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

[big dog cowboy]

Didnt read the title change from this morning. Why wouldnt this be a seperate thread?

Why would we want 2 threads on a Carolina Panther in a Dallas Cowboys forum?

 

[casmith07]

See this is where it gets weird to me. Because the trial saw the charges dismissed, the original judgment was vacated?

I couldn't tell you for sure. North Carolina has a strange system.

 

[Rogah]

I couldn't tell you for sure. North Carolina has a strange system.

My understanding - which I admit is based only on the articles I have read about Hardy's situation - is that in NC you can appeal a bench verdict to a jury if you so choose. Almost seems to me like a bench verdict is a mulligan.

So basically he was found guilty but he appealed and won on appeal (I know it never went to trial but dropped charges are essentially a "win" for a defendant). So I believe that technically, yes, this incident does not appear on his record. Of course, the entire country knows about it, so it isn't like he is going to fool anyone....

 

[AshyLarry06]

Because the best lawyers money can buy are going to charge you somewhere between 500K and 2 Million dollars, but the woman will take a tiny fraction of that to guarantee there are no further legal bills.

That is something that the lawyers recommend to their clients every day.

Great point. Another reason follows the logic as it pertains to the situation: why would you put your own hard-earned livelihood, reputation, and FREEDOM in serious jeopardy by allowing a jury of people who, as of now, know nothing but the information/"facts" that are currently available via TV/Internet/News (the same "facts" that have helped turn you into a national Villain and Woman-Beating psychopath)?

Wouldn't anyone who wants to live a life not behind bars rather settle an issue as potentially life-changing as the one at hand themselves instead of leaving the decision to a bunch of random (possibly biased) people? I don't care how good your lawyers are or how much you pay them, in no way, shape or form would i ever risk my freedom and livelihood by depending on a lawyer to get me out of trouble with my back already seemingly against the wall.

In Hardy's situation, the potential downside of LOSING a case of this magnitude is simply too big a risk. ABSOLUTELY not good enough of a reason to pass up a plea-deal/settlement where the only downside really is having to pay a few bucks and suffer some negative back-lash in the community...

 

[tyke1doe]

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

Actually, it does. They're not on the team because they're playing days are long over.

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.

And I really wish posters would learn how to discuss issues without being insulting. But often times wishes don't come true.

Be that as it may, my statement still stands. And you provided the quote that proves my point.

Without Holder’s live testimony, Murray’s office said in a statement, “the state has determined it cannot go forward.”

The fact she isn't around derailed the case. Had she been around, the prosecution would have been able to question her to determine the inconsistencies. Or maybe I'll ask you, if Holder were available, do you think the case proceeds? I think it would have.

 

[coult44]

Drama, Drama, drama. Wouldn't y'all rather have standup guys, who have good judgement, and good character on our team? JJ went down this road in the past. He isn't going down it again.

 

[Nightman]

Drama, Drama, drama. Wouldn't y'all rather have standup guys, who have good judgement, and good character on our team? JJ went down this road in the past. He isn't going down it again.

Nobody wants Tim Tebow, he brings the circus of crazy fan interest and media coverage to the team. What a terrible thing, right???

 

[Idgit]

More details starting to come out.

If it's really the case that prosecutors only recently got themselves access to the original trial transcript, and that inconsistencies in that transcript from her earlier reports contributed to the case getting dismissed, well, that's pretty embarrassing for the DA in this case, I'd say. Add to it the fact that the key witness has explicitly said they did not intend to be available to testify and then disappeared, well. I have a hard time giving a lot of credibility to these original accusations at this point.

Interesting, too, that a settlement could be interpreted as a quid pro quo for not testifying and and, if proven, would be illegal in North Carolina. There's a lot the media was not getting right here for a long time.

Hardy’s former girlfriend Nicole Holder – told prosecutors months ago that she didn’t want to cooperate and has been avoiding the repeated efforts of the Mecklenburg County District Attorney’s Office to find her and compel her to testify.

In July, Hardy had been convicted of assaulting and threatening to kill Holder, a former uptown waitress. But District Attorney Andrew Murray said his office hasn’t talked to Holder since November. And despite what Murray described in court as “extraordinary measures” to locate her, they still don’t know where she is.

The prosecutor also told Superior Court Judge Robert Sumner that Holder had agreed to a settlement with Hardy, which heads off any civil lawsuits she might file in connection with the case. No dollar amount was mentioned.

Victims and witnesses routinely stop cooperating in domestic-abuse cases and prosecutors still take the cases to court. Murray, though, said the Hardy case was different. He also appeared to raise doubts about Holder’s credibility in a statement to the judge.

But other details also raised unanswered questions about prosecutors’ handling of the case. Hardy’s defense team announced an appeal of his conviction before leaving court in July. But Murray said prosecutors only “recently” had compared what Holder told police the night of the alleged assault with her testimony at Hardy’s first trial.

That’s because prosecutors didn’t have a trial transcript. Hardy’s defense team did – attorney Chris Fialko hired a court reporter at Hardy’s trial in District Court where transcripts are not normally prepared. According to court records, Fialko also fought the prosecution’s request for a copy of the transcript in the weeks leading up to Hardy’s trial this week.

Murray’s office would not elaborate on what prosecutors found when they compared Holder’s statements, but the district attorney said in court that with Holder unavailable, they “did not have sufficient legal basis” to enter her statements to police as evidence.

