NFL files motion for Hardy Evidence

[LatinMind]

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- The NFL filed a motion on Friday seeking all evidence from Greg Hardy's first trial in which he was found guilty by a Mecklenburg County judge of assaulting and threatening to kill ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder.

That July 15 verdict was set aside when the Pro Bowl defensive end asked for an appeal in front of the jury, as is allowed under North Carolina law. The district attorney's office dropped all the charges on Monday, saying Holder would not cooperate and there was evidence she reached a financial settlement with Hardy.



[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Patrick SemanskyThe NFL is seeking all evidence from Greg Hardy's first trial in which he was found guilty of assaulting and threatening to kill ex-girlfriend Nicole Holder.


The NFL then announced it would conduct its own investigation into whether Hardy violated the league's new personal conduct code. The league said Hardy would remain on the commissioner's exempt list until that investigation.

Hardy would be subject to a minimum six-game suspension if he is found to have violated the policy.

The league's investigation is being conducted by Lisa Friel, a New York City prosecutor who was hired by the NFL in September to help handle cases involving domestic violence and sexual assault.

To further that investigation, the league is seeking all the material filed in connection with the July 15 trial. The motion the NFL filed on Friday argued that since the case against Hardy is over, there is no reason not to make the evidence public. A league spokesman said there has not yet been a response to the motion. Hardy's attorney, Chris Fialko, did not immediately return messages. Fialko commissioned the only transcript of the first trial.

The NFL likely is interested in pictures of Holder from the night of Hardy's May 13 arrest, among other evidence. Those pictures were not made available to reporters during the first trial.

The Panthers are not expected to re-sign Hardy, who was paid $13.1 million by the team in 2014 despite playing in only one game. Hardy was placed on the inactive list before the second game and then on the commissioner's exempt list before the third.

Hardy is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on March 10.

Neither Hardy nor his attorney spoke to reporters after Monday's court appearance in which the charges were dropped.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

So he paid off the ex & the courts are done with that. Hope she got a boatload from him.

It sounds like he has NFL trouble coming though. They do such a masterful job of handling assaults.

 

[Hoofbite]

There was no doubt they would.

They aren't stupid. They know exactly what happened and everyone else should, too.

He was found guilty and paid his way out of it. It would be surprising if he didn't get suspended.

 

[Nightman]

It looks like the NFL has a vendetta. If they say go on the Commissioner's List until the Courts decide then stick with that. He was forced to miss a playoff season with his team and the charges were dropped. It is beyond the League's scope to play judge and jury.

If they were going to hold their own investigation no matter what, then they should have done it last year before they made him miss 16 games. The transcripts they are asking for are from last summer, why wait 6 months to ask for them, especially after they never even asked for the Ray Rice tape??

 

[CashMan]

It looks like the NFL has a vendetta. If they say go on the Commissioner's List until the Courts decide then stick with that. He was forced to miss a playoff season with his team and the charges were dropped. It is beyond the League's scope to play judge and jury.

If they were going to hold their own investigation no matter what, then they should have done it last year before they made him miss 16 games. The transcripts they are asking for are from last summer, why wait 6 months to ask for them, especially after they never even asked for the Ray Rice tape??

So, since his ex dropped charges, because she was paid off, makes it ok?

 

[YosemiteSam]

It looks like the NFL has a vendetta. If they say go on the Commissioner's List until the Courts decide then stick with that. He was forced to miss a playoff season with his team and the charges were dropped. It is beyond the League's scope to play judge and jury.

If they were going to hold their own investigation no matter what, then they should have done it last year before they made him miss 16 games. The transcripts they are asking for are from last summer, why wait 6 months to ask for them, especially after they never even asked for the Ray Rice tape??

Vendetta? I think not. This is about doing what is right for the NFL. It has nothing to do with a vendetta. They let the criminal justice system do it's job and it did. Hardy bought his way out of his punishment from the law, but he won't do that from the NFL because he can't pay them off.

Hardy was convicted from the evidence collected. The NFL wants to see the evidence before they issue their punishment to ensure they are doing the right thing. They didn't act before the law because that would have been incredibly stupid to make decisions without first reviewing evidence and a proper investigation.

 

[YosemiteSam]

So, since his ex dropped charges, because she was paid off, makes it ok?

Nope, which is why the NFL wants to see evidence. Hardy can't pay the NFL off to get out of his punishment.

