NFL files motion for Hardy Evidence

[Rogah]

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.

The one guy who actually saw and heard all the evidence and testimony found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[JDSmith]

The one guy who actually saw and heard all the evidence and testimony found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It was a woman, and it was a 'he said, she said' case.

I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy. I just think it's ridiculous for people to say it would be a disgrace to sign him when nobody here knows what happened. Once the information from the trial is known people will be in a better position to form an opinion, right now only snippets have been released.

 

[Nightman]

It was a woman, and it was a 'he said, she said' case.

I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy. I just think it's ridiculous for people to say it would be a disgrace to sign him when nobody here knows what happened. Once the information from the trial is known people will be in a better position to form an opinion, right now only snippets have been released.

The only information would come from Hardy's own people. He paid to have transcripts made because the State doesn't produce them for bench trials. The prosecutors didn't even have then from the bench trial. When Hardy's team finally relented and gave them copies, they found inconsistencies in her original statements and her testimony. The State could have entered her testimony from the bench trial into the jury trial but they would have to vouch for her truthfulness and the prosecutors weren't willing to do that. That is why they dropped the charges. Any talk of a civil settlement is just that, talk. Nothing has been verified.

I just don't think he can be punished for something that was dismissed. The NFL isn't above the law and the constitution. If they want to adopt stricter policies they have to be negotiated with the Players. Otherwise the whole thing comes tumbling down under the weight of collusion. The Draft, salary cap and drug punishments only exist because they are collectively bargained.

 

[CashMan]

The only information would come from Hardy's own people. He paid to have transcripts made because the State doesn't produce them for bench trials. The prosecutors didn't even have then from the bench trial. When Hardy's team finally relented and gave them copies, they found inconsistencies in her original statements and her testimony. The State could have entered her testimony from the bench trial into the jury trial but they would have to vouch for her truthfulness and the prosecutors weren't willing to do that. That is why they dropped the charges. Any talk of a civil settlement is just that, talk. Nothing has been verified.

I just don't think he can be punished for something that was dismissed. The NFL isn't above the law and the constitution. If they want to adopt stricter policies they have to be negotiated with the Players. Otherwise the whole thing comes tumbling down under the weight of collusion. The Draft, salary cap and drug punishments only exist because they are collectively bargained.

So here is my question to you. Why does the nfl suspend people for steroid use, and the government does nothing to those same people?

 

[Nightman]

So here is my question to you. Why does the nfl suspend people for steroid use, and the government does nothing to those same people?

PEDs are banned by the League and the drug policy was negotiated with the NFLPA after a lot of give and take.

An arrest is not needed after a failed test. It is a collectively bargained process.

The NFL is just winging it with these new cases. They didn't like the feedback from the way they handled the Ray Rice case and over-corrected by creating a new policy and trying to apply it retroactively. The whole commissioner's exempt list is a farce and none of it was bargained with the NFLPA.

 

[Rogah]

It was a woman, and it was a 'he said, she said' case.

OK, the woman who heard all the evidence found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know if he's guilty. I don't know if he's a good guy or a bad guy. I just think it's ridiculous for people to say it would be a disgrace to sign him when nobody here knows what happened. Once the information from the trial is known people will be in a better position to form an opinion, right now only snippets have been released.

We know that the one trial he had, he was found guilty. Yes it was overturned on appeal, but there is someone out there who knows a heck of a lot more about the law than any of us, and knows a heck of a lot more about this case than any of us, who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Nightman]

OK, the woman who heard all the evidence found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We know that the one trial he had, he was found guilty. Yes it was overturned on appeal, but there is someone out there who knows a heck of a lot more about the law than any of us, and knows a heck of a lot more about this case than any of us, who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It doesn't matter, it didn't happen according to the State of NC. They had to drop all charges and vacate any ruling from the District Court. There is a reason they allow for a full trial by jury after the bench trial.

 

[Rogah]

It doesn't matter, it didn't happen according to the State of NC. They had to drop all charges and vacate any ruling from the District Court. There is a reason they allow for a full trial by jury after the bench trial.

Last time I checked, the NFL was not the State of North Carolina, nor are they beholden to the same standards established in a criminal court of law.

They can act on the preponderance of evidence (which is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and they can use any information they get their hands on to make their decision (whereas a criminal court of law would require actual testimony from the victim and has all sorts or rules regarding evidence being presented).

