DMN: Sporting News writer: Greg Hardy has rendered himself 'almost untouchable'

[4lifecowboy]

The DA did state that the witness was paid off, but that doesn't make it a fact. He cites not being able to locate the witness nor get information from her attorney so how does he know she reached a civil agreement for sure? If he had proof of that along with evidence he could have proceeded to prosecute Hardy, but the truth is he didn't have enough evidence in either. One more note in a trial, prosecutors routinely lable defendants before convictions ie " The defendant ruthlessly carried out this crime with no remorse" yet that his hardly a fact until proven, all it really is is his opinion and until proven that is what it remains. So quotes from a DA that isn't backed with the proof of a payoff is no more valid than anyone elses opinion in my eyes.

 

[Nightman]

The problem is the bench trial system in NC. It gives a false guilty verdict. It should be worded as it is, either tossed out of court for lack of evidence or bound over for trial. But not a guilty verdict and appeal. That makes it sound like other courts where the verdict is being challenged on technical grounds, not that the real constitutionally protected jury trial is taking place for the first time.

Hardy got screwed over because of this fake verdict and it is why the NFL was able to suspend for 10 games at first. They knew they had the leverage. He won the appeal and got it to 4 games but that is all the NFL could possibly get anyways.

As far as a settlement, that is all BS. There was never a civil case even filed. Holder was found perjuring herself during the bench trial and was never going to testify. The DA got caught hiding evidence and wanted no part of trying a losing case with the worst witness in the state. The DA covered his butt with the settlement talk and everyone bought the lie. Why would he wait until he was going to win it all and get his day in court to settle and make himself look bad. He would have settled BEFORE the bench trial if that was his plan. The PR damage was already done.

 

[Mountaineerfan]

I just wish the NFL was not the new "Moral Compass" of the USA.

 

[Mountaineerfan]

The problem is the bench trial system in NC. It gives a false guilty verdict. It should be worded as it is, either tossed out of court for lack of evidence or bound over for trial. But not a guilty verdict and appeal. That makes it sound like other courts where the verdict is bieng challenged on technical grounds, not that the real jury trial is taking place for the first time.

I disagree. The North Carolina bench trial setting is very thorough and used for all misdemeanors in NC. If defendants do not agree they can appeal the case. The problem is that the media and public continue to think an appealed guilty charge is guilty but it is a trial de novo instead.

 

[Nightman]

I disagree. The North Carolina bench trial setting is very thorough and used for all misdemeanors in NC. If defendants do not agree they can appeal the case. The problem is that the media and public continue to think an appealed guilty charge is guilty but it is a trial de novo instead.

That is exactly what I said.

It shouldn't be called a guilty verdict. It should be "bound over for trial" or something like an arraignment, which it is. It is more of an arbitration to keep the courts from becoming clogged with minor and frivolous cases.

 

[Mountaineerfan]

That is exactly what I said.

It shouldn't be called a guilty verdict. It should be "bound over for trial" or something like an arraignment, which it is. It is more of an arbitration to keep the courts from becoming clogged with minor and frivolous cases.

It is a guilty verdict though. You can say they are wrong but it works for them and there are advantages for both the State and the defendants to keep it that way.

 

[tyke1doe]

After three pages of retrying Hardy's case, the reporter that won't do his own homework says he won't retry Hardy's case.

Color me unimpressed.

I ask you one specific question, and you can't answer it. You're just yapping to be yapping now

 

[tyke1doe]

This whole post is so wrong in so many ways. Tyke covered it but what you are saying is basically false. I'll make it short. Yes, people settle civil trials. Happens all time. They do it so the facts aren't dragged out again or because they will get nailed for millions. Attorney's fees are hardly a matter with these athletes and its not up to the Defendant to chose to settle and not spend those fees. She could have said screw you and gone forward but there is a massive chance she got the cash she wanted. But that has ZERO to do with the criminal trial or what you are implying is an argument from anyone. The prosecutor didn't drop the case and ruin his law career because of a payoff he helped orchestrate. He dropped it because she got money, left and he had no witness to put on the stand to make the case more personal. Nothing that has been said implies anyone with the DA was in on the payoff.

