PDA

View Full Version : no way marshall is found guilty tomorrow


tsiguy96
08-13-2009, 01:29 PM
all 6 people must find him unanimously guilty, and this is after marshalls lawyer brought in wattleys extortion letters to marshall (pay up or i will press charges) into court as evidence. expect a not guilty verdict tomorrow...or i eat crow.

tsiguy96
08-13-2009, 01:29 PM
http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2009/08/13/marshall-trial-update-v-_-6-0-vote-needed-to-convict/

Cmac821
08-13-2009, 01:33 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?

DBroncos4life
08-13-2009, 01:34 PM
if only we had mike shanahan's lie detector guy this would have been over months ago.

SoDak Bronco
08-13-2009, 01:36 PM
Please Merge threads

Hercules Rockefeller
08-13-2009, 01:38 PM
Wow, a unanimous verdict in a criminal case. What will people think of next? I'm trying to figure out which is sadder, Lindsay's readers who didn't know that or the fact that she thinks her readers need to be informed of that?

Rock Chalk
08-13-2009, 01:40 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?

Is that sarcasm?

Dark Helmet
08-13-2009, 01:44 PM
So the bloody arm, knife in hand and two beat up chicks when the cops showed up won't do it huh? Oh, I forgot, he fled after the cop asked him to wait outside....that's how he'll get off.....right?

Broncos4Life
08-13-2009, 01:48 PM
Is that sarcasm?

No seriously. What do you like to eat your crow with?

ColoradoBuff
08-13-2009, 01:52 PM
So the bloody arm, knife in hand and two beat up chicks when the cops showed up won't do it huh? Oh, I forgot, he fled after the cop asked him to wait outside....that's how he'll get off.....right?


Nooooo..cuz Col. Custard did in the Ballroom with the Candlestick!

ND Bronco Fan
08-13-2009, 01:57 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?

I'll take Sheryl Crow for a hundred Alex

underrated29
08-13-2009, 02:02 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?




Awesome..

dbfan21
08-13-2009, 02:07 PM
Awesome..

:rofl:

Hercules Rockefeller
08-13-2009, 02:08 PM
So the bloody arm, knife in hand and two beat up chicks when the cops showed up won't do it huh? Oh, I forgot, he fled after the cop asked him to wait outside....that's how he'll get off.....right?

Or the prior incidents that have been ruled admissible too

USMCBladerunner
08-13-2009, 02:24 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?

That is an excellent question.

Cmac821
08-13-2009, 02:28 PM
That is an excellent question.

Thank you, I hope your not being sarcastic

hookemhess
08-13-2009, 02:32 PM
Thank you, I hope your not being sarcastic

Stepping in for my fellow Texan... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_crow

Mr. Elway
08-13-2009, 02:34 PM
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/bites/EatCrow.jpg

theAPAOps5
08-13-2009, 03:10 PM
Thank you, I hope your not being sarcastic

Classic! First off you made your original post in here. Then you thanked a guy for making fun of you! Awesome! Hilarious!

PRBronco
08-13-2009, 03:15 PM
So the bloody arm, knife in hand and two beat up chicks when the cops showed up won't do it huh? Oh, I forgot, he fled after the cop asked him to wait outside....that's how he'll get off.....right?

Pfft, come on, he's awesome at football, it would basically take a widely circulated .gif of him doing it to convict him.

521 1N5
08-13-2009, 03:29 PM
lol @ the crow comments.

DHallblows
08-13-2009, 05:25 PM
Please don't merge this, it's too funny...
How do you go a full 3 years here and not pick up the meaning of "eating crow"??? Actually, how do you get this far in life in general and not know the meaning of that saying? lulz

Kaylore
08-13-2009, 05:54 PM
Is that a typo? Do you mean a crow like the animal or is there something else called crow?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/DataTNG.jpg

JCMElway
08-13-2009, 06:20 PM
Kaylore, you are a freaking nerd.


































And so am I. lol

orinjkrush
08-13-2009, 06:24 PM
the best thing that could happen to that young man, is that someone, the judge, punctures his invincibility cloak.

rastaman
08-13-2009, 07:15 PM
So the bloody arm, knife in hand and two beat up chicks when the cops showed up won't do it huh? Oh, I forgot, he fled after the cop asked him to wait outside....that's how he'll get off.....right?

Well he could have killed dogs or run over some Denverites who were Jay Walking??:sunshine:

maher_tyler
08-13-2009, 07:54 PM
No seriously. What do you like to eat your crow with?

I like mine in between two slices of bread and a Bud Light or Fat Tire

Kaylore
08-14-2009, 08:56 AM
bump!

tsiguy96
08-14-2009, 08:58 AM
now i hope hes not found guilty just so i dont look like an idiot.

Old Dude
08-14-2009, 09:11 AM
He could be found guilty ...

