Hardy Investigation Thread

[TheDude]

So answer the question then.
If I'm wrong, is a preliminary hearing the same as a trial by judge?
And if I am, do you mind quoting/citing a judge or lawyer who says that they're one in the same?

How is a this even a topic? Preliminary hearings dont render verdicts. Bench Trials do. My misdemeanor speeding ticket (in that same court) is proof. I didnt appeal. Verdict is record.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

This thread is tedious and another argument for letting legal experts do what the do best and NFL experts do what they do best.


Not factual. Try again.

Not factual indeed. Please go tell the victim it is not factual. And when you do, look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong and the case was wrong and Hardy is right.

 

[slomoxn]

What's wrong with being holier than thou when holiness means not beating women or tossing them on a bed of weapons?

I've been where he is and believe what he says, took years for me to be proven right but the victory was the sweetest reward. Most of you just seem to want to condemn h based in her story, discounting anything he has to say. Well... screw that; I know what a drug addled schizo "itch" can do when they don't get what they want. So I'll take the other side of this one, her history tells me all I need to know about her.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think some people - not all - hate Goodell because he dares to discipline bad behavior. Some want their football and don't want a "trivial" matter as morality to bother their entertainment.
I may not agree with how Goodell handles everything, but I'm glad he's establishing a standard and tone that the league isn't going to put up with the foolishness it previously closed collective blind eyes to. Good for Goodell.

 

[tyke1doe]

I thought Hardy was suspended for allegedly pushing her away 4 times?
What is this beating you speak of? Why did the investigator not find any proof of this beating when she had access to witnesses, medical reports, transcripts from legal proceedings, photos......

Are you really calling Hardy a woman beater when no evidence exist that says he beat anyone?

And you are not the only person who has been exposed to domestic violence in their lives. This isn't the place to even mention things I have seen.

Uh, where in my post that you quoted did I say Hardy beat this woman?

At the very least, do me a favor and use the correct quote to prove your point. Is that too much to ask?

 

[tyke1doe]

How is a this even a topic? Preliminary hearings dont render verdicts. Bench Trials do. My misdemeanor speeding ticket (in that same court) is proof. I didnt appeal. Verdict is record.

It becomes a topic when people can't admit they're wrong. Shrug.

 

[MeTed]

Not factual indeed. Please go tell the victim it is not factual. And when you do, look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong and the case was wrong and Hardy is right.

Blame the legal system. NMFP

 

[superonyx]

I think some people - not all - hate Goodell because he dares to discipline bad behavior. Some want their football and don't want a "trivial" matter as morality to bother their entertainment.
I may not agree with how Goodell handles everything, but I'm glad he's establishing a standard and tone that the league isn't going to put up with the foolishness it previously closed collective blind eyes to. Good for Goodell.

The reason people don't like Goodell is because he is going to punish every person who is accused of anything in an attempt to make up for how he completely blew it with the Ray Rice case.

If Joseph Randle would have had his girlfriend call the police on him in North Carolina he would be facing the same suspension Hardy is. In fact the league would have added a few games for her accusing him of flushing the pot in the toilet. He would now be in the NFL's substance abuse program.

 

[cowboyvic]

I think some people - not all - hate Goodell because he dares to discipline bad behavior. Some want their football and don't want a "trivial" matter as morality to bother their entertainment.
I may not agree with how Goodell handles everything, but I'm glad he's establishing a standard and tone that the league isn't going to put up with the foolishness it previously closed collective blind eyes to. Good for Goodell.

How is being pissed at this fool for taking 10 million dollars of cap space from my team when there was not cap hating on Goodell? i have good reason to hate on this fool. the cap hit and the Dez catch is all i need to see. plus him bias for the New York teams. that's another thing that pisses me off. he needs to be fired.

 

[tyke1doe]

I've been where he is and believe what he says, took years for me to be proven right but the victory was the sweetest reward. Most of you just seem to want to condemn h based in her story, discounting anything he has to say. Well... screw that; I know what a drug addled schizo "itch" can do when they don't get what they want. So I'll take the other side of this one, her history tells me all I need to know about her.

Not just based on her story, but based on the situation surrounding the story. Another 911 call. Guns on the bed. Photos showing marks on her throat. Paying off the girlfriend to make the case go away.

Did you do any of these things?

Look, I can understand your point. But sometimes the way you carry yourself and the circumstances you find yourself in paint your character. Maybe you are innocent. But maybe your lack of judgment makes you a candidate for second guessing.

Be that as it may, I don't think this issue has anything to do with being holier than thou. And if one is equating keep your hands off women as being "holier than thou" then many more of us need to practice holiness.

 

[Kaiser]

Not factual indeed. Please go tell the victim it is not factual. And when you do, look her in the eyes and tell her she is wrong and the case was wrong and Hardy is right.

