Redskins safety faces up to 46 years in jail

SkinzCanes · Post by **SkinzCanes** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:03 pm

These new charges are a joke. The prosecution knows that it has no case so it is trying to induce Taylor to take a plea in order to save face.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 8:11 pm

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. :roll:

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!

notwhy26 · Post by **notwhy26** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:59 pm

actually these new charges are proabably gonna help taylor out in the long run. prosecutors are more intreseted in what they've been able to do for society when they have to go back to the DA and most will settle for plea bargains, since all the other charges carried a 3 year minimium sentence...which is not a practical for a defense in this case to bargain upon, these new charges might have a less severe plea out which the defense and taylor could opt to take instead, maybe a 6 months deal or less similar to Jamal Lewis in Baltimore. So if anything these charges only helped Taylor out, if you guys are really intrested you should check around to see if he where to plea out of these terms and deny the others, what the terms would be

blchizzleke · Post by **blchizzleke** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:24 am

A few of my friends came called me today and told me they saw on ESPN front page that Sean Taylor was going to jail for 46 years. My heart sunk the second I heard that, but then I realized that they did not know what they were talking about, thankfully. If a man can rape a girl for four years and only get 60 days, ST won't likely get anyhting.

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:09 am

NikiH wrote:People convicted and sentenced to even 3 years can get off without one day in jail.

Not if there's a gun involved. Add a gun, and there is usually some "minimum mandatory time" associated with it. In Delaware, for example, if you're convicted of Possession a Fiream During Commission of a Felony, you must go to prison for, at least, 3 years. (I see that this was addressed before, already....but it's 100% true.)

I, for one, think this may be "over-kill" on the part of the prosecution. "Let's add more charges so he'll be more than likely to plead guilty, to reduce the risk of a lengthy prison term, rather than risk going to trial."

As a former prosecutor, to me, it shows a sign of weakness in the prosecution's case to add these charges this late in the game. If they had a great case, these charges would have been filed at the outset.

Like I said....."over-kill" with the intention to coerce a plea.

Just a hunch.

SkinsChic · Post by **SkinsChic** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:12 am

Justice Hog wrote:
NikiH wrote:People convicted and sentenced to even 3 years can get off without one day in jail.

Not if there's a gun involved. Add a gun, and there is usually some "minimum mandatory time" associated with it. In Delaware, for example, if you're convicted of Possession a Fiream During Commission of a Felony, you must go to prison for, at least, 3 years.

I, for one, think this may be "over-kill" on the part of the prosecution. "Let's add more charges so he'll be more than likely to plead guilty, to reduce the risk of a lengthy prison term, rather than risk going to trial."

Just a hunch.

Yes...I thought I heard somewhere that it was a minimum of 3 years (if found guilty) for the first offense in FL ??? Is that true ???

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:57 am

Justice Hog wrote:
NikiH wrote:People convicted and sentenced to even 3 years can get off without one day in jail.

Not if there's a gun involved. Add a gun, and there is usually some "minimum mandatory time" associated with it. In Delaware, for example, if you're convicted of Possession a Fiream During Commission of a Felony, you must go to prison for, at least, 3 years. (I see that this was addressed before, already....but it's 100% true.)

I, for one, think this may be "over-kill" on the part of the prosecution. "Let's add more charges so he'll be more than likely to plead guilty, to reduce the risk of a lengthy prison term, rather than risk going to trial."

As a former prosecutor, to me, it shows a sign of weakness in the prosecution's case to add these charges this late in the game. If they had a great case, these charges would have been filed at the outset.

Like I said....."over-kill" with the intention to coerce a plea.

Just a hunch.

