The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

I am hearing some rumors there is a chance he might be allowed a year of probation for carrying a concealed weapon if he chooses. I would like that for him.

Smithian wrote:I am hearing some rumors there is a chance he might be allowed a year of probation for carrying a concealed weapon if he chooses. I would like that for him.

This not in any way the beginnings of a "political" discussion...

I've lived for years in FL. FL is a shalt carry state which means if you are a citizen in good standing, take a safety training class and so desire you can apply for a concealed carry permit. I have had such a permit for years and it is taken very seriously. I'm wondering if Sean had one? His father being in law enforcement I guess he might?

Anyhow, with this responsibility comes some rules. While you have the "right" to carry concealed pulling your gun in the wrong manner carries a 5 yr minimum sentence. The statues were modeled like the Feds gun laws. That is probably where this whole thing is circling. Like I said they take that particular crime very seriously. A "friend" made the mistake of carrying in a mall that had posted signs against it. Never pulled his piece but it was "riding high" so it was spotted by mall security. Before he knew county police were all over him and he ended up with 18 months county time, 6 months were suspended. He never had a record before that.

So let's hope he didn't pull a piece and that it plays out that way. Guns and young athletes don't mix....

FYI: sometimes it's hard to conceal in FL. Where do you put a gun wearing shorts and a tank top? See someone with a large square fanny pack in front - even bet it's not a sandwich inside....

I like this quote from today's article in the Post:

Sharpstein said that there were new discoveries made overnight regarding the case, which made it less imperative for Taylor to be in Florida.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00712.html

Sounds like good news for Sean.

Justice Hog wrote: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.

The worst part is if they plead to a lesser felony, often times judges and their own defense lawyers fail to tell the person of the rights you lose as a felon. The right to vote, for instance. Some people I hazard wouldn't care about that right, but many would.

sounds good to me, and with sean in camp this is the year he can finally become that pereenial pro bowler that i know he is!

http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20060 ... -8497r.htm

Taylor case may change

March 31, 2006

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
There might be yet another twist in the ongoing criminal case involving Washington Redskins safety Sean Taylor. Edward Carhart, one of Taylor's attorneys for the trial on assault and battery charges that is supposed to start on April 10 in Miami, said yesterday the state is considering changes.
"The whole case is on the table," said Carhart, who expects to hear from assistant state attorney Michael Grieco today about a review of the charges.

Think the prosecution has realized they don't have a case against ST?

Grieco's an idiot... he's trying anything he can to get squeeze something out of this...

I hope this is good news so we can put this behind us.

. . . One of Sean Taylor 's attorneys said he is preparing a motion to seek a dismissal of the felony assault charges facing the Redskins safety. Richard Sharpstein said plea bargain discussions with Miami prosecutors could continue in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial April 10. Sharpstein said he intends to present the motion before the judge at a prescheduled hearing on Tuesday, while prosecutor Mike Grieco said, "I don't see there being any grounds for a dismissal."

Bottom of the page

1niksder wrote:

. . . One of Sean Taylor 's attorneys said he is preparing a motion to seek a dismissal of the felony assault charges facing the Redskins safety. Richard Sharpstein said plea bargain discussions with Miami prosecutors could continue in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial April 10. Sharpstein said he intends to present the motion before the judge at a prescheduled hearing on Tuesday, while prosecutor Mike Grieco said, "I don't see there being any grounds for a dismissal."

Bottom of the page

Sharpstein said that alleged victims in the case have been arrested for thefts, drug possession and other charges within Dade County (Fla.) since the incident with Taylor, and that the prosecution failed to present this information to them as is their obligation; prosecutor Mike Grieco said he was unaware of the arrests until the defense presented the information, and is confident the case will go to trial as scheduled.

"We are filing our motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct for Grieco's failure to provide us with a mountain of evidence dealing with the recent criminal past histories of the so-called victims and witnesses in this case," Sharpstein said. "We'll ask the judge to dismiss, and if she doesn't dismiss the case, we'll ask the state attorney to reconsider the case based on these developments."

washingtonpost

Sharpstein is one of the newest members of Sean's defense team, and seems to have jumped in with both feet.

This Grieco guy is going to come out of all this looking really stupid.

Is it worth all this to get your name out there?

SkinsFanInHawai'i wrote:This Grieco guy is going to come out of all this looking really stupid.

Is it worth all this to get your name out there?