If I saw the "victim" of Greg Hardy I would ask her why she should be believed when:

A) her bench trial testimony completely contracts his sworn police statement the night of the event

B) the forensic evidence completely contradicts her sworn police statement

C) she admits she was on coke at the time of the incident

D) she had to be physically restrained from attacking Hardy's car a few days prior by a security guard.


All the "facts" are on Hardy's side, which is why the DA dropped the case without even attempting a jury trial. There is only one thing anyone can point to as the girl being a "victim" and its the claims the girl made that are completely contradictory, made while on drugs and made when she had a huge financial motive to make them.

 

[tyke1doe]

The reason people don't like Goodell is because he is going to punish every person who is accused of anything in an attempt to make up for how he completely blew it with the Ray Rice case.

Many disliked him before the Ray Rice case.

 

[cowboyvic]

I think some people - not all - hate Goodell because he dares to discipline bad behavior. Some want their football and don't want a "trivial" matter as morality to bother their entertainment.
I may not agree with how Goodell handles everything, but I'm glad he's establishing a standard and tone that the league isn't going to put up with the foolishness it previously closed collective blind eyes to. Good for Goodell.

Give me a break. the guy exposed himself when he gave Ray Rice only 2 games for knocking his wife cold. then after all the outrage from women's groups, and a lot of other people. he went overboard the other way. 27 games of not playing for Hardy for a mestamena domestic violence charge. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

 

[tyke1doe]

How is being pissed at this fool for taking 10 million dollars of cap space from my team when there was not cap hating on Goodell? i have good reason to hate on this fool. the cap hit and the Dez catch is all i need to see. plus him bias for the New York teams. that's another thing that pisses me off. he needs to be fired.

Guilty much?
I said SOME people hate Goodell because ..., not ALL people.
If your reason for hating Goodell doesn't have anything to do with his "get tough on bad conduct" policy, then, obviously, you're not who I'm talking about.

 

[Stash]

Not just based on her story, but based on the situation surrounding the story. Another 911 call. Guns on the bed. Photos showing marks on her throat. Paying off the girlfriend to make the case go away.

Did you do any of these things?

Look, I can understand your point. But sometimes the way you carry yourself and the circumstances you find yourself in paint your character. Maybe you are innocent. But maybe your lack of judgment makes you a candidate for second guessing.

Be that as it may, I don't think this issue has anything to do with being holier than thou. And if one is equating keep your hands off women as being "holier than thou" then many more of us need to practice holiness.

I can see you're passionate about this subject and wanted to know your opinion on a specific facet of the case.

What is your opinion of Nicole Holder's quote before she entered Hardy's apartment of:

“I am going to get Greg to pay my rent tonight.”

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

What I find interesting in the Brady case, is that league considered Spygate in rendering its decision in Deflategate.

Yet, I've read in this forum many Cowboys fans talk about the law and how the law/legal standards should govern what the league does with respect to Hardy.

Well, if that was the case, then Brady shouldn't have been suspended and the Patriots shouldn't have gotten fined or a draft pick taken away - a penalty which was based in large part based on the Patriots' history of cheating.

In a legal case (I'm working from memory so resident lawyers please check me), prior arrests or convictions aren't admissible in a case involving a particular charge. So if the league had applied a legal standard - like so many Cowboys fans argued should be done for Hardy - then the Patriots' past conduct should not have factored into their current punishment.

Yet, I don't hear too many fans on this forum complaining that the league shouldn't have taken into account the Patriots' past transgressions.

Funny how that works.

Hardy was suspended without being charged for anything. Brady getting suspended for "evidence" that he cheated is perfectly fair. Did you hear Ted Wells talking yesterday? He made it clear that the "EVIDENCE" supported the fact that Brady cheated.

 

[tyke1doe]

Give me a break. the guy exposed himself when he gave Ray Rice only 2 games for knocking his wife cold. then after all the outrage from women's groups, and a lot of other people. he went overboard the other way. 27 games of not playing for Hardy for a mestamena domestic violence charge. YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!

And he gave him two games because that was the length of suspension for first time offenses. After the backlash, he tried to amend it. But then the union and the courts stepped in and told him his punishment fell outside of the established guidelines, which why there's hope for those who think Hardy should only serve a two-game suspension.

Goodell was in a damned if I do, damned if I don't position.

 

[superonyx]

Uh, where in my post that you quoted did I say Hardy beat this woman?

At the very least, do me a favor and use the correct quote to prove your point. Is that too much to ask?

It sounds like you cant even stick to a point.