A classic example of a strawman.

 

[Nightman]

It is a guilty verdict though. You can say they are wrong but it works for them and there are advantages for both the State and the defendants to keep it that way.

It isn't a real trial. It occurs too quickly and has to be done in one day. That isn't justice. It is just the first step.

It is has no meaning the moment it is appealed. It is completely vacated, as if it never happened.

The NFL and the media have intentionally misrepresented this crucial distinction.

 

[tyke1doe]

The DA did state that the witness was paid off, but that doesn't make it a fact. He cites not being able to locate the witness nor get information from her attorney so how does he know she reached a civil agreement for sure? If he had proof of that along with evidence he could have proceeded to prosecute Hardy, but the truth is he didn't have enough evidence in either. One more note in a trial, prosecutors routinely lable defendants before convictions ie " The defendant ruthlessly carried out this crime with no remorse" yet that his hardly a fact until proven, all it really is is his opinion and until proven that is what it remains. So quotes from a DA that isn't backed with the proof of a payoff is no more valid than anyone elses opinion in my eyes.

Please stop. Not being able to find her and paying her are two separate actions.

Stop speculating. Please show me a quote where the DA says he "thinks" she was paid? If you do, I'll gladly accept your fact. But as of now, you're just offering speculation.

I provided two links from news articles, one from the Charlotte Observer which states the DA told a judge the victim had reached an agreement/settlement with Hardy.

A DA isn't going to lie to a judge.

 

[Kaiser]

I ask you one specific question, and you can't answer it. You're just yapping to be yapping now

This took ten seconds to find -

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/greg-hardy-charges-dismissed/story?id=28832233

the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information"


The original document was posted on this forum but it would take more time to look up than the 600th rehash of this is worth.

 

[tyke1doe]

so prosecutors never lie. unless they're prosecuting someone you don't like them i'm sure they never do.

Prosecutors don't routinely lie to judges. They can lose their licenses if they do.

Absence any evidence to the contrary, you go with the norm not the abnormal. And in this case as in most cases, attorneys to routinely tell bold-face lies to judges.

Moreover, the reporter who cover this case states what the DA said to the judge. If the reporter was in the courtroom, then he/she heard the information firsthand and reported the information.

If the reporter was not in the courtroom, the reporter likely spoke with the prosecuting attorney and the judge afterward and asked what was said and delivered the account as told to him/her.

That's how these things are done.

 

[Kaiser]

A DA isn't going to lie to a judge.

A Journalist who has never heard of NC DA Mike Nifong.

Here, let me do your work for you again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong

 

[Idgit]

People seem to be of the opinion that the DV past he had is why teams are avoiding him like the plague but I think it has much more to do with what he did (or rather didn't do) with his 2nd chance the Cowboys gave him......being late or missing team meetings, his me first attitude rather than the team....not well liked by numerous players.....not really a player teams want in the lockerroom.

It's this. And the fact that he insists on dragging the sum total of his past controversy around behind him like a parachute.

 

[Nightman]

Please stop. Not being able to find her and paying her are two separate actions.

Stop speculating. Please show me a quote where the DA says he "thinks" she was paid? If you do, I'll gladly accept your fact. But as of now, you're just offering speculation.

I provided two links from news articles, one from the Charlotte Observer which states the DA told a judge the victim had reached an agreement/settlement with Hardy.

A DA isn't going to lie to a judge.

He was caught hiding exculpatory evidence during the bench trial and allowed Holder to perjure herself.

All the talk of a settlement is pure speculation and CYA. A civil suit was never even filed.

But you continue to beleive the one thing that makes him look bad and overlook everything that doesn't

 

[iceberg]

It's this. And the fact that he insists on dragging the sum total of his past controversy around behind him like a parachute.

didn't "his past" release photos at a bad time or did he?

