NFL files motion for Hardy Evidence

[JDSmith]

Out of court settlements are not even remotely considered witness tampering.

Here is a quote about the trial from an article:


The Observer later sought additional information about the search for Holder, the decision to drop the charges and whether prosecutors considered launching a witness-tampering investigation when they learned of the settlement between Holder and Hardy, among other topics.

Witness tampering is a felony under North Carolina law, but it is also a charge that is rarely prosecuted, recently retired Superior Court Judge Richard Boner said Monday.

That’s because investigators need firm proof of a “quid pro quo,” that money changed hands to keep a witness from testifying in a criminal case. A civil settlement could have the same net effect but not meet the requirements of a tampering charge, Boner said.

“If you have proof of quid pro quo, then you’ve got some possible criminal liability. It’s the district attorney’s call. There’s a fine line,” Boner said.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/02/09/5502866/greg-hardy-trial-opens-with-jury.html

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Unless just about every article written about this topic in the past week is wrong, we know there was an out of court settlement. As I mentioned above, it is not even remotely plausible to believe that there was an out of court settlement whereby the victim agreed not to testify and agreed not to sue without getting compensated for those concessions.
The criminal courts of law have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that somebody did something wrong. Other institutions, such as civil court or the NFL, do not have so high of a threshold. They can act on the preponderance of evidence

I understand this but I've seen no proof one way or the other. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that there be proof to convict a person, in the court of public opinion or otherwise, prior to making judgement.

 

[Rogah]

Here is a quote about the trial from an article:

The Observer later sought additional information about the search for Holder, the decision to drop the charges and whether prosecutors considered launching a witness-tampering investigation when they learned of the settlement between Holder and Hardy, among other topics.

Witness tampering is a felony under North Carolina law, but it is also a charge that is rarely prosecuted, recently retired Superior Court Judge Richard Boner said Monday.

That’s because investigators need firm proof of a “quid pro quo,” that money changed hands to keep a witness from testifying in a criminal case. A civil settlement could have the same net effect but not meet the requirements of a tampering charge, Boner said.

“If you have proof of quid pro quo, then you’ve got some possible criminal liability. It’s the district attorney’s call. There’s a fine line,” Boner said.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2015/02/09/5502866/greg-hardy-trial-opens-with-jury.html

Exactly. As mentioned in the article above, a civil settlement has the same effect but does not meet the requirements of a tampering charge.

 

[Nightman]

Exactly. As mentioned in the article above, a civil settlement has the same effect but does not meet the requirements of a tampering charge.

First off there is no evidence of a settlement. It has been widely speculated about, but no one that would know has confirmed it

A civil settlement does not apply to a criminal case. If they can show 'quid pro quo' that is illegal

Plus the league is almost making it too easy for the players to get extorted. If someone gets who gets accused of a crime is put on an exempt list and can't play until the case is resolved, it behooves them to nip the charge in the bud before it even begins. That means paying someone to shut up or to go away. People with bad intentions will use this against some athletes.

 

[Nightman]

One of the posters was implying, if a guy doesn't do jail time, he shouldn't get penalized by the NFL.

I didn't imply that jail time was required, you just inferred that from my post. Steroids are treated as PEDs and coke and weed are treated as Substance Abuse, but neither one requires an arrest or jail time. A failed test is all it takes for a suspension. That is not to say if a player gets arrested for steroids or coke without a failed test they wouldn't be punished as well. Just that one doesn't require the other.

With Domestic Violence cases their is no failed test, so the Courts are usually the deciding factor as to guilt. As we saw in the Ray Rice case, video evidence can work as failed test even though NJ allowed him to plead down to a diversion program. APeterson also plead guilty so he was punished. Hardy's case was dismissed so there is nothing for the League to go on.

What I wrote was that the NFL said they wanted to wait and see what happened with the Courts before acting and they placed him on the exempt list until the case was resolved. Once it was resolved by the charges getting dropped they said that means nothing and they are going to do their own investigation.

You can't do both IMO. Either stick with the Courts or do your investigation independently, but do it in a timely manner. They could have wrapped this up last summer if they only wanted to rely on he said/she said type of claims. Hardy will never get that year back and he hasn't been found guilty of anything.