I think he wants to run for Office somewhere down there, or on the state level next year

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995): Prosecution has an affirmative duty to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant. (citing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83(1963)).

Three situations where a Brady violation might arise: (1) where previously undisclosed evidence revealed that the prosecution introduced trial testimony that it knew or should have known was perjured; (2) where the Government failed to accede to a defense request for disclosure of some specific kind of exculpatory evidence; and (3) where the Government failed to volunteer exculpatory evidence never requested, or requested only in a general way. Whitley, at page 432.

Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972): A valid Brady complaint contains three elements: (1) the prosecution must suppress or withhold evidence, (2) which is favorable, and (3) material to the defense.

U.S. v. Perdomo, 3rd Cir., 929 F.2d 967, 970 (1991): The prosecution's failure to conduct a search of local criminal records to verify a State's witness criminal background meets the first element of a valid Brady complaint.

Government of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 3rd Cir., 419 F.3d 249 (2005): Dismissal for a Brady violation may be appropriate in cases of deliberate misconduct because those cases call for penalties which are not only corrective but are also highly deterrent. While retrial is normally the most severe sanction available for a Brady violation, where a defendant can show both willful misconduct by the government, and prejudice, dismissal may be proper.

My points are these:

(1) The State has a continuing obligation to provide Brady material to the defense during the pendency of any case;

(2) Failure to disclose criminal records of a material State witness is a Brady violation.

(3) If the Court deems the Brady violation to be willful misconduct on the part of the prosecution, and Sean Taylor is prejudiced by such conduct, this case may be dismissed.

Note: I cited 3rd Circuit cases here. Florida is not in the 3rd Circuit so they general have little, or no, precendential effect. They can be, however, relied upon as informative by the Florida courts.

I love that Grieco is using the "ignorance" defense about the arrests of his key witnesses... he says it's impossible to know the status of these individuals in such a large county... how about using your computer idiot... plug their names in the data base and the magic box will automatically notify you when one of them (or all of them in this case) show up in the system... this guy's a tool and just has a hair up his arse for ST...

these witnesses are soooo shady, I hope the judge sees through this nonsense in the trial...

Judge denies motion to dismiss charges against Sean Taylor

Circuit Judge Mary Barzee denied a defense motion to dismiss charges against Washington Redskins player Sean Taylor, whose trial is scheduled for next week.

Attorneys for the former University of Miami star argued that the aggravated assault charges should be dropped because they claimed Miami-Dade prosecutor Michael Grieco failed to tell them that several of the alleged victims and witnesses had been arrested in unrelated cases.

Taylor was arrested last June in south Miami-Dade on charges he pointed a gun at three men he believed had stolen an all-terrain vehicle from one of his friends.

His trial is slated to begin Monday.

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/ ... 260927.htm

This case looks pretty shady...

Why don't they just throw in the towel?

Y'all have to understand that it may not be Grieco pushing this case through the Courts (though he is talking a good game). It very well may be his bosses telling him he must not plead this case out, and must go to trial. It happens, trust me.

This question is for Justice Hog. In your opinion, what will be the outcome of this case?

Redskins' Taylor won't plead guilty to avoid prison

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2396665

Looks like we have a trial...

Of course I wouldn't plead guilty either if I were not guilty. Let's just hope that's the truth. If not, here's to the 2006 FL penal league. They just got a another hitter.

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

i feel a last minute plea, after the prosecutor realizes hes got no case


free sean taylor (I'm wearing my t shirt today)

COZ wrote:If not, here's to the 2006 FL penal league. They just got a another hitter.

Look at that hit out there! That kid Taylor sure can tackle! We're gonna beat the guards for sure!

COZ wrote:Of course I wouldn't plead guilty either if I were not guilty. Let's just hope that's the truth.

Really? I would have to be incredibly confident that I would be found not guilty to risk 46 years in prison.

I think it's great news that Taylor rejected the deal.

BernieSki wrote:This question is for Justice Hog. In your opinion, what will be the outcome of this case?

Plea to a felony not resulting in prison time, I don't care what S.T. is saying right now.

COZ wrote:Looks like we have a trial...

Of course I wouldn't plead guilty either if I were not guilty.

So, if you're looking at a trial with 25 years of mandatory prison time, and you're not guilty, and the prosecutor offers you a deal to one felony with probation.....avoiding the possibility of ANY prison time, you wouldn't consider it?

I find that hard to believe. Most people, though innocent, would give it serious thought. Then again, we've had that discussion earlier in this thread.