Sean Taylor Trial

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

People have been convicted with less evidence than the prosecution has in this case. The eye-witnesses may not be ideal, but they certainly may also be adequate.

Fact is none of us really know enough about this case to make any bets on the likelihood of success. If you're going simply off of what the media is reporting, I feel confident in saying you are going off of only a portion of all the facts of this case. As Skins fans we should be especially aware of media spin and inaccurate reporting.

What we do know is what he has been charged with.....and those charges are not to be taken lightly. We also know that ST confronted people he presumed stole his ATVs, when he should have called on the police to do so. That in-and-of-itself shows poor judgment on his part. We also know that the prosecution has shown little or no inclination to reduce the charges based on the information they have gathered. That's not good for ST. We may all sit here and say those witnesses aren't credible, but apparently the prosecution feels otherwise......and the prosecution knows more about this case than any of us.

But the defense likely knows a lot about the case too. And they felt comfortable rejecting a plea deal outright. That tells me they're pretty confident in their stance. If you're going to try to read the prosecution's actions, you have to look at the defense's too.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But the defense likely knows a lot about the case too. And they felt comfortable rejecting a plea deal outright. That tells me they're pretty confident in their stance. If you're going to try to read the prosecution's actions, you have to look at the defense's too.

What plea deal were they offered? If the "deal" would have still required jail time, they could have rejected it regardless of the strength of the case. For ST, any "deal" that still requires jailtime may simply not be an option.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

What plea deal were they offered? If the "deal" would have still required jail time, they could have rejected it regardless of the strength of the case. For ST, any "deal" that still requires jailtime may simply not be an option.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071200959.html

A deal was offered to Taylor with the minimum jail sentence, 3 years. By Florida law the DA can't offer any less than that for the charges he's facing. So you're right, Taylor probably found this completely unacceptable and is taking his chances.

But the co-defendant was offered a deal to roll on Taylor, and he rejected that outright, despite the fact that all charges would have been dropped in the deal. He rejected that even though he's facing up to 15 years. That's telling to me.

The attorney for Caughman, Evan Hoffman, said his client could have had the felony assault charge against him -- which carries a 15-year maximum sentence -- dropped had he agreed to cooperate against Taylor. Caughman was charged with allegedly wielding a bat in the incident in which Taylor was accused of pointing a handgun and hitting a man with his fist.
"We were ethically and morally obligated to turn down the offer because we are steadfast in maintaining his innocence," Hoffman said.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071200959.html

A deal was offered to Taylor with the minimum jail sentence, 3 years. By Florida law the DA can't offer any less than that for the charges he's facing. So you're right, Taylor probably found this completely unacceptable and is taking his chances.

But the co-defendant was offered a deal to roll on Taylor, and he rejected that outright, despite the fact that all charges would have been dropped in the deal. He rejected that even though he's facing up to 15 years. That's telling to me.

Thanks for the info. I haven't been following as closely as I should.

Yah, I think for ST it's either innocent or bust at this point. The mandatory minimum is going to make a plea bargain almost impossible for both sides. You could look at it either way, of course, but to avoid the mandatory 3 years all the prosecutor would have to do is drop the assault down to simple assault that does not involve a gun. It's interesting that he refuses (thusfar) to do so.

As for the co-defendant, that really is shocking to me. As a co-defendant, with his own legal counsel, I can't imagine any attorney that wouldn't have convinced his client to take a deal that wipes out all charges......unless, of course, ST has made some promises behind closed doors to his boy involving $$$. We may never know.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

As for the co-defendant, that really is shocking to me. As a co-defendant, with his own legal counsel, I can't imagine any attorney that wouldn't have convinced his client to take a deal that wipes out all charges......unless, of course, ST has made some promises behind closed doors to his boy involving $$$. We may never know.

Yeah that was very surprising to see them reject that deal. You make a great point about the possibility of Taylor paying him. I think the plea rejection there means one of three things:
A) Taylor really didn't do anything, or the defense knows that the state's evidence is crappy and can't get him on anything.
B) Taylor is paying his buddy to back him up (though it would take a TON of money for me to turn down a plea deal that eliminates the chance I'll see jail time).
C) Taylor's buddy is an idiot, and despite the urging of his own attorney to take the deal, he decided that he wasn't going to roll on his boy, even if it was the smart thing to do.

My guess is it's A, but that's just my guess. We shall see.