1. He didn't testify. Although he has a right not to do so, many juries will hold that against him anyway.

2. The ex-GF made sure that the jury heard about some of his prior bad conduct (that was ruled inadmissible.) The judge ordered the jury to disregard this, but it's like trying to unring a bell. The judge should have granted an immediate mistrial. Marshall now has a great appellate issue, for all the good it will do him.

3. Sounds like there was indeed some kind of altercation (since she admitted she struck or pushed him at some point).

4. It takes very, very little to establish the elements of a third degree assault. A slight push or shove would be enough, even if it caused no bruising or damage at all.

----------

Against that you have the fact that the woman has definitely attempted to cash in on the incident and has made inconsistent claims about it. No one is going to believe, for one second, that she just wants Marshall to "get help." If that was the case, she could have made that demand as a condition of dropping charges - - not the demand she actually made - - for thousands of dollars.

But we all know Marshall, at least in the past, has been a very immature young man who has admitted doing stupid and impulsive things. It's not hard to visualize him slapping or striking this woman. Not hard at all.

It could go either way.

outdoor_miner
08-14-2009, 09:21 AM
I'm starting to think he's going to lose... Of course, that is based solely on reading the updates from the Denver Post blog. I imagine that the pictures would be hard for a jury to ignore.

I never understand why people don't testify on their own behalf. I know it is probably his high-priced lawyer that convinced him to do that... But, it just seems crazy to me to not explain your side if you are being accused of something you didn't do.

Old Dude
08-14-2009, 09:27 AM
The pictures, I think, are from previous incidents - - but those definitely won't help.

On the other hand, the defense could say that if that's what happens when he beats you - - how come no injuries this time? Maybe you're just wishing you had sued the guy back when he first did this, but when it became clear that you guys were breaking up and that you'd lost your meal ticket, yiou tried to start another fight hoping for revenge and a big payday - - but he didn't go for it.

Ugly all the way around.

outdoor_miner
08-14-2009, 09:40 AM
The pictures, I think, are from previous incidents

I didn't realize that...

Ugly all the way around.

Totally agreed. One person (or perhaps both of them) is lying through his or her teeth. Either way, just a messed up relationship.

outdoor_miner
08-14-2009, 09:43 AM
Actually - the photos are from this incident. There were others from a previous incident, as well:

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_13083468

The prosecution presented 7 photos that showed injuries to Watley following two separate incidents involving Marshall. There were five photos from the March 4, 2008, incident at Watley's apartment that led to the battery chargers against Marshall. The photos showed marks/abrasions to her mouth, forehead and neck. The two photos from an incident in June, 2007 showed a knife wound to her leg and a black eye.

hambone13
08-14-2009, 09:44 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/datatng.jpg

lmfao

Rock Chalk
08-14-2009, 09:56 AM
Best part about this thread has been the crow comments.

Old Dude
08-14-2009, 10:01 AM
Well, if they have photos showing bruses arising from this incident, then he's in some serious trouble unless the jury decides that she deliberately and intentionally provoked him, hoping for a payout.

I guess we'll see.

Tombstone RJ
08-14-2009, 12:17 PM
The jury needs to keep in mind that there is "reasonable doubt" in this case and that Watley has provided that reasonable doubt.

Tombstone RJ
08-14-2009, 12:19 PM
However, in cases like this the man is usually considered guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion. We shall see...

fdf
08-14-2009, 12:35 PM
I'm starting to think he's going to lose... Of course, that is based solely on reading the updates from the Denver Post blog. I imagine that the pictures would be hard for a jury to ignore.

I never understand why people don't testify on their own behalf. I know it is probably his high-priced lawyer that convinced him to do that... But, it just seems crazy to me to not explain your side if you are being accused of something you didn't do.

That's my impression about the pictures. It sounds like some of them were taken by the police at this incident. How did she get injured? The answer may be pretty easy for a juror if they believe Watley's description of how she wrote that letter to Goddell. The jury may even believe she is a money grubbing b***h. But that doesn't mean Marshall didn't hit her. That's all the prosecution has to prove.

Regarding testifying, the reason Marshall should NOT testify is that his prior conduct then becomes admissible to impeach him on cross examination. The prosecutor would be able to make him look like a woman beating thug over a period of years, which, unfortunately, may be true. But from Marshall's perspective, it would be a really bad move.

underrated29
08-14-2009, 12:49 PM
well it does help that the DIA cop said that she was the agressor in the fight in the airport.

Paladin
08-14-2009, 12:50 PM
4 women and two men.

The deal is done.

underrated29
08-14-2009, 12:53 PM
4 women and two men.

The deal is done.



Oh-Snap!




So do you think Brandon get suspedend the first 8 games, or he gets roger rath for 1 year and maybe appeals to an 8 gamer.

Congratulations, Brandon lloyd or Chad Jackson. YOu have just made the Denver Broncos 53 man roster! WHat are you going to do next!?

tsiguy96
08-14-2009, 12:56 PM
Oh-Snap!




So do you think Brandon get suspedend the first 8 games, or he gets roger rath for 1 year and maybe appeals to an 8 gamer.

