 pm

I hope the above facts are accurate for Sean's and the Redskins' sake. Only thing I will quibble with is a guilty man no submitting to a lie detector test. A good liar would not be afraid to take it. But I believe Sean Taylor is innocent until otherwise proven guilty and I don't think he is lying about this cae.

Mursilis · Post by **Mursilis** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:42 pm

Fios wrote:Finally found this:

SkinsFreak wrote:OK, here we go. I was waiting until the end of the season to share this but since a thread was started, I will share a few tidbits with you.

I was born and raised in Maryland however my career has brought me to South Florida, specifically Miami / Dade County. I believe that the current known facts of this case are not being offered or articulated to the public on a national basis the way they are here in Florida, or to say, in a manor that reflects the true and known facts of this case. Here are some KNOWN facts:

1. Sean Taylor did show up with friend Charles Caughman to recover his stolen ATV's and punched a guy. This is true and Sean does not dipute this.

2. More than a dozen eyewitnesses submitted signed affidavits to the State Attorney's office and all said they would testify on Sean's behalf, that he never had a gun or pulled a gun on anyone.

3. The two accusers, including 21 year old Ryan Hill, are known gang members in the area with prior arrest records.

4. Sean Taylor submitted a "passed" lie detector test. (A guilty person would not subject themselves to this, )

5. The State Attorney did try to get Sean's friend Charles Coughman to testify against Sean. Obviously Coughman declined and said he will only testify on Sean's behalf.

6. The only "shooting" took place back at Seans or his mothers place (not sure on this one) But it was definately after Sean left the scene. SEAN'S SUV has the bullet holes in it. The police recovered bullet casings at this location. Everyone seems to forget that Sean is actually the victim in this case.

7. The prosecutor, Mike Grieco, has in the past tried to prosecute several well known public figures. This has been in the news here several times over the past few years. I believe he is just trying to make a name for himself by attacking celeb's just prior to his career as a defense lawyer. This is common for some DA's.

It is logical that the accusers would say that Sean had a gun first (...well he hit me first kind of thing) They are trying to to wiggle out of this and say it was self defense. But the KNOWN facts are much to the contrary. And further, it is NOT self defense when you go to another scene, away from the original location, and start shooting. Sorry, but from my perspective, Mike Grieco has no case and he knows it.

Wow - thanks. Based on these facts, this is the Swiss cheese of cases! It has more holes than the Cowboys' defense!!

USAFSkinFan · Post by **USAFSkinFan** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:17 pm

who's Grieco's boss? You'd think, if the facts are correct, the prosecuter's office could potentially look really silly... makes me wonder if there isn't more to this that we don't know about...

redskinz4ever · Post by **redskinz4ever** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 4:30 pm

skinsRin wrote:
redskinz4ever wrote:ok someone get me up to speed on this please,i remember it in bits but not all of it ...what did he do ???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00959.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=a ... &type=lgns

thanks for the links :wink:

1niksder · Post by **1niksder** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:02 pm

Justice Hog wrote:
WuSkinsFan wrote:I believe in justice as much as the next man but these fools did steal ST's property first. Now I don't know all the facts and I don't agree with gun play but the so-called witnesses against Sean cannot exactly be paragon's of virtue if they are running around stealing peoples property for the heck of it.

I don't think one has the right to shoot (and possibly kill) another person simply because the other person stole from them. Let's see what happens. I think "credibility" will be a big issue here for the State's witness(es).

The only thing that was hit by gunfire was Taylor's SUV. There were rumors that a house was shot into and rumors that Sean had a gun. His ATVs were stolen but, why would he shoot up his own vehicle?

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:55 pm

WuSkinsFan Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:35 pm
Post subject:

I hope the above facts are accurate for Sean's and the Redskins' sake. Only thing I will quibble with is a guilty man no submitting to a lie detector test. A good liar would not be afraid to take it.

Some others touched on this as well. You watch too much tv. The difference is, criminals will try to manipulate a lie detector test when they are forced to take that test. Sean took this test voluntarily. A good defense attorney, as Sean has, would not allow this unless he and his client were 100% sure of thier innocence. Too much to risk. We all know that these tests are not permissable in a court of law, but a failed test would ignite a firestorm from Grieco and the boys in the DA's office. I'm sure JusticeHog could offer some insight to this as well.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this... common sense tells me that a guilty man would not voluntarily take this test on a remote chance that he could manipulate the equipment and the examiner. I'm sure someone has probably tried to do it, but for lawyers of this caliber and a football player of this stature, too much to risk.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:48 pm

This lie detector thing reminds me of a case I did in the past as a prosecutor. The male defendant was charged with beating up his wife pretty viciously. His attorney, a damn good one, insisted he was innocent. I insisted that he was full of crap so I made this offer:

Have defendant take a polygraph. If he is telling the truth, I'll drop all the charges. If he is lying, the defense will stipulate that the polygraph results will come into evidence at trial (something that is never done). The defense attorney agreed.

The guy lied.

The guy then pled to a felony assault.

The point is this, not everyone is savy enough to beat a polygraph. If you're guilty, you just shouldn't take it. If you're innocent, why not take it? The fact that Sean Taylor apparently took one, in my opinion - if true, speaks volumes.

Here is what the prosecutor's problems are, probably:

a. He's got criminal victims - credibility problems;
b. There are allegedly a ton of people vouching for Taylor;
c. Taylor is high profile so the prosecutor would lose "face" if he just dropped all charges;

So, long story short, look for a misdemeanor plea offer down the road with probation. If Sean's innocent, if I were his lawyer and confident in my defense, I would tell the prosecutor to "stick it". If, on the other hand, Sean simply doesn't want to risk getting a lengthy prison term, he will probably be advised to take the misdemeanor plea.

You heard it here first, a misdemeanor plea offer is coming, folks. Trust me on that one.

TincoSkin · Post by **TincoSkin** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:55 pm

hey justice hog, how often do innocent people plead guilty to lesser charges because they are afraid of jail time?? i would think it happens more often than i would hope. if it does happen a lot that makes me sick but yo know when in that position you do what you gotta do.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:58 pm

TincoSkin wrote:hey justice hog, how often do innocent people plead guilty to lesser charges because they are afraid of jail time?? i would think it happens more often than i would hope. if it does happen a lot that makes me sick but yo know when in that position you do what you gotta do.

It happens more than you and I like. I've had cases where the evidence against a defendant was very weak; however, I still felt he "did it" (if I didn't feel that way, I would drop the charges). I would offer a good plea to avoid prison and the defense attorney would tell me that although the defendant was "innocent", he's gonna take my plea to avoid a possible prison sentence. Yes, I felt someone uneasy about that; however, like I said, based on my analysis of the evidence, I really felt the guy did it.

Yes, I think this happens very frequently in the criminal justice system - innocent people pleading to a crime they did not commit to avoid the risk of a lengthy prison term.

Sad, but true.

Most prosecutors are bound to a higher level of ethics. They are not permitted to prosecute a case where they did not have a good faith basis to believe that probable cause exists that the defendant is guilty. Me, personally, I took that one step further. I had to be convinced myself, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the defendant was guilty. If I wasn't convinced of that, I knew I wouldn't be able to convice 12 jurors of that . . . so I would just drop the charges.

Then again, I was a pretty reasonable prosecutor and not as aggressive as some of my bosses would have liked. That is a big part of the reason I am no longer a prosecutor. Don't get me wrong, I was hard core when I had to be. I just had a much more practical approach to prosecution than others....probably because I was a Probation/Parole Officer for 8 years prior to being a prosecutor.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:38 am

Thanks Justice Hog. Well done. You offered some good insight. =D>