Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

Now they're saying Taylor didn't fire the shots, he was shot at

This is certainly some very good news for Taylor. At least now the defense knows where they start their bargaining from. If he fired the gun, he was looking at 20 years. Now, we know that the worst case scenario is three years on the aggravated assault charge. If they can bargain down from that charge, there is a very real possibility he could escape jail time.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

PSU,

While it is true that thousands are convicted on a (weekly/monthly) basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony, it is far from true that eye-witness testimony is questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity.

The purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility or reliability of the witness. I'd say in 99% of cross-examinations, eye-witness testimony is questioned on grounds other than potential mistaken identity.

Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient. In fact, eye witness testimony is all that most prosecutors need to convict someone of a crime. Regardless of what phsychiatrists have said or what studies are done, in our legal system eye witness testimony is still highly regarded and acts as very damaging evidence against a defendant. Furthermore, a witness may only testify as to the information he knows at the time of questioning. Prior unsworn-to statements are inadmissible as hearsay unless they are being used to impeach the witness for inconsistencies.

Second, I am well aware of the purposes of cross examination. However, as it relates to "eye-witness" testimony, and given the facts that we have so far, I don't believe the defense has much to work with here. Obviously mistaken identity won't work. That, by the way, is essentially the same thing as reliability. When an eye-witness's testimony is questioned on reliability grounds, the defense is essentially challenging whether the eye-witness was in a position to see what he says he saw. They would challenge the lighting, the eyesight of the witness, whether the witness was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, etc. I've not yet seen any facts that would support a challenge along those lines, but, of course, it is still early.

As to credibility, again, I'm not so sure there are strong grounds to challenge the witnesses there either. First, assuming the alleged victims called the police, it seems more likely than not that they didn't actually steal the ATVs (of course that's an assumption on my part). Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony and think "oh heck, is that all they have? A guy saying ST pointed a gun at me." I think we need to recognize that in the typical case, that's all the prosecutor really needs to get a conviction. The battle over challenging the credibility of the witness would be a fierce one, and would be one that both sides would brief thoroughly (which neither of us are prepare to do here).

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony

wow, you obviously totally misread what i was saying... eye witness testimony is UNRELIABLE at best, but i never said it was INSUFFICIENT.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

PSU,

First, let me say that I agree with much of your post. Anything I didn't quote I agreed with. Second, let me say that even though I disagree with some of your post - it was thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent. But, the following is what I disagree with:

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect.

That Taylor's ATVs were stolen would come up in the trial (if there is one). It doesn't have to be brought up to overtly impeach the credibility of the victim - it is as likely to come up during the prosecutor's opening statements, direct examination or cross-examination of witness as it is for the defense. Moreover, assuming that the victims are the same people who shot at Taylor, that they allegedly shot at Taylor is going to impeach the credibility of the victims in the eyes of the jury.

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.

Evidence of past crimes is admissible in many states even when there are no convictions....they're called "prior bad acts/crimes." Also evidence of prior crimes is admissible in many states for purposes other than impeachment (I'd be more than happy to cite some specific statutes if you really want me to).

Do you really think that the issue of the stolen ATVs wouldn't come up in trial? If so, I very much differ with you. The stolen ATVs go to Taylor's motive and are relevant to a defense Taylor might mount (I'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to).

[PSUSkinsFan21]

First, I really like you RF. Usually we agree on most topics, but even when we disagree, we can both do it in an intelligent and respectful way. That's why I love this site.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

That Taylor's ATVs were stolen would come up in the trial (if there is one). It doesn't have to be brought up to overtly impeach the credibility of the victim - it is as likely to come up during the prosecutor's opening statements, direct examination or cross-examination of witness as it is for the defense. Moreover, assuming that the victims are the same people who shot at Taylor, that they allegedly shot at Taylor is going to impeach the credibility of the victims in the eyes of the jury.

Certainly if they shot at Taylor that would be introduced to impeach the witnesses. My post did not contemplate that fact scenario because I wasn't aware that they fired at ST when I made my post. And I agree that the fact that ST thought his ATVs were stolen by the alleged victims would be brought out. However, IF the alleged victim has not yet been convicted of the theft, then the defense cannot say "don't believe this witness, he's the one who stole the ATVs to begin with." He may be able to say that ST believed the witness stole his ATVs, but that doesn't help to exonerate ST in any way, and it's questionable that it would really challenge the credibility of the witness.

Evidence of past crimes is admissible in many states even when there are no convictions....they're called "prior bad acts/crimes." Also evidence of prior crimes is admissible in many states for purposes other than impeachment (I'd be more than happy to cite some specific statutes if you really want me to)

Again, Florida may be different, but at least under the Federal Rules (which most states have used as a model for their own rules of evidence), "specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purposes of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than the conviction of a crime ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ...." (See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b)). Under this rule, only prior acts related to a witness' truthfulness may be admissible, and even then it is a judgment call for the judge. It's been a few years since my crim courses, but I'm rather certain that acts like theft are not probative to truthfulness unless they involve some deception (i.e. theft by forgery, fraud, etc.). Simply stealing a car has nothing to do with a witness' ability to tell the truth.