A former prosecutor, huh? That's great! Thanks for offering some insight and perhaps some credibility to what the rest of us are thinking. We'll see what happens, but I agree that this plays into Taylor's favor. I did read in the paper this morning that the new charges will also carry a 3 year minimum sentence. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:05 pm

Ok Justice Deleware law is obviously different then Florida. The following information is directly from the Florida Department of Corrections website. It states the following:

For pulling a gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed. For certain felony crimes or attempted felonies, the 10 year mandatory sentence is authorized if the criminal possess a gun (or destructive device). For firing the gun during a crime the mandatory minimum sentence is 20 years.

Here's the link, in case anyone would like to verify for themselves that this information is directly from the FL Department of Corrections.

http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/bg.html

No where in any of the FL legislature does it mention mandatory jail stays. It's all measured in sentence. And a sentence can be suspended.

Here's another link for the very determined. This link shows the code that all these journalists are quoting.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... Sec087.HTM

Ok it says minimum mandatory sentence. Nothing about the minimum amount of time one is required to spend in jail.

SkinsChic · Post by **SkinsChic** » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:23 pm

NikiH wrote:
Here's another link for the very determined. This link shows the code that all these journalists are quoting.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... Sec087.HTM

Ok it says minimum mandatory sentence. Nothing about the minimum amount of time one is required to spend in jail.

Okay Niki....THAT'S what I had been hearing from the newspeople when all this first came about. Thanks for checking into it.

That's true....they could sentence him to 3 years...but suspend all but 1 week or something, correct ??

Justice Hog · Post by **Justice Hog** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:34 am

If the language is "minimum mandatory" then it means that the full 10 years must be served. If that's what the Florida law says, then it'll be 10 years....no less...if convicted.

SkinsHead56 · Post by **SkinsHead56** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:16 am

What about first time offenders?

Mandatory Sentences Under the 10-20-Life Law
The legislation (Chapter 99-12) enacted to implement the Governor's proposal provided mandatory sentences

for felons convicted of crimes in which they used a gun.

The following provisions [Section 775.087 (2)-(4), Florida Statutes], became effective for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1999.

For pulling a gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed. For certain felony crimes or attempted felonies, the 10 year mandatory sentence is authorized if the criminal possess a gun (or destructive device). For firing the gun during a crime the mandatory minimum sentence is 20 years. For injuring or killing a victim by firing the gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence from 25 years to life in prison is authorized. Parole is not available for these criminals.

For many years, it has been a felony crime in Florida for felons to possess guns. Recognizing that felons who possess guns, despite this violation of law, may intend to commit other serious crimes using guns, the 10-20-Life legislation provided for a mandatory minimum prison sentence of 3 years for such known felons. This provision alone has affected many felons sentenced to prison in Florida.
http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/10-20-life/bg.html

on a side note there was ad for free shipping on cowpies jerseys at the bottm of this page. The shame #-o

SkinsChic · Post by **SkinsChic** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:18 am

yep...there you go...the keyword is FELONS.

Redskin in Canada · Post by **Redskin in Canada** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:39 pm

SkinsChic wrote:yep...there you go...the keyword is FELONS.

Great avatar! Congratulations.

My goodness, with the exception of a few above, we look like rookies on these legal proceedings. I will only say a few things:

Contrary to popular belief, justice in the USA (and the rest of the world) is NOT equal to all. Those who can afford the BEST legal defense money can buy are at a much greater advantage than the rest of us. It is sad but true. Much will depend on the strength of the defense team, perhaps just as much as the weight of the evidence itself.

I am confident in the outcome of this trial simply because there is too much at stake and I am sure that no legal resources will be spared to protect Sean Taylor.

A lot of things can and will happen before the case goes to trial. A lot of horse trading can take place.

Please make no mistake about it. This CAN actually go very wrong for Sean. The reason for this is his "buddy" who is apparently turning against him with the condition to save himself. It is not as simple as it looks folks.

Somebody has smelled the money potential on the other side and they will play their chances to the max. This IS their game: Money.

A prison term does not buy them anything.

