Report: DE Greg Hardy will not return to Panthers - Charges Dismissed 02/09/15

[skinsscalper]

I think if you apply a logical approach here the simplest conclusion is that there was a deal struck with the witness to not testify and cause the dismissal of the case.

Why would you do that if you knew you could hire the best lawyers and you were in the right?

Because it's cheaper even if you're innocent. Besides the fact that the "deal that was struck" is all speculative at this point, also. There is absolutely no evidence that Hardy came to any financial agreement with the lady to cease cooperation with the DA's office. Only speculation.

Is it out of the realm of possibility? Of course not. But, the fact remains, at this point it's all speculation.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think if you apply a logical approach here the simplest conclusion is that there was a deal struck with the witness to not testify and cause the dismissal of the case.

Why would you do that if you knew you could hire the best lawyers and you were in the right?

Well, if a trial drags on, that's more money you're paying a lawyer. And the woman is a cokehead. She's trying to feed her habit. You pay her. You're done with her. Now that she's settled, she can't come back to accuse you of anything. You let the trial continue, you have to deal with her longer. Her price goes up.
I think he did beat her. To what extend, I don't know. But he's probably more interested in making this go away than he is trying to clear his name via a court trial.
I don't like it either. But when you have dirty hands, you at least try not to get them even dirtier.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Conflicting statements are pretty common in most cases of this nature.

I frankly don't want anyone even close to these situations involved with the team.

Yeah you wouldn't have wanted Irvin and Erik Williams either.

And what basis do you have for saying that such is 'pretty common' especially in light of the fact it caused them to abandon their case?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Wow....didn't see this coming. Wonder if this changes Carolina's outlook on him.

 

[Nightman]

I think if you apply a logical approach here the simplest conclusion is that there was a deal struck with the witness to not testify and cause the dismissal of the case.

Why would you do that if you knew you could hire the best lawyers and you were in the right?

You don't need to take any chances if money makes it go away. Pay to settle or pay the lawyers.

The NFL did the same thing with concussion settlement, does that mean they knew that they were causing CTE?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, but the law in NC is really obtuse. In most other states, that's a felony

Most jurisdictions give prosecutors a range of options with which to indict and convict and punish. Interesting carte blance you have in absence of all the particulars of the case.

 

[mickswag]

Either way it doesn't really matter at this point. He wasn't convicted of anything and is completely off the hook. No Probation, no misdemeanor, nothing the League can act on.

I would sign him in a minute. He is the exact edge rusher we need and won't find in the draft. He should be significantly cheaper than Suh. Maybe 4/40 gets it done.

I'm not saying it matters -- I was just clarifying for the guy who said there was no trial.

 

[Plankton]

Based on the conjecture that we all know from the night in question, and what it is is conjecture, I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

Being that the woman is otherwise unavailable and unwilling to testify in the case, and has reached a settlement with Hardy, his record is clean.

But, the fact that the Panthers, the team that knows him best, are willing to let him go would give me pause. As it stands, I wouldn't sign him. I have some real concerns about his judgment, and concerns about him being a batterer of women (allegedly).

I would go more toward Pierre-Paul if targeting a free agent.

 

[Nightman]

I'm not saying it matters -- I was just clarifying for the guy who said there was no trial.

I got ya. I was just trying to point out that the first bench trial is now irrelevant.

The only question I have is about Double Jeopardy. Since he had the bench trial, does that mean the State can't re-file the charges if the witness ever changed her mind.

 

[Nightman]

Based on the conjecture that we all know from the night in question, and what it is is conjecture, I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

Being that the woman is otherwise unavailable and unwilling to testify in the case, and has reached a settlement with Hardy, his record is clean.

But, the fact that the Panthers, the team that knows him best, are willing to let him go would give me pause. As it stands, I wouldn't sign him. I have some real concerns about his judgment, and concerns about him being a batterer of women (allegedly).

I would go more toward Pierre-Paul if targeting a free agent.

Carolina really doesn't have a choice. He is an UFA. They would have to pay almost 16m to franchise tag him again.

I think they would take him back if he didn't want to test FA.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yeah you wouldn't have wanted Irvin and Erik Williams either.

Irvin and Erik were already part of the team.

And what basis do you have for saying that such is 'pretty common' especially in light of the fact it caused them to abandon their case?