*IF* the NFL gets hold of everything from the first trial, I find it very hard to believe they won't find him "guilty" by their standards, which require a lower burden of proof than the judge who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[jrumann59]

Last time I checked, the NFL was not the State of North Carolina, nor are they beholden to the same standards established in a criminal court of law.

They can act on the preponderance of evidence (which is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and they can use any information they get their hands on to make their decision (whereas a criminal court of law would require actual testimony from the victim and has all sorts or rules regarding evidence being presented).

*IF* the NFL gets hold of everything from the first trial, I find it very hard to believe they won't find him "guilty" by their standards, which require a lower burden of proof than the judge who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And judges do not use the bench to grind an axe, just saying, hence why NC has the trial by jury appeal it also another why a trial by jury is preferred by defense attorneys. Its easier to get reasonable doubt with 12 than it is with 1. If h is guilty, Ray Rice guilty then fine but if he is Duke lacrosse Guilty then I have an issue.

 

[sacase]

The nfl needs to tread very carefully. Many states have employment laws protecting employee information Especially when it doesn't have a direct impact on the NFL.

Specifically on this. Most courts do not keep evidence. Usually only transcripts are availible. I hope Hardy gets all the records sealed And prevents the NFL from getting anything.

 

[sacase]

Last time I checked, the NFL was not the State of North Carolina, nor are they beholden to the same standards established in a criminal court of law.

They can act on the preponderance of evidence (which is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt) and they can use any information they get their hands on to make their decision (whereas a criminal court of law would require actual testimony from the victim and has all sorts or rules regarding evidence being presented).

*IF* the NFL gets hold of everything from the first trial, I find it very hard to believe they won't find him "guilty" by their standards, which require a lower burden of proof than the judge who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your right they can act. They can also get sued For slander. You better have hard proof if you are going to accuse an employee of wrong doing in public.

The NFL has screwed up big time please the women and the white knights in the short term and cause themselves legal problems on the back end.all the while setting up players for extortion. only the
lawyers profit.

 

[adbutcher]

I betcha if Hardy played for the cheatriots a certain someone would have a different take.

 

[JDSmith]

OK, the woman who heard all the evidence found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We know that the one trial he had, he was found guilty. Yes it was overturned on appeal, but there is someone out there who knows a heck of a lot more about the law than any of us, and knows a heck of a lot more about this case than any of us, who found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

You have to understand that this took place in District Court. Although it was a real court, it is not designed to handle a typical trial. According to the article I read they usually handle cases in minutes there, it's a way of keeping the process moving. This ended up taking 9 hours (they worked late because they couldn't do a second day, cases were piling up), and the judge ruled he was guilty and sentenced him to a suspended sentence and probation, but the judge did that knowing it would be thrown out because you can't be convicted until you've been given a chance at a jury trial. In most trials you have to have some kind of grounds for an appeal, in the NC DC you get one automatically if you choose, so it's a way of clearing legal matters from the books. The real trial, at least IMO, would be one before a jury. The DA opted not to go that route. It reads to me as if District Court in North Carolina is a domestic violence mill. So I'm not relying on that for much of anything, and clearly neither would the DA in NC since he didn't just take the transcripts of her testimony from there and use them in a jury trial.

Now without a jury trial I'd put a lot more weight into what the NFL finds in its investigation, than the results of NC DC - which are legally null at this point anyway apparently.

 

[JDSmith]

The nfl needs to tread very carefully. Many states have employment laws protecting employee information Especially when it doesn't have a direct impact on the NFL.

Specifically on this. Most courts do not keep evidence. Usually only transcripts are availible. I hope Hardy gets all the records sealed And prevents the NFL from getting anything.

As a Cowboys fan I hope that's exactly what he doesn't do. Because I want to know if we should sign this guy, I want to know what went on.

 

[CashMan]

PEDs are banned by the League and the drug policy was negotiated with the NFLPA after a lot of give and take.

An arrest is not needed after a failed test. It is a collectively bargained process.

The NFL is just winging it with these new cases. They didn't like the feedback from the way they handled the Ray Rice case and over-corrected by creating a new policy and trying to apply it retroactively. The whole commissioner's exempt list is a farce and none of it was bargained with the NFLPA.

I didn't say peds, I said steroids which are illegal. Also, are you saying domestic violence was not collectively bargained?