 

[4lifecowboy]

Please stop. Not being able to find her and paying her are two separate actions.

Stop speculating. Please show me a quote where the DA says he "thinks" she was paid? If you do, I'll gladly accept your fact. But as of now, you're just offering speculation.

I provided two links from news articles, one from the Charlotte Observer which states the DA told a judge the victim had reached an agreement/settlement with Hardy.

A DA isn't going to lie to a judge.

You miss my point, show me the DA's proof that there was a payoff other then him making a statement of it. All he did was make a statement about what he believes, he never offer evidence that this transaction actually took place, the rest of the article talks about why he believes it, can't find the witness, her lawyer isn't providing information ect. So what he said to a judge he isn't under oath, and it wasn't a trial. That statement you are citing as proof is no more then the DA's opinion on what HE BELIEVES happened. I say so what if he said it, he hasn't proved it so it still remains his opinion. I don't care how the reporter quotes it in his article.

 

[Idgit]

Here's the problem - the accusation was already public thanks to the criminal charges. At that point, if I am innocent, I wouldn't pay the accuser who was trying to sully my name one dime. I would be in the media as much as possible to proclaim my innocence. If there were a civil trial, I would fight it every step of the way. My name and reputation have a worth far beyond 25K or $1M. Because, like it or not, once my career would end, my name and reputation do not. That endures.

It was a tougher decision than that, I bet. There was probably good reason to think that letting the court case drag out would cost him much more than $1MM in the form of opportunity cost on a next contract.

Then there's the idea that the NFL probably didn't relish the thought of another long, drawn-out DV case for a star player in the media at that time. Who knows what sort of pressure they applied, but even in the form of a suspension, they could make it very expensive for him or even potentially prohibitive enough that teams might not go through the hassle of signing him and waiting out the suspension.

Hardy's pretty much said from day one that he is innocent of laying hands on her, but guilty of bad judgement in a number of ways for being in the situation in the first place. The night in question, he wasn't the only person in the room. The marks are significant, but they're not the results of a beating (at least to me they look like marks from restraining or squeezing a person).

There's really just no way of knowing what sort of dysfunction happened in that situation. No party is credible. All parties have financial reasons to lie. All the stories conflict. At some point you just have to throw up your hands and give up trying to sort it out.

Either way, he's obviously done in Dallas, and probably done in the NFL. Whether that's because he hit a woman or because he handled a dumb situation like an idiot, it hardly matters that much anymore. He's now an object lesson in what not to do with a promising NFL career.

 

[Idgit]

didn't "his past" release photos at a bad time or did he?

Yeah, to be fair, it's not all him. Some of his damage was inflicted by others. But a lot of it was self-inflicted, too.

 

[tyke1doe]

This took ten seconds to find -

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/greg-hardy-charges-dismissed/story?id=28832233

the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information"


The original document was posted on this forum but it would take more time to look up than the 600th rehash of this is worth.

Sigh.

In a statement explaining the decision to dismiss charges, the district attorney's office said it has "reliable information" that Holder and Hardy have reached a civil settlement and that she has "intentionally made herself unavailable to the State."

You do understand that when the DA's office makes a statement, it's not to the JUDGE but to the press?
The phraseology that an attorney uses in making a statement to the press is not the same way he speaks to a judge.

Second, "reliable information" is the evidence upon which a DA would present to a judge to validate his claim that a settlement has been reached. What? You think a DA tells a judge that a settlement has been reached without "reliable information"?

Third, where does the link offer that the DA "thinks" a settlement has been made, which is what I asked you to produce? You give me a link that says he has "reliable information." Reliable information isn't merely what a person thinks.

Fourth, thank you for providing a link. You made the claim, I didn't. I'm not responsible for combing this gigantic thread to find your proof for you. Nevertheless, your link doesn't refute the fact that a settlement had been reached. Rather, it supports my argument.

Thank you.