Transcripts from the NFL hearing released - Bombshells

[slick325]

I agree and I'm critical of Hardy's attorneys also. They did argue a civil settlement was irrelevant but did the standard legal tactic of neither confirming nor denying - which gives the implication they will provide the information if the NFL gives them something in return. Your strategy would have been better.

Also IMO, if there was no settlement they should have forcefully denied there was one. By arguing they created a clear impression there was one, and with the NFL in rear-covering-mode, it gave the NFL more reason, not less, to come down hard on Hardy. Hardy's attorneys were playing on a legal field but the NFL was playing on a PR field. They didn't care about Hardy's guilt or what had been proven in court, they were concerned about what would might hit the press and embarrass the NFL. If Hardy's team did make some token payout on a civil suit, they should have laid out exactly why and that they were doing it to make sure there wasn't a more expensive, more embarrassing food fight in a civil suit later.

I definitely think Hardy's team overlawyered this.

Overall, his counsel did an outstanding job of laying out inconsistencies and holes in the evidence against Hardy. My only issue was with how they handled the question of a settlement. I do know the feeling of being in negotiations for hours and getting tired. One may not respond the same if it occurred earlier in the day. So, I understand that they probably immediately wanted a do over when they read transcripts.

 

[Plumfool]

There's also the possibility that they couldn't say no there wasn't a settlement of sorts. Quite possibly Hardy against his lawyers counsel or prior to that counsel "paid Nicole's rent". And for them to deny it would be untrue and quite possibly damaging later on. Thus the attempt to deflect wasn't necessarily avoidance it was a damned if do damned if you don't scenario.

 

[Nightman]

Overall, his counsel did an outstanding job of laying out inconsistencies and holes in the evidence against Hardy. My only issue was with how they handled the question of a settlement. I do know the feeling of being in negotiations for hours and getting tired. One may not respond the same if it occurred earlier in the day. So, I understand that they probably immediately wanted a do over when they read transcripts.

They had pitched a shutout in my opinion up until that point. But you could tell that the League wanted the settlement as their trump card. It was almost as if they said "we know you raised a 100 great points but we were never going to let you win". You could read how tense and testy it got.

 

[Nightman]

I am referring to the League's attorneys questioning about whether a civil settlement had occurred. The League's attorneys kept asking if one had occurred. They asked it repeatedly because it is apparent to me that they believe that the only way the prosecutors could have pursued Hardy was if Ms. Holder was present to testify. That is untrue. The inference by the League's attorneys and the media is that the civil settlement (if there was in fact one) is what kept her from being there AND they couldn't proceed without her.

Thus, in response to those continued questions and insinuations, Hardy's attorneys should have responded with what I stated rather than get upset (as one attorney seemed to) by the question. The fact of the matter is, the Hardy teams stance should have been that the notion of a civil settlement is irrelevant. The DA didn't need Ms. Holder to proceed. They had her statements from the police and her testimony at the bench trial and could have proceeded. They chose not to, I suspect, because they didn't want to stake their names and careers on the veracity of the statements of a non-appearing witness (which is required by law if you submit the testimony of one who doesn't appear for cross examination).

Here is the PDF of the DA's dismissal notice. On the last page, second to last paragraph he admits she lied during the bench trial and her initial interview with the police couldn't be used as evidence. They found this after "reviewing the transcripts" but they had her taped interview the whole time and never gave it to the defense until 5 days before the jury trial. This trumped any possible settlement.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/02/09/1036_001.pdf

 

[slick325]

Here is the PDF of the DA's dismissal notice. On the last page, second to last paragraph he admits she lied during the bench trial and her initial interview with the police couldn't be used as evidence. They found this after "reviewing the transcripts" but they had her taped interview the whole time and never gave it to the defense until 5 days before the jury trial. This trumped any possible settlement.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/02/09/1036_001.pdf

Thanks...I had read that release. Just bouys my argument that Hardy's attorneys should have used that to dispel any settlement talk being the reason why the case was dismissed.

 

[Nightman]

Thanks...I had read that release. Just bouys my argument that Hardy's attorneys should have used that to dispel any settlement talk being the reason why the case was dismissed.

Yeah I had to refresh my memory about how the DA worded it. The fact that they could've continued without her should have been played up. But they were unwilling to vouch for her testimony.

Instead they went with the argument that her testimony was not required at this "job" hearing and a settlement would have no bearing since she would never talk to them without a subpoena. To me, it looked like the wanted any reason to disregard the mountain of exculpatory evidence.

 

[TheDude]

We don't have a transcript of that hearing but the Charlotte paper posted a Twitter recap from the reporters that attended (if you want to slog through it) -

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/nfl/carolina-panthers/article9140615.html#.U8VF4agoyTw

I don't believe there was anything beyond the photos and the testimony of Hardy, Holder, Hardy's Manager, the officer who took the report, etc. My impression from reading that recap was that the Judge was going to rule for Holder no matter what. She had a long history of ruling for defendants, she had an election coming up where being hard on DV was her big campaign promise and she knew her ruling would be vacated the following day when Hardy asked for a Jury Trial.

In the NFL Hearing Transcript Hardy's attorney said they only did the Bench Trial to see what evidence the State did or did not have. That might be good legal strategy but it was a disaster from a PR perspective.

It was only a disaster because of the rice incident...not much play before that video

 

[Nightman]

I am officially a 110% Greg Hardy sympathizer, he's getting beaten down day after day for something he obviously did not do

We Dem Hardy Boyz