silverbear
Semi-Official Loose Cannon
- Messages
- 24,195
- Reaction score
- 25
For all the woofing by Skins fans that the recent developments in regards to the putz who was the lead prosecutor on the case are somehow a good omen for Sean Taylor, nobody has laid out the facts (few as they are) as we know them, nobody has taken a good old-fashioned common sense look at things... I propose to try to do so now...
For openers, the notion that what Grieco did to promote himself as a DJ on that website constitutes prosecutorial misconduct is completely ridiculous... yeah, he obviously tried to cash in on his five minutes of fame (which has boomeranged on him, big time, and probably destroyed his career as a prosecutor), but the truth is, nothing about that stupidity had ANY effect on the case, and as such, is not prosecutorial misconduct... tacky and kind of pathetic, yes; prosecutorial misconduct, no...
It really doesn't matter WHY he's pursuing these charges, it wouldn't even matter if he's just a card-carrying bigot who hates black people who have achieved a measure of fame (to use an extreme hypothetical example, I'm not saying that's the case here)... what matters is whether the charges have merit or not... the truth is, the defense would probably never have actually filed a motion to dismiss over this, because they knew they would have been laughed out of court... and given that this is not the first motion to dismiss they have presented, they risked annoying the presiding judge by doing so... nope, Grieco's boss is exactly right, this was a transparent attempt to embarrass the prosecution, and to taint the potential jury pool by getting some headlines... nothing more...
Now, the last time they made a motion to dismiss might well have been considered prosecutorial misconduct, and grounds for dismissal of the charges, because they claimed that the prosecution concealed evidence of past (and it was insinuated, present) felonious behavior on the part of the accusers... that's just not allowed, as we all learned in "My Cousin Vinny", the prosecution is not allowed to conceal such evidence, to "surprise" the defense that way... but apparently, the judge looked at the facts as both sides presented them, and decided that this was an innocent mistake... not having access to the evidence presented, I have no idea if this was a fair and just ruling or not, but it was the ruling...
So, all this fuss about prosecutorial misconduct is nonsense, it simply doesn't exist... but throwing mud against the wall worked for the defense this time, enough of it stuck that they got rid of the prosecutor...
Which brings us to the next point, the oft-stated contention by the Skins fans who have flocked in here, that the prosecution's case is "weak", because of the unreliable nature of the accusers... well, the only arguments we've heard on that subject have come from defense counsel, who naturally have a compelling reason to try to slant the facts to favor their client, and who have clearly demonstrated an affinity for getting down and dirty... we haven't heard the first word from the prosecution about their case, unlike the defense they're not trying their case in the media... but you Skins fans seem to have suspended the normal and healthy skepticism of most adults, and embrace the defense claims without question... you are all firmly convinced that these guys are all felons, in spite of the fact that none of you can name one of the accusers, or cite their criminal records...
You keep telling us "innocent until proven guilty", but you've gone ahead and prejudged this case your own selves...
Never mind that Taylor's lawyer has careful played his little lawyer-esque semantic games, carefully characterizing the accusers as either "in jail, going to jail, or SHOULD BE in jail" (emphasis added by your friendly local Bear)... if you take a second to consider what he's really saying there, he's admitting that for at least some of these accusers, there is NO criminal record whatsoever... he's just impugning their integrity with contemptible innuendo, a guilt by association ploy... he further tosses out vague accusations that one or more of the accusers was found in possession of an ATV that had been reported stolen... note that he very carefully did NOT say that they were arrested for that, or charged with any crime for that... you can believe that if they HAD been arrested, he would have loudly trumpeted that fact... but he didn't...
IOW, despite defense counsel's determined effort to trash the witnesses against his client, it appears they're not NEARLY as "criminal" as he's trying to make them out to be... his semantic tapdancing is really just base dishonesty...
Now, let's look at the state's case in another way-- Sean Taylor is a celebrity, and we have all seen that securing a conviction against a celebrity is somewhat more difficult that it would be against one of us "normal" folk... further, such a prosecution focuses a PR spotlight on the prosecutors, making failure a crippling blow to the State's Attorney's office, and their credibility in future prosecutions... if they go after Sean and lose, they'll be laughingstocks (as Grieco has already made himself the butt of comedians' jokes across the country these next few days and weeks)...
I can easily believe that a prosecutor would get a little more jacked up at the thought of "getting" a celebrity, because that would bring positive attention to him, that's just human nature... but the flip side is also true... it's just not LOGICAL that a prosecutor would proceed with a case against a Sean Taylor, unless he felt confident that he had a pretty good case... it would be professional suicide to try, and lose...
You Skins fans ASSUME that all the prosecutor has is those shady accusers, but none of you really knows what the prosecution has... you go on to point out that Sean turned down the plea bargain offer, and go on from there to suggest that offering a plea bargain in the first place is a sign of the weakness of the prosecution's case...