 

[DanteEXT]

It looks like the NFL has a vendetta. If they say go on the Commissioner's List until the Courts decide then stick with that. He was forced to miss a playoff season with his team and the charges were dropped. It is beyond the League's scope to play judge and jury.

If they were going to hold their own investigation no matter what, then they should have done it last year before they made him miss 16 games. The transcripts they are asking for are from last summer, why wait 6 months to ask for them, especially after they never even asked for the Ray Rice tape??

Actually I think the league is well within their rights to "play judge and jury".

I am not a lawyer so I cannot say what the law says but the article written in a way that implies it's possible they could not request the evidence from the trial as there was an active case going. Again, not a lawyer ... just going by what the article seems to imply the way I read it. The fact that they never did in the Ray Rice case is exactly why they have to now. Can you imagine the backlash if they didn't, allowed Hardy to play after a short suspension and the evidence came out later that made Ray Rice punch look like a little finger poke?

 

[Rogah]

It looks like the NFL has a vendetta. If they say go on the Commissioner's List until the Courts decide then stick with that. He was forced to miss a playoff season with his team and the charges were dropped. It is beyond the League's scope to play judge and jury.

If they were going to hold their own investigation no matter what, then they should have done it last year before they made him miss 16 games. The transcripts they are asking for are from last summer, why wait 6 months to ask for them, especially after they never even asked for the Ray Rice tape??

The NFL is terrified of another Ray Rice situation. Ray Rice got a pre-trial intervention program and will get all charges against him dropped if he completes it and stays out of trouble.

According to your logic, the NFL had no right to punish him, and yet this whole public/media outrage from September came from the fact that they didn't punish him *enough*. That is a mistake the league will not duplicate.

It seems they're finally doing what I said they should have done last summer: throw the book at these guys and make the NFLPA play the part of villain by defending men who beat up women. Right now the NFL is investigating, and making damn sure everyone knows they're investigating.

 

[Nightman]

Vendetta? I think not. This is about doing what is right for the NFL. It has nothing to do with a vendetta. They let the criminal justice system do it's job and it did. Hardy bought his way out of his punishment from the law, but he won't do that from the NFL because he can't pay them off.

Hardy was convicted from the evidence collected. The NFL wants to see the evidence before they issue their punishment to ensure they are doing the right thing. They didn't act before the law because that would have been incredibly stupid to make decisions without first reviewing evidence and a proper investigation.

Hardy wasn't convicted of anything. That first bench trial was vacated, which is the same as never happening. If the State of NC can't produce the evidence to convict Hardy, the NFL has no business trying. Any settlement of the civil case, if there was one, has no bearing on the criminal matter. Did it ever occur to you that she isn't testifying because she was never telling the truth. If he was going to buy her off it would have been before the bench trial.

The NFL settled the concussion cases, does that mean they are guilty of everything they were charged with or did they make a business decision to limit their financial liability to a certain amount vs a potential landmark judgement and unlimited lawyer fees.

Just because they messed up the Ray Rice and APeterson cases that doesn't mean they have to play detectives in every other case. I don't think they should act without a conviction. They already made him miss a year and now they want more just to cover their butts with PC crowd.

 

[DanteEXT]

Hardy wasn't convicted of anything. That first bench trial was vacated, which is the same as never happening. If the State of NC can't produce the evidence to convict Hardy, the NFL has no business trying. Any settlement of the civil case, if there was one, has no bearing on the criminal matter. Did it ever occur to you that she isn't testifying because she was never telling the truth. If he was going to buy her off it would have been before the bench trial.

The NFL settled the concussion cases, does that mean they are guilty of everything they were charged with or did they make a business decision to limit their financial liability to a certain amount vs a potential landmark judgement and unlimited lawyer fees.

Just because they messed up the Ray Rice and APeterson cases that doesn't mean they have to play detectives in every other case. I don't think they should act without a conviction. They already made him miss a year and now they want more just to cover their butts with PC crowd.

So are you saying the NFL should not have suspended Rice then? Just trying to get an understanding of what you are saying.

 

[Rogah]

So are you saying the NFL should not have suspended Rice then? Just trying to get an understanding of what you are saying.

That's the logical interpretation of his statement.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

So, since his ex dropped charges, because she was paid off, makes it ok?