Furthermore, you are correct that prior crimes are admissible, but at least with respect to the Federal Rules (Rule 609), the evidence must be of a felony conviction and, again, the "probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused." Therefore, my point is that 1. the alleged victims/theives have not been convicted of stealing the ATVs, and 2. there is a strong argument for the prosecution that the prejudicial effect of allowing any such conviction would outweigh its probative value. Regardless of what side you think the judge would come out on, at least it's worth mentioning that it's still a judgment call for the judge. The admission of evidence related to either prior acts or past convictions is not permitted per se as a matter of law. It is only permitted after the judge conducts a balancing test.

Do you really think that the issue of the stolen ATVs wouldn't come up in trial? If so, I very much differ with you. The stolen ATVs go to Taylor's motive and are relevant to a defense Taylor might mount (I'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to).

I agree that the issue would be raised. I think I disagree with you as to what effect that fact has on the ability of the defense to impeach or challenge the credibility of the witness. Which brings us back to where this all began......how strong of a case does the prosecution have if it's based on eye-witness testimony? I think the fact that we've gone back and forth so much on just this one evidentiary issue shows that nobody really can tell for sure.........but I think we can agree it's not cut and dry either way.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

First, I really like you RF. Usually we agree on most topics, but even when we disagree, we can both do it in an intelligent and respectful way. That's why I love this site.



Certainly if they shot at Taylor that would be introduced to impeach the witnesses. My post did not contemplate that fact scenario because I wasn't aware that they fired at ST when I made my post. And I agree that the fact that ST thought his ATVs were stolen by the alleged victims would be brought out. However, IF the alleged victim has not yet been convicted of the theft, then the defense cannot say "don't believe this witness, he's the one who stole the ATVs to begin with." He may be able to say that ST believed the witness stole his ATVs, but that doesn't help to exonerate ST in any way, and it's questionable that it would really challenge the credibility of the witness.

I betcha' Sean's lawyers are better than the two who "stole" the ATVs.



Again, Florida may be different, but at least under the Federal Rules (which most states have used as a model for their own rules of evidence), "specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purposes of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than the conviction of a crime ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ...." (See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b)). Under this rule, only prior acts related to a witness' truthfulness may be admissible, and even then it is a judgment call for the judge. It's been a few years since my crim courses, but I'm rather certain that acts like theft are not probative to truthfulness unless they involve some deception (i.e. theft by forgery, fraud, etc.). Simply stealing a car has nothing to do with a witness' ability to tell the truth.

Furthermore, you are correct that prior crimes are admissible, but at least with respect to the Federal Rules (Rule 609), the evidence must be of a felony conviction and, again, the "probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused." Therefore, my point is that 1. the alleged victims/theives have not been convicted of stealing the ATVs, and 2. there is a strong argument for the prosecution that the prejudicial effect of allowing any such conviction would outweigh its probative value. Regardless of what side you think the judge would come out on, at least it's worth mentioning that it's still a judgment call for the judge. The admission of evidence related to either prior acts or past convictions is not permitted per se as a matter of law. It is only permitted after the judge conducts a balancing test.



I agree that the issue would be raised. I think I disagree with you as to what effect that fact has on the ability of the defense to impeach or challenge the credibility of the witness. Which brings us back to where this all began......how strong of a case does the prosecution have if it's based on eye-witness testimony? I think the fact that we've gone back and forth so much on just this one evidentiary issue shows that nobody really can tell for sure.........but I think we can agree it's not cut and dry either way.

I betcha' Sean's lawyers are going to be better than their's!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

First, I really like you RF. Usually we agree on most topics, but even when we disagree, we can both do it in an intelligent and respectful way. That's why I love this site.

In reading your posts, I don't think we're actually that far apart - I think we're splitting hairs. I'm not familiar with Florida law; I've only had experience with the Federal (in law school and as an intern/clerk at the U.S. District Court - Eastern District of Wisconsin), New York (as a paralegal), and Wisconsin (law school) Rules of Criminal Procedure. So, I really don't know what is and is not admissible in Florida.

It's so much easier to debate someone on the fine points of the law when they have no background in it. So, when I discovered that you went to law school, I said to myself, "Damn! I can't B.S. this guy."

In any event, you're definately a master debater. Where did you go to law school and when did you graduate?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

At least he didn't FIRE it, thank God.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute.

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute.

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?

If convicted of what he's been charged with? ... he has to. Mandatory minimum of 3 years. If he pleas down to a lesser charge, I'd say either no time or only during the next off-season.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Go plea bargain go...

After all this, I couldn't be more unhappy with him. He has insurance to replace his ATVs if they WERE stolen. Not only that, who knows if those people had guns themselves (it seems like SOMEONE did) and he could have been killed?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

VERY Poor decision making, no doubt MC. :smashfrea

[TheMalcolmConnection]

You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?

Hey, there's always a chance. It doesn't seem plausible right now just because why would the other guys point a gun at ST, not fire on him, have him pull a gun on them, still not fire at ST, and then fire on him after he comes back a second time? So right now, it doesn't seem like that's what happened, but who knows.....it's still really early.

The more likely scenario is ST shows up, waives a gun at them, punches one of them, then takes off. By the time he comes back 10 minutes later, the other guys have had time to go get their guns and it's all ganster warfare from there. Again though, all speculation at this point.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Argh.

I don't know why I'm trying to defend him. The fact is he DID point a gun at someone, and in my book that is almost inexcusable. How can he have SO many problems in only ONE freakin' YEAR?!