SkinsChic · Post by **SkinsChic** » Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:35 pm

Thanks RIC :-)

USAFSkinFan · Post by **USAFSkinFan** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:54 am

Until I see evidence to the contrary... ST is the victim here, trying to protect himself and his property... the prosecuter is trying anything ha can to make an example of Taylor and a name for himself... total railroad job...

...if the spit don't hit, you must aquit...

JPM36 · Post by **JPM36** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:53 pm

He'll most likely get probation and be good to go opening day 2006.

LawHog · Post by **LawHog** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:49 am

As an attorney who has practiced criminal defense law for many years, it is important to look at the exact wording of the Florida Statutes:

784.011 Assault.--

(1)  An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

(2)  Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021 Aggravated assault.--

(1)  An "aggravated assault" is an assault:

(a)  With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b)  With an intent to commit a felony.

(2)  Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

790.07 Persons engaged in criminal offense, having weapons.--

(1)  Whoever, while committing or attempting to commit any felony or while under indictment, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any weapon or electric weapon or device or carries a concealed weapon is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2)  Whoever, while committing or attempting to commit any felony, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any firearm or carries a concealed firearm is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, and s. 775.084.

(3)  The following crimes are excluded from application of this section: Antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, nonsupport of dependents, bigamy, or other similar offenses.

(4)  Whoever, having previously been convicted of a violation of subsection (1) or subsection (2) and, subsequent to such conviction, displays, uses, threatens, or attempts to use any weapon, firearm, or electric weapon or device, carries a concealed weapon, or carries a concealed firearm while committing or attempting to commit any felony or while under indictment is guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Sentence shall not be suspended or deferred under the provisions of this subsection

790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.--If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083

Source:http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=View%20Statutes&Submenu=1&Tab=statutes

Improper exhibition of a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor, is a lesser included charge to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. This was not necessarily the case with the initial felony charge of aggravated assault with a firearm which was disposed of with a nolle pros(dropped)according to the court docket(Taylor, Sean Michael -Case No. F05017976 - 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida). The legal effect of the additional charges added by the D.A. will be to allow Sean to plead guilty to the lesser included offense in those charges. If the D.A. did not make this change, Sean's attorney would have gone to trial and insisted on a jury instruction that the jury could find the defendant guilty of the lesser included charge(s). If you read the exact wording of §790.10, it seems to be a closer fit to the alleged facts of the case as reported in the media anyway. Allegedly waving a gun around in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner is not the same thing as aggravated assault where the defendant creates in the victim a well-founded fear of imminent violence.

The bottom line is that Redskins fans should not worry about losing Sean Taylor for the upcoming season due to this incident. It is my belief that he will, at most, get probation if he either pleads guily to the lesser included offense(s) or is found guilty of the lesser included offense(s) at trial. The original battery charge is a misdemeanor as well. It is highly unlikely for Sean to have to serve any jail time on the ultimate disposition of all of the charges filled against him in this matter.

DEHog · Post by **DEHog** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:41 am

welcome about and thanks for breaking it down for us!!

NikiH · Post by **NikiH** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:00 pm

Wow LawHog, welcome and that was an awesome break down of what I was assuming. I just didn't have the education to back it up! ;-)

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:09 pm

LawHog, Nicely done! Thanks!

SkinsChic · Post by **SkinsChic** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:39 pm

Thanks LawHog and Welcome :-)

gibbsfan · Post by **gibbsfan** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:45 pm

welcome lawhog and the same goes for me. thanks for beaking it down for all of us.

Jake · Post by **Jake** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:10 pm

Thanks, LawHog. Great breakdown.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:31 pm

Thanks also LawHog - great post and another fan from Philthy rises to the occasion - welcome, make yourself comfortable, you will enjoy this site almost as much as we will enjoy your input. :wink:

Hopefully your summation is also correct.

Irn-Bru · Post by **Irn-Bru** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:34 pm

Thanks LawHog, and welcome aboard--I hope you do more posting in the future.