They didn't abandon their case because of conflicting statements. They abandoned their case because the victim refused to testify.

 

[mickswag]

I got ya. I was just trying to point out that the first bench trial is now irrelevant.

The only question I have is about Double Jeopardy. Since he had the bench trial, does that mean the State can't re-file the charges if the witness ever changed her mind.

Jeopardy would have already attached in this case. So they couldn't try him again for the exact charges that were dismissed. They could use her testimony and any evidence to charge him with something else, however.

 

[cowboyfan4lyfe]

He would be cheaper than Suh. I heard he want's to play closer to home which would be Seattle.

 

[tyke1doe]

I got ya. I was just trying to point out that the first bench trial is now irrelevant.

The only question I have is about Double Jeopardy. Since he had the bench trial, does that mean the State can't re-file the charges if the witness ever changed her mind.

From my understanding (I'm not a lawyer but covered court cases as a reporter), a dismissal is not subject to Double Jeopardy. It can happen for a number of reasons, particularly lack of evidence. If evidence comes to light (or let's say there was a secret video tape of the encounter involving Hardy and his ex), then it could go to trial.

However, if she reached a settlement, then, no, even if evidence surfaced, the state couldn't prosecute him.

But what makes this a bit murky is this is a misdemeanor case not a felony case. I don't understand that at all.

Maybe one of our resident lawyers can explain.

 

[tyke1doe]

He would be cheaper than Suh. I heard he want's to play closer to home which would be Seattle.

Who wants to play closer to home. Suh or Hardy?

 

[mickswag]

From my understanding (I'm not a lawyer but covered court cases as a reporter), a dismissal is not subject to Double Jeopardy. It can happen for a number of reasons, particularly lack of evidence. If evidence comes to light (or let's say there was a secret video tape of the encounter involving Hardy and his ex), then it could go to trial.

However, if she reached a settlement, then, no, even if evidence surfaced, the state couldn't prosecute him.

But what makes this a bit murky is this is a misdemeanor case not a felony case. I don't understand that at all.

Maybe one of our resident lawyers can explain.

It could go to trial on another charge. Jeopardy has already attached in this case.

 

[tyke1doe]

It could go to trial on another charge. Jeopardy has already attached in this case.

So what charge would that be

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Irvin and Erik were already part of the team.



They didn't abandon their case because of conflicting statements. They abandoned their case because the victim refused to testify.

He said he didn't want anyone on the team related to that type of thing so your point does not apply.

Your second part is not mutually exclusive. I really wish people would check for exclusivity when trying to exclude with a counter example. it is a huge failing in critical thinking in this country.

In the Hardy case, Murray alluded to apparent inconsistencies between Holder’s initial statements to police on the morning of May 13, and the testimony she gave at Hardy’s first trial. Without Holder’s live testimony, Murray’s office said in a statement, “the state has determined it cannot go forward.”

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ens-with-jury.html#.VNkZLS4eoWk#storylink=cpy

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It could go to trial on another charge. Jeopardy has already attached in this case.

Yup, the indictment was tried and then dismissed on appeal.

 

[Plankton]

Carolina really doesn't have a choice. He is an UFA. They would have to pay almost 16m to franchise tag him again.

I think they would take him back if he didn't want to test FA.

I'm not sure that they would. They could rework salaries to franchise him if need be.

http://espn.go.com/blog/carolina-pa...is-no-reason-for-panthers-to-consider-reunion

Sources said before Monday's development that the Panthers would not pursue Hardy in free agency next month, regardless of the outcome of his trial. That the charges were dropped was not a proclamation of innocence by the district attorney's office or sufficient reason for the team to change its stance.

It simply was a concession that the case could not be pursued because Nicole Holder, who accused Hardy of assaulting and threatening to kill her in May, would not cooperate.

That the district attorney's office said there was "reliable information Ms. Holder has reached a civil settlement" also was telling. It indicated Holder didn't cooperate because Hardy had enough money to make it worth her time to basically disappear.

Hardy, a Pro Bowl player in 2013, had enough money because the Panthers paid him $13.1 million last season to sit on the commissioner's exempt list for 14 regular-season and two playoff games until the case was resolved.

What won't disappear is the negative perception the case brought on Hardy, the Panthers organization and the NFL during the 2014 season.