From you:
What's wrong with being holier than thou when holiness means not beating women or tossing them on a bed of weapons

You have now spoke of Hardy beating a woman many times in this thread.
Is is too much to ask for you to explain the evidence you have that shows how he beat his ex girlfriend.
The NFL did an investigation that says Hardy pushed her a few times. It mentions how he is bigger than she is so it must have really scared her.
Is it really so difficult for you to understand why people may feel that a player doesn't deserve this level of punishment when the most they could conclude was that he pushed her?

 

[tyke1doe]

I can see you're passionate about this subject and wanted to know your opinion on a specific facet of the case.

What is your opinion of Nicole Holder's quote before she entered Hardy's apartment of:

“I am going to get Greg to pay my rent tonight.”

Who offered that quote? Hardy? The police? Holder?
Who recorded it?

 

[slick325]

Just for clarity on the Hardy matter, I feel this needs to be detailed thoroughly AGAIN.....

In North Carolina, misdemeanors are first tried before a judge in district court. If the defendant is acquitted, that’s the end of the case. If convicted, the defendant may appeal to superior court for a trial de novo, this time with a jury. The state saves considerable money and time in prosecuting misdemeanor cases because the district court trial is without a jury or court reporter and most defendants accept the verdict there, while the constitutional right to a jury is preserved by the option of carrying the case to superior court.

A Trial de novo means new, so the concept is a new trial. It’s still an appeal, though, but it doesn't limit how new the new trial is to be conducted.

The most commonly stated explanation of appeal to superior court for a trial de novo is that “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507 (1970). Or, put another way, “The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” Id. The appeal to superior court, unlike an appeal to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, is not an appeal on the record. It is not an appeal based on error in the district court; it is an appeal of right. The appeal is available even if the defendant pled guilty in district court. “It is a new trial as a matter of absolute right from the beginning to the end. It totally disregards the plea, trial, verdict, and judgment of the District Court.” State v. Brooks, 287 N.C. 392, 405 (1975).

The United States Supreme Court has characterized the verdict in the lower court in a trial de novo system as “no more than an offer in settlement” of the state’s case. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 119 (1972). The defendant is free to either accept the offer or appeal and seek the decision of a jury in superior court. As the North Carolina Supreme Court has said:

"The purpose of our de novo procedure is to provide all criminal defendants charged with misdemeanor violations the right to a ‘speedy trial’ in the District Court and to offer them an opportunity to learn about the State’s case without revealing their own. In the latter sense, this procedure can be viewed as a method of ‘free’ criminal discovery."

Brooks, 287 N.C. at 406.

Because the appeal is a trial de novo and the slate is wiped clean of the district court proceedings, the superior court may impose a harsher sentence than the defendant received below. Colten v. Kentucky, supra; State v. Sparrow, supra. The defendant may not be questioned about having pled guilty in district court. State v. Overby, 4 N.C. App. 280 (1969). Nor may the defendant be asked about failing to testify in district court. State v. Ferrell, 75 N.C. App. 156 (1985). On the other hand, the state is no longer bound by a plea bargain which allowed the defendant to plead to a lesser charge in district court; it may proceed on the original charge in superior court. State v. Fox, 34 N.C. App. 576 (1977).

In other words, Hardy has no conviction on his record and as discussed previously he is in the process of having the arrest expunged from his record as well. If one were to conduct a background check on Mr. Hardy this matter would not even exist.

Further, the Prosecution had every right to pursue the charges without the alleged victim. As stated in the Charlotte Observer:

"Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray (District Attorney Andrew Murray), though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But Murray said prosecutors only “recently” had compared what Holder told police the night of the alleged assault with her testimony at Hardy’s first trial.

That’s because prosecutors didn’t have a trial transcript. Hardy’s defense team did – attorney Chris Fialko hired a court reporter at Hardy’s trial in District Court where transcripts are not normally prepared. According to court records, Fialko also fought the prosecution’s request for a copy of the transcript in the weeks leading up to Hardy’s trial this week.

Murray’s office would not elaborate on what prosecutors found when they compared Holder’s statements, but the district attorney said in court that with Holder unavailable, they “did not have sufficient legal basis” to enter her statements to police as evidence.

Several legal experts around town speculated that prosecutors spotted inconsistencies that prevented them from building their case around Holder’s former accounts. To enter an unavailable witness’s prior testimony and statements as evidence, prosecutors have “to vouch” for its truthfulness, said Charlotte defense attorney George Laughrun.

“If they’re seeing something in the evidence that gives them pause, they may have been placed in a ethical dilemma where they don’t want to vouch for their witness.”

Apologies for the length of the post but the legal minutiae needs to be parsed out. There are a number of false statements on this board and every other medium being presented as legal truth or fact. I am merely trying to offer clarity. This case is more gray than black and white as a previous poster stated. The fact that some fall on one side of guilt or innocence and other people fall on the opposite side is totally understandable.