Several legal experts around town speculated that prosecutors spotted inconsistencies that prevented them from building their case around Holder’s former accounts. To enter an unavailable witness’s prior testimony and statements as evidence, prosecutors have “to vouch” for its truthfulness, said Charlotte defense attorney George Laughrun.


Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/20...ens-with-jury.html#.VNmhJ1o7S2E#storylink=cpy

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually, it does. They're not on the team because they're playing days are long over.



And I really wish posters would learn how to discuss issues without being insulting. But often times wishes don't come true.

Be that as it may, my statement still stands. And you provided the quote that proves my point.



The fact she isn't around derailed the case. Had she been around, the prosecution would have been able to question her to determine the inconsistencies. Or maybe I'll ask you, if Holder were available, do you think the case proceeds? I think it would have.

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

Irvin and Williams were 'close to these situations' when that stripper accused them of raping her. Or are you implying that rape is not a egregious as domestic violence?

As for the second, again the two notions are not mutually exclusive. Me pointing out that much of the country has issues with critical thinking in this regards is not an insult. If anything it is pointing out that it is a typical mistake. Sorry that you cannot handle an attempt at constructive criticism but it is what it is.

The attorney said that he could not move on without further testimony from her why? Because as he said, her previous testimony was not consistent. Not only are both coexistent but one is a result of the other.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Just saw it on ESPN.

Please delete if someone already posted this.

 

[Stryker44]

Wonder who he paid off to get the charges dropped

 

[tyke1doe]

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

Irvin and Williams were 'close to these situations' when that stripper accused them of raping her. Or are you implying that rape is not a egregious as domestic violence?

Uh, Irvin and Williams don't play for the Cowboys anymore. So how can he answer that question? Maybe you should have chosen Josh Brent.

As for the second, again the two notions are not mutually exclusive. Me pointing out that much of the country has issues with critical thinking in this regards is not an insult. If anything it is pointing out that it is a typical mistake. Sorry that you cannot handle an attempt at constructive criticism but it is what it is.

Pulease, I wasn't born yesterday. You made that statement within a post responding to mine. Second, it is strange indeed that you would take the time to talk about what's ailing the country in responding to my post. Third, I understand constructive criticism. That was not constructive criticism. But you have too much pride to apologize. That I understand.

The attorney said that he could not move on without further testimony from her why? Because as he said, her previous testimony was not consistent. Not only are both coexistent but one is a result of the other.

No. He said that because she is not present. Her presence is the key in moving on with the case. If it were solely based on her previous testimony, then he would have abandoned the case from the beginning. Again, read what he said:

Without Holder’s live testimony

, Murray’s office said in a statement, “the state has determined it cannot go forward.”

The statement starts with a conditional clause, i.e., because this has happened, this condition resulted. He did not say, Because her testimony is inconsistent, the state has determined it cannot go forward. He said without her live testimony, the state cannot go forward. Her presence in not being available to reconcile her testimony is what led to the case being dismissed.

Prosecutors need the witness in cases where testimony doesn't fit. This isn't unusual. She's not around to answer certain questions so the case is abandoned.

What were you saying about critical thinking skills?

 

[Bleu Star]

Drama, Drama, drama. Wouldn't y'all rather have standup guys, who have good judgement, and good character on our team? JJ went down this road in the past. He isn't going down it again.

Jimmy Johnson had a little drama on his teams (& a couple of super bowls two. three if you count the one he handed Barry Switzer).

 

[JDSmith]

The biggest victim in this whole Greg Hardy thing is the Panthers. They wasted their franchise tag, they paid the guy 13 million dollars for the year, and now that he's been cleared they don't even get to try and recoup their money.

 

[Stash]

More details starting to come out.

If it's really the case that prosecutors only recently got themselves access to the original trial transcript, and that inconsistencies in that transcript from her earlier reports contributed to the case getting dismissed, well, that's pretty embarrassing for the DA in this case, I'd say. Add to it the fact that the key witness has explicitly said they did not intend to be available to testify and then disappeared, well. I have a hard time giving a lot of credibility to these original accusations at this point.

Interesting, too, that a settlement could be interpreted as a quid pro quo for not testifying and and, if proven, would be illegal in North Carolina. There's a lot the media was not getting right here for a long time.

This is sounding like a cash grab with each new bit of the story I see.

Great to see that a former waitress can now afford to go to Colorado for skiing and shopping trips to New York.

 

[dogberry]

At what point was the witness for the persecution at risk of being accused of perjury and when was the DA at risk for knowingly using perjured testimony?

By the way, I've always found Occam's Butterknife useful.

 

[xwalker]

@FuzzyLumpkins

See this is where it gets weird to me. Because the trial saw the charges dismissed, the original judgment was vacated?

I couldn't tell you for sure. North Carolina has a strange system.

The trial with the judge in that state seems to be similar to a Grand Jury indictment in other jurisdictions.

 

[big dog cowboy]

There's a lot the media was not getting right here for a long time.

That happens a lot but it never seems to stop them.

 

[mickswag]

@FuzzyLumpkins



The trial with the judge in that state seems to be similar to a Grand Jury indictment in other jurisdictions.

No, that's not true. A grand jury doesn't determine guilt/innocence. They only determine whether there's enough evidence to indict. In Hardy's case, the judge found him guilty in his bench trial with the judge.

 

[xwalker]

No, that's not true. A grand jury doesn't determine guilt/innocence. They only determine whether there's enough evidence to indict. In Hardy's case, the judge found him guilty in his bench trial with the judge.

I said similar, not same.