Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[Rogah]

see there you go being wrong again and again and again.........

once the gold digging coke ***** testified under oath, she became toxic as a witness

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound calling her a gold digging coke *****, but refusing to believe she disappeared without a trace (figuratively speaking) without taking a payoff from the guy who just made about $13 million?

I agree she's a gold digging coke *****. But she was reliable enough to get a conviction in a criminal court of law so that sure seems to give her a pretty darn decent chance of winning a civil court case. And yet she hasn't filed suit (despite having absolutely nothing to lose and potentially millions to gain) and neither she nor her lawyer have spoken a single word about any of this over the past several months..........

Yeah, I'm sure she decided not to sue Hardy or even speak out about him and give the media her side of the story out of the kindness of her heart.

 

[Tabascocat]

Dumb question incoming........Does Hardy have a misdemeanor or felony on his record because of this?

If not, then wouldn't it be prudent to say that he is clear of all charges?

 

[Nightman]

Dumb question incoming........Does Hardy have a misdemeanor or felony on his record because of this?

If not, then wouldn't it be prudent to say that he is clear of all charges?

All charges were dropped, so he is free and clear.

He is in the process of getting the arrest expunged from his record.

 

[Tabascocat]

All charges were dropped, so he is free and clear.

He is in the process of getting the arrest expunged from his record.

Ok, then why can't we say that he is not guilty? As far as the law is concerned, he was never convicted of a crime.....once the arrest is expunged.

 

[Fizziksman]

Ok, then why can't we say that he is not guilty? As far as the law is concerned, he was never convicted of a crime.....once the arrest is expunged.

we can. The only reason he is being suspended at this point are for similar reason Roethlisberger was suspended, his rape allegation (or in the case of the Hardy, his domestic violence allegation) made the NFL brand look bad.

 

[Hoofbite]

you understand that is because of Holder's testimony at the bench trial that the DA could no longer 'win' at the jury trial

Perhaps they felt they couldn't win without her present, but that says nothing about whether or not they could have won with her present.

We all know that any discrepancies in her statements would have been highlighted to a ridiculous extent no matter how insignificant they were. Without a chance for the prosecution to even attempt to bridge whatever gap there may have been between her accounts, her testimony is useless. This, of course, was the entire point of his defense team having a transcript arranged when it wouldn't it have happened otherwise.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter. The NFL has proven they don't need any sort of court ruling in order to punish a guy. They conducted their own investigation by a group that included one of Jones family members.

It is kind of interesting though that people have time and time again referenced the statement about the dropping of charges to conclude that the woman was a liar and that's why they didn't proceed. At the same time they ask for evidence of a settlement beyond the statement.

Without having any idea what inconsistencies actually exist, this statement proves that the woman was full of crap, but at the same time the very same statement is not good enough to lead people to believe that she was paid off.

Kinda funny.

 

[Kevinicus]

Your lack of logical thinking is surpassed only by your ignorance of the criminal court system.

Newsflash: Factoring in public sentiment and media attention is something any responsible DA would do when deciding if/how to proceed with a case. Taking a woman who has been traumatized by being assaulted by a boyfriend, and then traumatizing her again by arresting her and bringing her to trial, does not serve the public good (not to mention it would be career suicide). No jury on the planet is going to convict a woman who was beat up by her boyfriend. Furthermore, you run the risk of frightening away other victims of domestic violence.

So yeah, gauging the public sentiment, determining what serves the public good, determining what is in the victim's best interests and predicting the likelihood of conviction are certainly factors a responsible, ethical DA considers. Those won't be the only considerations, but they are certainly among them.

Actually, a responsible DA's ONLY concern should be the law. Picking and choosing who deserves to face consequences based on "sentiment" completely goes against the oath I assume they take to uphold the laws. Justice is meant to be blind not applied by what feels good at the time. The law is the standard. A DA should not put themselves or anyone else above the law. It's sad that this is actually how some people feel, and a huge cause for much of the problems in society.

 

[Rogah]

Actually, a responsible DA's ONLY concern should be the law. Picking and choosing who deserves to face consequences based on "sentiment" completely goes against the oath I assume they take to uphold the laws.

You can keep saying it over and over, but that don't make it true.