He is now being asked to turn over personal and private materials that the League wants to use against him. These are the things a union is supposed to protect employees from and should be collectively bargained. The players have given up basic rights by agreeing to the Draft, Free Agency and the Salary Cap but they have protections built into the CBA to prevent these types of actions from the League. The NFL can't just do what it wants depending on how the public opinion winds blow.

 

[Idgit]

I'm sure all of those things were brought up in the bench trial and yet the judge still found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
They declined to proceed based primarily on her lack of cooperation going forward.
We know there was an out of court settlement whereby she has agreed not to testify or pursue a civil suit against him. It is not even remotely plausible to suggest that she gave up her right to testify and she gave up her right to sue him without receiving dollar compensation in return.
Yeah. Sure. Nothing says "I'm innocent" more than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to someone.
Source, please? Keep in mind that this was an out-of-court settlements negotiated between lawyers. I'd like to see where you are hearing that that is illegal in North Carolina.

We don't actually know what was brought up at the bench trial, but it's been reported that the reason the prosecution did not want to proceed with the jury trial without their witness was because of the inconsistencies between the bench trial transcript and the police reports. The defense reportedly had undertaken the expense of having the transcripts made at the bench trial and had the benefit of verifying the inconsistencies much earlier.

Of course the key witness refusing to appear played into the dismissal of the charges, but there are lots of reasons why the witness might have bailed.

Do we know there was a settlement? I haven't seen that confirmed anywhere. I saw where the DA's office alluded to it, but where the DA declined to speculate. I also saw that that sort of quid-pro-quo relationship was specifically illegal in Carolina. The link for that has been provided in the other Hardy thread if you care to look it up. And was mentioned in the local paper stories on the topic, but it's ok with me if you'd prefer to not take it on faith. The papers further suggested it was really difficult to prove an actual quid-pro-quo in these situations, so the restriction was rarely enforced.

And it's entirely possible she decided not to pursue her allegations if she thought her case was not going to hold up because of his video evidence or because of any inconsistencies between the trial transcript and the police report. It could be as simple as here believing she'd just be discredited, or maybe even prosecuted for something she had said earlier.

As for the payoff, if you're heading into the biggest free agent payday opportunity of your life with a story that could cost you millions and millions of dollars, you might think differently about the cost of putting a story to rest sooner and ahead of the FA cycle in April. I know I'd stand on principle quite a long way, but I"m not going to let it cost me millions if I could rationalize the payout somehow.

To be clear, I'm not saying any of these things happened. I'm only saying that we don't know what happened because the press has not covered the story in sufficient detail. That fact that this girl disappeared back in November and the press didn't report it until the day the charges were dropped ought to tell you all you need to know about the freshness and quality of information that's publicly available here.

 

[Rogah]

To be clear, I'm not saying any of these things happened. I'm only saying that we don't know what happened because the press has not covered the story in sufficient detail. That fact that this girl disappeared back in November and the press didn't report it until the day the charges were dropped ought to tell you all you need to know about the freshness and quality of information that's publicly available here.

Your theory makes a lot of sense, although I think it's quite clear they reached an out-of-court settlement (i.e. payoff) to get where we are. Beyond that, I think I can get on board with what you're saying.

 

[dogberry]

Will the NFL try to compel Hardy to turn over the transcripts under the threat of limbo till the League sees them?

 

[speedkilz88]

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.

He was actually found guilty of a misdemeanor. And then it was vacated.

 

[speedkilz88]

Unless just about every article written about this topic in the past week is wrong, we know there was an out of court settlement. As I mentioned above, it is not even remotely plausible to believe that there was an out of court settlement whereby the victim agreed not to testify and agreed not to sue without getting compensated for those concessions.
The criminal courts of law have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that somebody did something wrong. Other institutions, such as civil court or the NFL, do not have so high of a threshold. They can act on the preponderance of evidence

That was speculated but there is no evidence to that.

 

[Rogah]

He was actually found guilty of a misdemeanor. And then it was vacated.

Ray Rice wasn't even found guilty of anything, yet the NFL got crucified in the court of public opinion for suspending him only 2 games.