 

[Rogah]

Your right they can act. They can also get sued For slander. You better have hard proof if you are going to accuse an employee of wrong doing in public.

The NFL has screwed up big time please the women and the white knights in the short term and cause themselves legal problems on the back end.all the while setting up players for extortion. only the
lawyers profit.

If you think the NFL can get sued for slander by suspending him, then you have absolutely no idea how the NFL CBA works or what slander is.

 

[Rogah]

And judges do not use the bench to grind an axe, just saying, hence why NC has the trial by jury appeal it also another why a trial by jury is preferred by defense attorneys. Its easier to get reasonable doubt with 12 than it is with 1. If h is guilty, Ray Rice guilty then fine but if he is Duke lacrosse Guilty then I have an issue.

That seems to be the only defense of Hardy: that the judge acted improperly or had some sort of axe to grind or simply decided to find someone guilty of a major crime because they were all in a hurry to get to the next case.

While I agree injustices happen in our legal system, I don't just casually *assume* someone found guilty of a crime was only found guilty because the judge had some sort of highly-unethical motives in play.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

The only information would come from Hardy's own people. He paid to have transcripts made because the State doesn't produce them for bench trials. The prosecutors didn't even have then from the bench trial. When Hardy's team finally relented and gave them copies, they found inconsistencies in her original statements and her testimony. The State could have entered her testimony from the bench trial into the jury trial but they would have to vouch for her truthfulness and the prosecutors weren't willing to do that. That is why they dropped the charges. Any talk of a civil settlement is just that, talk. Nothing has been verified.

I just don't think he can be punished for something that was dismissed. The NFL isn't above the law and the constitution. If they want to adopt stricter policies they have to be negotiated with the Players. Otherwise the whole thing comes tumbling down under the weight of collusion. The Draft, salary cap and drug punishments only exist because they are collectively bargained.

This is the biggest part for me that really has me shaking my head at the league. Ever since the new CBA, they have basically ignored and disrespected the players and the PA as often as they like, and with no remorse. Part of this is the player's own fault, and especially DeMaurice Smith. But that doesn't excuse the League from simply deciding to ignore the CBA whenever they see fit.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

I didn't say peds, I said steroids which are illegal. Also, are you saying domestic violence was not collectively bargained?

It was collectively bargained, but what is transpiring now, with the new penalties against domestic violence was not agreed upon by the Player's Association. The League's motive was the appease the public during the height of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson controversies, but they did not go through the correct process of getting this a ratified modification of the policy because it would take too long. The Player's Association hasn't agreed to this modification.

The point of the Player's Association is to make sure the League doesn't start treating the players unfairly. When you put a player on an exempt list because they have been accused of something, it is still somewhat of a punishment due to them not being able to help the team, the lost in value of their capability to be a quality teammate, and the uncertainty of when they can return. Just because they are still getting paid doesn't make all of those negative aspects go away. I think "time-served" needs to be an aspect that is considered for these cases, and the NFL can't just ignore the NFLPA just because they don't want to consider it.

 

[CashMan]

It was collectively bargained, but what is transpiring now, with the new penalties against domestic violence was not agreed upon by the Player's Association. The League's motive was the appease the public during the height of the Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson controversies, but they did not go through the correct process of getting this a ratified modification of the policy because it would take too long. The Player's Association hasn't agreed to this modification.

The point of the Player's Association is to make sure the League doesn't start treating the players unfairly. When you put a player on an exempt list because they have been accused of something, it is still somewhat of a punishment due to them not being able to help the team, the lost in value of their capability to be a quality teammate, and the uncertainty of when they can return. Just because they are still getting paid doesn't make all of those negative aspects go away. I think "time-served" needs to be an aspect that is considered for these cases, and the NFL can't just ignore the NFLPA just because they don't want to consider it.

This is my problem with the argument. The guy was trying to say, because the court did not find him guilty, he should not get suspended. HE paid off his victim. People use steroids, and do not get arrested, but that does not mean it did not happen.

Hitting a woman, you should not be playing in the NFL.

Now, if you want to discuss, whether or not Goodell has the power to do these things, you can. But, I have no interest. In the NFL, the NFL has the power. In the MLB, the players have the power.

What Ray Rice did, is almost what this guy did, but his was on video. I am glad that Rice is getting blacklisted.