Justice is meant to be blind not applied by what feels good at the time. The law is the standard. A DA should not put themselves or anyone else above the law. It's sad that this is actually how some people feel, and a huge cause for much of the problems in society.

What's sad is how many people in this forum don't have the first clue about how the justice system works, and the ethical obligations of all involved.

The Prosecution Standards for the National District Attorneys Assn. clearly states the following:

A prosecutor should put the rights and interests of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases.[/I]


Personal discretion and society's best interests are clearly something prosecutors are obligated to consider. Absolutely NOWHERE in that document of professional ethics does it say "hey if someone broke the law you have to prosecute them no matter what, period, end of discussion!"[/I]

 

[Kevinicus]

You can keep saying it over and over, but that don't make it true.
What's sad is how many people in this forum don't have the first clue about how the justice system works, and the ethical obligations of all involved.

The Prosecution Standards for the National District Attorneys Assn. clearly states the following:

A prosecutor should put the rights and interests of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases.[/I]


Personal discretion and society's best interests are clearly something prosecutors are obligated to consider. Absolutely NOWHERE in that document of professional ethics does it say "hey if someone broke the law you have to prosecute them no matter what, period, end of discussion!"[/I]

What kind of organization do you think the NDAA is? It's not an official governing body.

 

[Nightman]

Perhaps they felt they couldn't win without her present, but that says nothing about whether or not they could have won with her present.

We all know that any discrepancies in her statements would have been highlighted to a ridiculous extent no matter how insignificant they were. Without a chance for the prosecution to even attempt to bridge whatever gap there may have been between her accounts, her testimony is useless. This, of course, was the entire point of his defense team having a transcript arranged when it wouldn't it have happened otherwise.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter. The NFL has proven they don't need any sort of court ruling in order to punish a guy. They conducted their own investigation by a group that included one of Jones family members.

It is kind of interesting though that people have time and time again referenced the statement about the dropping of charges to conclude that the woman was a liar and that's why they didn't proceed. At the same time they ask for evidence of a settlement beyond the statement.

Without having any idea what inconsistencies actually exist, this statement proves that the woman was full of crap, but at the same time the very same statement is not good enough to lead people to believe that she was paid off.

Kinda funny.

I don't know if there was a settlement. But people act like they have seen the court documents. If someone has proof than please provide it. Otherwise it is just speculation. The DA mentioned her inconsistencies when dropping the charges, that is a pretty big deal.

If Hardy said he reached a deal with her I would understand. It is often better to pay someone to go away. I just think he would have done it BEFORE the bench trial. That is usually the point, to keep it out of court. After the bench trial and with her testimony locked in, the Defense seemed energized and confident.

I don't believe they had to buy her off at that point. They may have, but I always thought his story was more believable.

But since this is a Brady thread and has been moved, I will leave it at that.

 

[Rogah]

What kind of organization do you think the NDAA is? It's not an official governing body.

It is an organization, composed primarily of district attorneys, that (among other things) lays down the framework and basis of ethical behavior in that profession. It is not a governing body, but it works in conjunction with lawmakers as well as state and federal government entities to determine how prosecutors are supposed to behave in the official duties of their profession.

Sorry, but I'll take the Code of Ethics of the National District Attorneys Association over the opinion of an internet lawyer like yourself.

Your belief that a DA should automatically prosecute any violation of the law without taking into consideration other factors is ridiculously ignorant.

 

[Kevinicus]

Lol, lays down the framework. Good one.

The laws of the state and constitution dictate the framework. That organization represents some DAs and appears to act as sort of a lobbying organization on the behalf of its members. Just because they would like DAs to act one way does not mean the law, government, or people want them to act that way. Do you even know if the DA in question is a member?

What value is there to the law if you can just pick and choose when to uphold it? One of the basic principles the country was founded on was that the law be applied to all equally. I will not argue that politics often plays a role in the justice system, but that is an example of failures, not how it is meant to be, or an example of those in the system doing an admiral job.

 

[Rogah]

Lol, lays down the framework. Good one.

The laws of the state and constitution dictate the framework. That organization represents some DAs and appears to act as sort of a lobbying organization on the behalf of its members. Just because they would like DAs to act one way does not mean the law, government, or people want them to act that way.