I don't think he's saying that, I believe he's saying is NFL should've handled this much better. Maybe you're right and he didn't meant that at all.

Why wait until after the second trial is dropped to ask for documentation from the first trial? I have no problem with them punishing him for what he did. But I believe the punished should've came down after the judgement of the first trial.

 

[Nightman]

So are you saying the NFL should not have suspended Rice then? Just trying to get an understanding of what you are saying.

They suspended him 2 games after he accepted a plea deal into a diversion program, which was understandable. It probably should have been 4 games, but then they completely over-reacted with the indefinite suspension and his release after the second video went public.

Peterson also took a plea deal so a suspension was warranted, but not 6 games IMO since it was a misdemeanor.

If they want to amend the discipline system and punishments that is OK, but they need to work with NFLPA. They also have to move forward and not try to apply made-up punishments retroactively. But I do think there needs to be some kind of conviction or plea deal with the Courts. Accusations alone aren't enough and a player shouldn't be forced to provide evidence against himself. Leave the judgements to us fans and the media.

 

[Nightman]

I don't think he's saying that, I believe he's saying is NFL should've handled this much better. Maybe you're right and he didn't meant that at all.

Why wait until after the second trial is dropped to ask for documentation from the first trial? I have no problem with them punishing him for what he did. But I believe the punished should've came down after the judgement of the first trial.

That is my biggest problem. The NFL is making it up as it goes along. If they intended to do their own investigation and didn't care how the Courts ruled, then they should have handled it last summer. They got a guilty verdict in the bench trial, but NC affords a jury trial appeal that looks a bit more extensive than just a judge hearing both sides. They made him miss the whole season because they were waiting for the Courts. Now that the Courts have acted they are saying that is insufficient.

They are doing the same thing to Peterson. He plead to a misdemeanor after missing 9 games and then had to miss 6 more games as a suspension. Getting paid doesn't make up for missing 9 games and not being with the team. These players would have never agreed to go on the commisioner's exempt list if they the League wouldn't give them time served with a fine.

 

[CashMan]

I don't think he's saying that, I believe he's saying is NFL should've handled this much better. Maybe you're right and he didn't meant that at all.

Why wait until after the second trial is dropped to ask for documentation from the first trial? I have no problem with them punishing him for what he did. But I believe the punished should've came down after the judgement of the first trial.

I think what he was saying was, Dallas should sign him, which would be disgusting, just like Brent was let back on the team.

I've seen many a posts saying Dallas should sign him. Which I think is ridiculous.

 

[Nightman]

I think what he was saying was, Dallas should sign him, which would be disgusting, just like Brent was let back on the team.

I've seen many a posts saying Dallas should sign him. Which I think is ridiculous.

I would sign him in a heartbeat. Once you go down the road of deciding who should be allowed to play or not, you have to make a ton of compromises with yourself. The League has rules and if they allowed to play and can help the team, I'll take them.

 

[CashMan]

I would sign him in a heartbeat. Once you go down the road of deciding who should be allowed to play or not, you have to make a ton of compromises with yourself. The League has rules and if they allowed to play and can help the team, I'll take them.

Guy who gets a ticket for weed, don't care. Guy who beats women, do not want anything to do with him.

 

[JDSmith]

I think what he was saying was, Dallas should sign him, which would be disgusting, just like Brent was let back on the team.

I've seen many a posts saying Dallas should sign him. Which I think is ridiculous.

If there were pictures, and she was abused or struck, that's one thing. The only transcripts available to date include his attorney cross examining her and saying that since she was assaulted she should have marks, but she has none. She replied that she had broken a toe nail. Maybe there was more, maybe not, but unless the pictures prove she was assaulted the Cowboys have no reason to avoid signing the guy, and the league has no reason to punish him. There is nothing disgusting or ridiculous about signing him unless he actually DID something wrong.

 

[CashMan]

If there were pictures, and she was abused or struck, that's one thing. The only transcripts available to date include his attorney cross examining her and saying that since she was assaulted she should have marks, but she has none. She replied that she had broken a toe nail. Maybe there was more, maybe not, but unless the pictures prove she was assaulted the Cowboys have no reason to avoid signing the guy, and the league has no reason to punish him. There is nothing disgusting or ridiculous about signing him unless he actually DID something wrong.

Perhaps you should ask robin givens about marks and bruises.