Congratulations, Brandon lloyd or Chad Jackson. YOu have just made the Denver Broncos 53 man roster! WHat are you going to do next!?

dude, if one person says not guilty then he gets off. what are you freaking for.

tubbs
08-14-2009, 12:59 PM
dude, if one person says not guilty then he gets off. what are you freaking for.

Wrong. That would be a mis-trial and they would have to do it all over again.

WABronco
08-14-2009, 01:02 PM
A knife wound to the leg? Lol...jesus.

TheDave
08-14-2009, 01:03 PM
A knife wound to the leg? Lol...jesus.

Actually she just slipped on a McDonalds bag...

WABronco
08-14-2009, 01:06 PM
I'm glad we have a stand up guy in Brandon Marshall. Hopefully he's taking lessons from Josh Hamilton, the ultimate wrecked-athlete reformation, and not smoking crack anymore.

tsiguy96
08-14-2009, 01:07 PM
Wrong. That would be a mis-trial and they would have to do it all over again.

no, they wouldnt. a mistrial has nothing to do with the jury not unanimously voting guilty.

tubbs
08-14-2009, 01:14 PM
no, they wouldnt. a mistrial has nothing to do with the jury not unanimously voting guilty.

My understanding is that if a unanimous decision is not reached, it becomes a mistrial.

bfoflcommish
08-14-2009, 01:29 PM
My understanding is that if a unanimous decision is not reached, it becomes a mistrial.

my understanding is anything other than unanimous is a not guilty verdict

bfoflcommish
08-14-2009, 01:31 PM
I'm glad we have a stand up guy in Brandon Marshall. Hopefully he's taking lessons from Josh Hamilton, the ultimate wrecked-athlete reformation, and not smoking crack anymore.


hmmmm JOsh Hamilton is not someone you want to compare him to right now.

Mr. Elway
08-14-2009, 01:33 PM
What is this "crow" you speak of, and is it really an edible dish?

Old Dude
08-14-2009, 01:51 PM
my understanding is anything other than unanimous is a not guilty verdict

Nope. Unless Georgia has some weird rule of its own, Tubbs is correct. A non-unanimous jury verdict means a mistrial. They all go back to square one and start all over again.

tsiguy96
08-14-2009, 01:57 PM
If Marshall is convicted — it will take a 6-0 vote to find him guilty — he could face additional punishment from NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who already suspended him for one game last season after his initial arrest on the domestic violence charge.

...

tsiguy96
08-14-2009, 02:01 PM
Im ****ing right yeaaaaaaaa you all can suck it and have a nice fatty crow too!

Kaylore
08-14-2009, 04:03 PM
1. He didn't testify. Although he has a right not to do so, many juries will hold that against him anyway.

This is a myth. There is conclusive evidence that not testifying against yourself helps your case more than it hurts it.

And as was mentioned, to be found guilty the jury must unanimously agree he is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Getting everyone to agree without a doubt someone is guilty is pretty difficult. Our legal system is designed to allow the guilty to go free more often than not in order to ensure the innocent are not punished unjustly.

Hercules Rockefeller
08-14-2009, 04:14 PM
Please show me where it says a jury must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt before someone can be convicted.

Kaylore
08-14-2009, 04:27 PM
Please show me where it says a jury must be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt before someone can be convicted.

Excuse me, "reasonable doubt". Soooo sorry! ::)

Old Dude
08-14-2009, 04:32 PM
This is a myth. There is conclusive evidence that not testifying against yourself helps your case more than it hurts it.

And as was mentioned, to be found guilty the jury must unanimously agree he is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Getting everyone to agree without a doubt someone is guilty is pretty difficult. Our legal system is designed to allow the guilty to go free more often than not in order to ensure the innocent are not punished unjustly.

Well, Kaylore, it really depends.

If you have a criminal record, then it's wise not to testify, because then they usually don't get to bring it out. If you're a poor speaker, that could be another reason.

But if you are a reasonably good speaker with nothing to hide, testifying is practically a must.

And Herc is right. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" - not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The latter phrase is often used by prosecutors as an example of an unreasonable burden of proof.

Of course, no one really knows what "beyond a reasonable doubt" really means. It's not like you can assign a number to it. It is a fairly vague and subjective standard so what might be reasonable doubt in the eyes of one juror might not be in teh eyes of another.

Hercules Rockefeller
08-14-2009, 04:38 PM
Excuse me, "reasonable doubt". Soooo sorry! ::)

Considering reasonable doubt isn't close to beyond a shadow of a doubt, it needs to be pointed out.

ol number 7
08-14-2009, 04:45 PM
Considering reasonable doubt isn't close to beyond a shadow of a doubt, it needs to be pointed out.

He is acquitted so someone must have considered extortion as the reason behind all this. Which of course it was. Brandon only hits DB's and Linebackers.

Tombstone RJ
08-14-2009, 04:53 PM
He is acquitted so someone must have considered extortion as the reason behind all this. Which of course it was. Brandon only hits DB's and Linebackers.

True, but he does tap that assss...