Um, I think it's pretty painfully obvious that the official code of ethics and conduct for the National District Attorneys Association is going to conform to all local, state and federal laws, as well as be drafted by persons operating within that sphere.

I guess facts that are painfully obvious to some can fly over the head of others. Maybe that wouldn't be the case if those heads weren't buried so deep in the sand.

What value is there to the law if you can just pick and choose when to uphold it?

You're kidding right? Newsflash: There is tremendous value in prosecutors considering the spirit of the law and not just mindlessly looking solely at the letter of the law.

I personally prefer a system where prosecutors behaving in good faith can consider the spirit of the law when deciding how to proceed, don't you?

One of the basic principles the country was founded on was that the law be applied to all equally. I will not argue that politics often plays a role in the justice system, but that is an example of failures, not how it is meant to be, or an example of those in the system doing an admiral job.

Yeah. Sure. OK buddy. You go ahead and submit your internet-lawyer opinion to professional publications about how it serves the public good for District Attorneys to go after victims of domestic violence who don't cooperate..... hey, the law is the law and the law must be followed and violators must be punished no matter what without exercising any personal discretion considering the public good, right?

I'm sure the public would love seeing the victim of domestic violence led away in chains while the guy who beat her up takes the field next Sunday. Maybe we should make her walk through the street naked too? Someone can follow her announcing "shame! shame! shame!" while ringing a bell.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

What value is there to the law if you can just pick and choose when to uphold it?

Ha Ha, you do realize who you are asking that question, right . . . . . . ?

 

[Kevinicus]

Ha Ha, you do realize who you are asking that question, right . . . . . . ?

I don't know why I, or any of us, continue to bother.

 

[Rogah]

I don't know why I, or any of us, continue to bother.

Now now, it's not my fault you don't understand the role of a responsible district attorney, and how they are ethically obligated to consider a wide variety of circumstances. Seriously, child.... prosecuting victims of domestic violence for lack of cooperation really doesn't serve the public good.

If you don't realize that prosecutors are ethically obligated to apply personal discretion and judgment in service of the public good, you really need to learn how things work.

 

[Doomsay]

Successful prosecutions are all about evidence, not reality. The primary evidence in this case is Holder's testimony, which the DA deemed unreliable.



Consequently, Hardy wasn't convicted and he should only be subject to whatever the non-criminal domestic violence protocol NFL conduct violations were in-force at the time, if any.

Tom Brady, on the other hand, should serve additional game suspensions (beyond the initial 4) if he lied to the NFL again in his recent hearing.

 

[Doomsay]

Now now, it's not my fault you don't understand the role of a responsible district attorney, and how they are ethically obligated to consider a wide variety of circumstances. Seriously, child.... prosecuting victims of domestic violence for lack of cooperation really doesn't serve the public good.

If you don't realize that prosecutors are ethically obligated to apply personal discretion and judgment in service of the public good, you really need to learn how things work.

Give us your legal credentials please.

Thanks

 

[Rogah]

Give us your legal credentials please.

Sure thing. Right after you give me yours.

In the meantime, feel free to respond to the point being made. I gave a direct quote from the National Association of District Attorneys and the document laying out the Prosecution Standards for people in that profession. You really don't need a J.D. to understand the following statement:

"A prosecutor should put the rights and interests of society in a paramount position in exercising prosecutorial discretion in individual cases."

 

[Rogah]

Successful prosecutions are all about evidence, not reality. The primary evidence in this case is Holder's testimony, which the DA deemed unreliable.

Well it was reliable enough to get a conviction in the bench trial, so he must have been doing something right.

"The court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats" - Ruling of Hardy trial

Tom Brady, on the other hand, should serve additional game suspensions (beyond the initial 4) if he lied to the NFL again in his recent hearing.

Tom Brady was under oath in his recent hearing. If he lied under oath, he should be charged with perjury.

Of course, the fact that he agreed to be sworn and testify under oath for that hearing (something he most certainly did not have to do if he didn't want) is an extremely powerful gesture.

Hardy refused to testify at his NFL hearing, but Brady was willing to testify under oath. Hardy testified at trial, but trials have very set rules regarding what can and can't be asked. If Hardy was innocent, he would have gladly testified at the league hearing too and proclaimed his innocence, but for some reason he chose not to do that.