Sean Taylor's Legal Situation

[Schneed10]

I know we have several lawyer types here on the Warpath, and I think it would be good if those people could lay a little knowledge on us regarding Taylor's situation.

First off, is there any new information available regarding Taylor's case? Do we have any idea of what evidence the state has against him? Perhaps someone could also explain what the state's burden of proof is for an aggravated assault charge in Florida, in other words, what will the prosecution need to prove in order to convict Taylor? Would eyewitness accounts against Taylor be sufficient to convict him? And what do we think the chances are of him actually getting convicted?

He's obviously an extremely important part of our team, and his trial is one of the most important things to happen for the Redskins this offseason. If anybody has seen any articles on the subject lately, this thread would be a good place to post them.

[FRPLG]

I am not a lawyer but from my recollection there were multiple parties involved. 2 of which are Taylor and his associate. He has simply been charged with pointing a gun at one of the other parties. Now the one true legal discussion I read about this was months ago but the only known evidence at that time was the statements of the other parties. The state's attorney attempted to settle with both Taylor and his associate. This was noted as being revealing to some legal analysts as they viewed the attempt to settle with Taylor as an acknowledgement of the weakness of the state's case because the only evidence comes from being made by questionable characters. They also felt that the more serious crime commited has been attributed to Taylor's associate as he was charged with actually swining a bat at the other parties. The attempt to settle with Taylor's associate was seen as two fold. First it was another sign of the perceived weakness of evidence and second it was felt that the attempt was also a play to turn Taylor's associate; again another sign of weakness. Both Taylor and his associate did not settle. The basic consensus at the time I read this article was that one of two things will happen. Either Taylor will get off or he will settle to a much lower charge. A charge not requiring a mandatory 3 year sentence. This is of course assuming there was no unknown evidence and again this was months ago. I'd love if someone had a more recent outline of the case as it stands now.

I might be optimistic but when a prosecutor doesn't seem too eager to go to trial I am thinking he may know that he is going to have to settle at best. The prosecutor hasn't fought too hard against any continuances and he certainly can't still be investigating. It is a pretty basic situation. I would think if he felt he had an airtight case he'd be more eager to get this done. I hope.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I am not a lawyer but from my recollection there were multiple parties involved. 2 of which are Taylor and his associate. He has simply been charged with pointing a gun at one of the other parties. Now the one true legal discussion I read about this was months ago but the only known evidence at that time was the statements of the other parties. The state's attorney attempted to settle with both Taylor and his associate. This was noted as being revealing to some legal analysts as they viewed the attempt to settle with Taylor as an acknowledgement of the weakness of the state's case because the only evidence comes from being made by questionable characters. They also felt that the more serious crime commited has been attributed to Taylor's associate as he was charged with actually swining a bat at the other parties. The attempt to settle with Taylor's associate was seen as two fold. First it was another sign of the perceived weakness of evidence and second it was felt that the attempt was also a play to turn Taylor's associate; again another sign of weakness. Both Taylor and his associate did not settle. The basic consensus at the time I read this article was that one of two things will happen. Either Taylor will get off or he will settle to a much lower charge. A charge not requiring a mandatory 3 year sentence. This is of course assuming there was no unknown evidence and again this was months ago. I'd love if someone had a more recent outline of the case as it stands now.

I might be optimistic but when a prosecutor doesn't seem too eager to go to trial I am thinking he may know that he is going to have to settle at best. The prosecutor hasn't fought too hard against any continuances and he certainly can't still be investigating. It is a pretty basic situation. I would think if he felt he had an airtight case he'd be more eager to get this done. I hope.

FRPLG, nice post, you reminded me of some things. I had forgotten about the prosecution's attempt to settle. We may not know the evidence against Taylor (and I guess we might never know what the evidence is since we're not lawyer's with the DA's office down there). But the attempt at settlement by the prosecution is pretty telling; but Taylor's rejection of the settlement is even more telling. If a prosecutor tries to settle, his case could be weak, or maybe he's just got too many other cases on hand and just wants to clear a couple off his desk. The fact that Taylor and his lawyer decided to reject the plea seems to indicate that they too feel that the state's case is weak. I think if any good defense lawyer thought there was a chance Taylor could get convicted in a trial, he would advise Taylor to take the plea. But he didn't. We may not know the evidence, but I think that's pretty telling. You're right, he's probably good to go.

Anybody know when the trial date is?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Anybody know when the trial date is?

March 20th.

[saden1]

I'm not a layer but I have been to quite a number of law office parties. What I do know is that this is a criminal case and thus the DA can do as he/she pleases. I also know that they have the people who Taylor allegedly pointed a gun at as their star witnesses. Some of these witnesses don't have a spotless criminal records so they do have credibility issues. Unless Taylors boys turn on him and testify against him he'll walk away scot free if the case actually goes to trial. My guess is there will be a settlement and he'll have to do some community service.

[SmootSmack]

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

[Big C]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

express

[railcon56]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

LOL

[SmootSmack]

This can't be good

http://www.washtimes.com/sports/2006...5354-2078r.htm

[Redskin]

which make u incredibly smart tafka cuz u saved an assload of money

[Redskin]

I dont see what the big deal is, its not like he shot any body...............

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

#1. I have not heard any new information about Sean Taylor's case.

#2. I do not know what evidence the prosecution has and I don't think anyone does. It is highly unlikely that even Taylor's lawyer knows all of the evidence the prosecution has. It likely rests on eyewitness accounts. However, it could possibly also consist of a seized weapon with finger-prints, ballistics tests on bullets and the firearm used, etc. We simply do not know what they've got.

#3. In Florida, to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, or with the intent to commit a felony. 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.

In other words, if the prosecution can convince a jury that Sean Taylor actually fired a firearm at a house, he's screwed.

#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.

#5. It is impossible to know whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Taylor. If you don't know the evidence against Taylor, you might as well flip a coin to decide whether he will be convicted.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

#1. I have not heard any new information about Sean Taylor's case.

#2. I do not know what evidence the prosecution has and I don't think anyone does. It is highly unlikely that even Taylor's lawyer knows all of the evidence the prosecution has. It likely rests on eyewitness accounts. However, it could possibly also consist of a seized weapon with finger-prints, ballistics tests on bullets and the firearm used, etc. We simply do not know what they've got.

Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

#3. In Florida, to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, or with the intent to commit a felony. 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.

In other words, if the prosecution can convince a jury that Sean Taylor actually fired a firearm at a house, he's screwed.

Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.

Based on what experience? Eye witness testimony is relatively corruptable by a decent defense attorney. I don't know of too may proecutors who'd feel great about their chances with simple eye witness testimony. All it takes is one jury member to not believe the witnesses and in the case here I am guessing the questionable character issues make believeing them even that much harder. Especially since they as suspected of coming back to his hosue and firing at him.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

#5. It is impossible to know whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Taylor. If you don't know the evidence against Taylor, you might as well flip a coin to decide whether he will be convicted.

Well duh. But that doesn't stop legal analysts from ever analyzing cases. No one can ever know if they have enough. So why should it stop us from discussing it. I'd love if we could find some people who really know what is going on here. Not just with this case but with Fla law and even with specific area and prosecutor.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.

I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense..

i learned that from watching "my cousin vinny".