Taylor's dismissial motion denied

[vicjagger]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/14260927.htm

Do you think he'll get any punishment? If so, what?

 

[Ken]

Nice.

He needs to be put through the ringer.

 

[sacase]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/14260927.htm

Do you think he'll get any punishment? If so, what?

Bet the judge doesn't allow the prosecution to bring up that they have been arrested also.

:laugh2:

Cue skins fans saying everyone hates them and is bias.....

 

[theogt]

Bet the judge doesn't allow the prosecution to bring up that they have been arrested also.

I'll take that bet. If they're witnesses it goes to credibility.

 

[ravidubey]

NFL zone...

 

[Canadian BoyzFan]

Go to jail, go directly to jail and do not pass GO an do not collect $200.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/nation/14260927.htm

Do you think he'll get any punishment? If so, what?

he deserve life without parole

 

[AbeBeta]

I'll take that bet. If they're witnesses it goes to credibility.

ogt is likely correct. admissible as it is relevant

 

[Longboysfan]

Circuit Judge Mary Barzee denied a defense motion to dismiss charges against Washington Commanders player Sean Taylor, whose trial is scheduled for next week.

Attorneys for the former University of Miami star argued that the aggravated assault charges should be dropped because they claimed Miami-Dade prosecutor Michael Grieco failed to tell them that several of the alleged victims and witnesses had been arrested in unrelated cases.

Taylor was arrested last June in south Miami-Dade on charges he pointed a gun at three men he believed had stolen an all-terrain vehicle from one of his friends.

His trial is slated to begin Monday.

So what the lawyer is saying is If you have ever been arrested. Someone can assult you. And not be charged.

 

[justme]

So what the lawyer is saying is If you have ever been arrested. Someone can assult you. And not be charged.

No offense but you're missing the point. Going by what you're saying, if anyone claims you've committed a crime -- and their is literally no other evidence that supports their claim other than the testimony of the accusers -- and they have significant motivation to see you prosecuted, you are, by default, guilty? If this is all that the prosecution is relying on to prosecute Taylor, the reputability of the accuser's is COMPLETELY relevant.

 

[sacase]

ogt is likely correct. admissible as it is relevant

Actually it won't be, the reason is that they have only been arrested and accused of a crime that has happened AFTER the Taylor incident. Inadmissable since they have not been found guilty yet.

 

[peplaw06]

Actually it won't be, the reason is that they have only been arrested and accused of a crime that has happened AFTER the Taylor incident. Inadmissable since they have not been found guilty yet.

Yep, they have to actually be convicted first... at least according to Federal Rules of Evidence. They're only witnesses. Florida may have slightly different rules, but typically this is inadmissible, unless they lied about it in a deposition or some other statement under oath before. Then they could be impeached on the stand.