But again, applied COMMON SENSE should tell you that prosecutors often offer plea bargains, for a variety of reasons-- to relieve the burden on an overcrowded court, for example... and in this particular case, Florida's draconian laws concerning crimes committed with a gun might be swaying the State's Attorney to offer a reduced plea; perhaps they feel that 9 years in jail is extreme for a guy who really just went after some guys who he was convinced had ripped off his ATVs, and in the final analysis, no shots were fired...that's not right, but it's human, and it's understandable... so by offering a lesser charge, they can secure a conviction for the crime that did occur (assuming it did here strictly for the purposes of argument, don't jump down my throat), without having to impose WAY too strict a penalty for the crime committed...
I mean, let's face it, NINE YEARS, for pointing a gun at some people?? That's pretty ridiculous... so for a prosecutor with a conscience (if these boys have one among them), offering a plea bargain would be an eminently acceptable solution to this case...
Another point y'all are ignoring is that it is widely being reported that the only reason Sean turned down the plea bargain offer is because the state refused to lower the charge to a misdemeanor... they insisted on him pleading to a felony... if their case was REALLY that weak, why wouldn't they be happy to take whatever they could get?? More to the point, if Sean really IS innocent, why would he give any thought at all to pleading guilty to even a misdemeanor?? Such a plea would make businessmen more reluctant to hire Sean for promotional purposes, and less likely to offer him the kinds of partnerships in small businesses that come the way of most pro athletes... to cite one example of this, I have personal knowledge that Patrick Ramsey is an investor and spokesperson for the Glory Days chain of sports bars/restaurants... there won't be many businessmen offering Taylor those kinds of opportunities if he pleads to anything... IOW, such a plea would hurt his ability to earn off-the-field money down the road...
Now, IF all the state has is the testimony of the accusers, and IF those accusers can be shown to be a collection of thugs and criminals, then the state will take a rightfully earned beating... and they'll see their reputation in the legal community take an even worse beating... but don't you folks think THEY know that?? This would be a compelling reason for them proceed with great caution...
No, folks, common sense tells me that you guys are trying desperately to spin all of the events of the last few days and weeks as a positive for Taylor, but the plain and simple truth is, a little common sense would tell you that it's no such thing, and a little bit of honesty would lead you to admit that you don't really know the facts at all...
I'm no lawyer, I've never even played one on TV, and I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have all the facts... but a little applied common sense leads me to the conclusions I've laid out above... if any of y'all think you can offer a rational, logical argument against the arguments I've laid out here, take your best shot...
For openers, the notion that what Grieco did to promote himself as a DJ on that website constitutes prosecutorial misconduct is completely ridiculous... yeah, he obviously tried to cash in on his five minutes of fame (which has boomeranged on him, big time, and probably destroyed his career as a prosecutor), but the truth is, nothing about that stupidity had ANY effect on the case, and as such, is not prosecutorial misconduct... tacky and kind of pathetic, yes; prosecutorial misconduct, no...
It really doesn't matter WHY he's pursuing these charges, it wouldn't even matter if he's just a card-carrying bigot who hates black people who have achieved a measure of fame (to use an extreme hypothetical example, I'm not saying that's the case here)... what matters is whether the charges have merit or not... the truth is, the defense would probably never have actually filed a motion to dismiss over this, because they knew they would have been laughed out of court... and given that this is not the first motion to dismiss they have presented, they risked annoying the presiding judge by doing so... nope, Grieco's boss is exactly right, this was a transparent attempt to embarrass the prosecution, and to taint the potential jury pool by getting some headlines... nothing more...
Now, the last time they made a motion to dismiss might well have been considered prosecutorial misconduct, and grounds for dismissal of the charges, because they claimed that the prosecution concealed evidence of past (and it was insinuated, present) felonious behavior on the part of the accusers... that's just not allowed, as we all learned in "My Cousin Vinny", the prosecution is not allowed to conceal such evidence, to "surprise" the defense that way... but apparently, the judge looked at the facts as both sides presented them, and decided that this was an innocent mistake... not having access to the evidence presented, I have no idea if this was a fair and just ruling or not, but it was the ruling...
So, all this fuss about prosecutorial misconduct is nonsense, it simply doesn't exist... but throwing mud against the wall worked for the defense this time, enough of it stuck that they got rid of the prosecutor...
Which brings us to the next point, the oft-stated contention by the Skins fans who have flocked in here, that the prosecution's case is "weak", because of the unreliable nature of the accusers... well, the only arguments we've heard on that subject have come from defense counsel, who naturally have a compelling reason to try to slant the facts to favor their client, and who have clearly demonstrated an affinity for getting down and dirty... we haven't heard the first word from the prosecution about their case, unlike the defense they're not trying their case in the media... but you Skins fans seem to have suspended the normal and healthy skepticism of most adults, and embrace the defense claims without question... you are all firmly convinced that these guys are all felons, in spite of the fact that none of you can name one of the accusers, or cite their criminal records...
