Taylor & Courts

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

That's exactly what I'm saying. The case was on thin ice as it was.

There is a chance that this can be thrown out based on lack of evidence and lack of credible witnesses. I got my fingers crossed - so I don't have to worry about this stupid crap anymore.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

There is a chance that this can be thrown out based on lack of evidence and lack of credible witnesses. I got my fingers crossed - so I don't have to worry about this stupid crap anymore.

The judge doesnt have the discretion to decide whether or not the witnesses are credible. He can only decide questions of law; questions of fact (such as "Is this witness trustworthy?") can only be decided by the jury.

As for the lack of evidence, cases have gone to trial with far less than eyewitness testimony. When cases are dismissed for lack of evidence, it is usually because the evidence being offered is found inadmissable.

Pretty much every case that goes to trial, civil or criminal, has the defense filing a motion to dismiss. It is more or less a formality. That said I sure as hell hope this is the one in a million that works!

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

When cases are dismissed for lack of evidence, it is usually because the evidence being offered is found inadmissable.

So let me kind of get a handle on this, a case only gets dismissed on technicalities that find evidence/witnesses inadmissible (looking at it from the judge's eyes, probably to the point where they have no evidence/witnesses) . Or only if there are technicalities of wrong doing on the part of the prosecution that appear to be intentional.

And it has nothing to do with the merit of the case on either side ?

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

So let me kind of get a handle on this, a case only gets dismissed on technicalities that find evidence/witnesses inadmissible (looking at it from the judge's eyes, probably to the point where they have no evidence/witnesses) . Or only if there are technicalities of wrong doing on the part of the prosecution that appear to be intentional.

And it has nothing to do with the merit of the case on either side ?

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

[Sociofan]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by Sociofan

How are they proceeding in this case without any direct evidence other than the sworn statements of three known felons? Isn't that a bit weak even for Florida?

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

Exactly, a judge could only dismiss a case if it was found that there was insufficient evidence to even mount a case at all (or in a civil case, failed to sufficiently state a claim on which relief can be granted).

I would imagine that in a really egregious case of a prosecutor hiding witnesses or information the judge could dismiss the case on a due process basis, but I think that would have to be REALLY bad.

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

[amorentz]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by amorentz

To be honest, I think it would have to be more than that...the prosecutor would probably be really embarassed, but I doubt a judge would throw out a criminal case for that. (Though I wish he would!)

Do you think that if the prosecution was discovered to be lying about their knowledge of any kind of evidence or information, that it wouldn't be severe enough ?

I think if any side was caught lying about facts or information involving this case that it would affect the integrity of the entire case - what else could they be lying about ? I just don't think the doubt would stop there.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

So if the defense can prove that the prosecution was somehow informed of the witnesses' recent arrests, then the case can and should be thrown out. Wow, that would also put the brakes on that prosecutor's political aspirations.

To be fair we do not know that the prosecutor has any political aspirations or new that the witnesses had been arrested. With the way our goverment agencies work today ( or don't work for that matter) it would not surprise me he did not know they had other charges against them. They must have something for this case to go to trial but I realy don't know what the standards are.

[backrow]

It looks like they filed another continuance according to the Docket. Trial will be heard now on May 8th. This is according to the Miami dade court docket

http://www.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/...2B8C7457364C1A


Quote:
00134 04/12/2006 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
FILED 04/12/2006 ORAL
SET FOR 04/12/2006 AT 09:52 GRANTED PROS

00133 04/12/2006 TRIAL HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 05/08/2006 AT 09:00
TRIAL HEARING RESET