You keep telling us "innocent until proven guilty", but you've gone ahead and prejudged this case your own selves...
Never mind that Taylor's lawyer has careful played his little lawyer-esque semantic games, carefully characterizing the accusers as either "in jail, going to jail, or SHOULD BE in jail" (emphasis added by your friendly local Bear)... if you take a second to consider what he's really saying there, he's admitting that for at least some of these accusers, there is NO criminal record whatsoever... he's just impugning their integrity with contemptible innuendo, a guilt by association ploy... he further tosses out vague accusations that one or more of the accusers was found in possession of an ATV that had been reported stolen... note that he very carefully did NOT say that they were arrested for that, or charged with any crime for that... you can believe that if they HAD been arrested, he would have loudly trumpeted that fact... but he didn't...
IOW, despite defense counsel's determined effort to trash the witnesses against his client, it appears they're not NEARLY as "criminal" as he's trying to make them out to be... his semantic tapdancing is really just base dishonesty...
Now, let's look at the state's case in another way-- Sean Taylor is a celebrity, and we have all seen that securing a conviction against a celebrity is somewhat more difficult that it would be against one of us "normal" folk... further, such a prosecution focuses a PR spotlight on the prosecutors, making failure a crippling blow to the State's Attorney's office, and their credibility in future prosecutions... if they go after Sean and lose, they'll be laughingstocks (as Grieco has already made himself the butt of comedians' jokes across the country these next few days and weeks)...
I can easily believe that a prosecutor would get a little more jacked up at the thought of "getting" a celebrity, because that would bring positive attention to him, that's just human nature... but the flip side is also true... it's just not LOGICAL that a prosecutor would proceed with a case against a Sean Taylor, unless he felt confident that he had a pretty good case... it would be professional suicide to try, and lose...
You Skins fans ASSUME that all the prosecutor has is those shady accusers, but none of you really knows what the prosecution has... you go on to point out that Sean turned down the plea bargain offer, and go on from there to suggest that offering a plea bargain in the first place is a sign of the weakness of the prosecution's case...
But again, applied COMMON SENSE should tell you that prosecutors often offer plea bargains, for a variety of reasons-- to relieve the burden on an overcrowded court, for example... and in this particular case, Florida's draconian laws concerning crimes committed with a gun might be swaying the State's Attorney to offer a reduced plea; perhaps they feel that 9 years in jail is extreme for a guy who really just went after some guys who he was convinced had ripped off his ATVs, and in the final analysis, no shots were fired...that's not right, but it's human, and it's understandable... so by offering a lesser charge, they can secure a conviction for the crime that did occur (assuming it did here strictly for the purposes of argument, don't jump down my throat), without having to impose WAY too strict a penalty for the crime committed...
I mean, let's face it, NINE YEARS, for pointing a gun at some people?? That's pretty ridiculous... so for a prosecutor with a conscience (if these boys have one among them), offering a plea bargain would be an eminently acceptable solution to this case...
Another point y'all are ignoring is that it is widely being reported that the only reason Sean turned down the plea bargain offer is because the state refused to lower the charge to a misdemeanor... they insisted on him pleading to a felony... if their case was REALLY that weak, why wouldn't they be happy to take whatever they could get?? More to the point, if Sean really IS innocent, why would he give any thought at all to pleading guilty to even a misdemeanor?? Such a plea would make businessmen more reluctant to hire Sean for promotional purposes, and less likely to offer him the kinds of partnerships in small businesses that come the way of most pro athletes... to cite one example of this, I have personal knowledge that Patrick Ramsey is an investor and spokesperson for the Glory Days chain of sports bars/restaurants... there won't be many businessmen offering Taylor those kinds of opportunities if he pleads to anything... IOW, such a plea would hurt his ability to earn off-the-field money down the road...
Now, IF all the state has is the testimony of the accusers, and IF those accusers can be shown to be a collection of thugs and criminals, then the state will take a rightfully earned beating... and they'll see their reputation in the legal community take an even worse beating... but don't you folks think THEY know that?? This would be a compelling reason for them proceed with great caution...
No, folks, common sense tells me that you guys are trying desperately to spin all of the events of the last few days and weeks as a positive for Taylor, but the plain and simple truth is, a little common sense would tell you that it's no such thing, and a little bit of honesty would lead you to admit that you don't really know the facts at all...
I'm no lawyer, I've never even played one on TV, and I'm honest enough to admit that I don't have all the facts... but a little applied common sense leads me to the conclusions I've laid out above... if any of y'all think you can offer a rational, logical argument against the arguments I've laid out here, take your best shot...
....