Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ray Rice is in deep ****

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by baja View Post
    What's worse? Growing up with an abusive father both physically and mentally or no father in the home.

    just curious what your take is.
    Why would you care what he thinks?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Guess Who View Post
      Why would you care what he thinks?
      Why would you care about what I think about what he thinks?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DENVERDUI55 View Post
        The question is did he knock her out, drug her or was she so drunk she passed out?
        Exactly.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kaylore View Post
          Well over 95% of cases don't go to trial, so the likelihood of this being a plea is high.
          I hear ya. Plus when the victim recants it's very hard to convict regardless of the evidence and the prosecution knows that.

          Comment


          • Wait ... they're alleging he knocked her unconscious, dragged her out of the room and left her on the hallway floor out cold? Well, it's obvious why the team is sticking by him ... she's still alive after all.

            Just read where he married that b-b-eautiful fiance of his three days ago. He didn't have to do that ... sounds like the prosecutor's satisfied he has what he needs even without her testimony though.



            New law in these United States as of about 2007 ... in DV situations, prosecutors can now use the 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule to permit cops to testify to what the vic said at the scene when vic is unavailable (hiding/recanting after reconciling) to testify ... all without violating defendants rights to confront and cross. For some of you, that's important information. You know who you are

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 91BRONCO View Post
              Doesn't really matter though. If she chooses to not cooperate with the prosecution and the defense puts her on the stand and she says it was a misunderstanding, etc. etc. it will be a tough sell for any jury to convict (if it even gets that far).

              I see plea bargain all over this.....
              Yes, because claiming it was a misunderstanding is really corroborated with the video of her getting drug out of an elevator unconscious. It will also depend on what she told the police that night, if she gave a statement. If she tries to change her account, they'll impeach her with her prior statements.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
                New law in these United States as of about 2007 ... in DV situations, prosecutors can now use the 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule to permit cops to testify to what the vic said at the scene when vic is unavailable (hiding/recanting after reconciling) to testify ... all without violating defendants rights to confront and cross. For some of you, that's important information. You know who you are
                Quoting myself to clarify: Not law in ALL these United States yet ... I was thinking it was a SCOTUS ruling, but actually it was a Washington State Supreme Court ruling. Since then, it says about 30 state legislatures have or are in the process of codifying the same exception.

                If Maryland or whatever state they were in that night does not have this, it'll be like Herc says, she'll try to evade it, explain it away: "(Flashing enormous rock on left hand) I was so tired that night! I took two Ambien! He didn't hit me, he reached out to brace my fall, I was SO TIRED I was falling down!"

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
                  Yes, because claiming it was a misunderstanding is really corroborated with the video of her getting drug out of an elevator unconscious. It will also depend on what she told the police that night, if she gave a statement. If she tries to change her account, they'll impeach her with her prior statements.
                  I'm just saying- it's a very tough sell to the jury if you have the "victim" on the stand pleading for no punishment or prosecution. It raises other ethical and privacy issues regardless of the evidence. It's one of the reasons these types of cases plea or get outright dropped.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
                    Wait ... they're alleging he knocked her unconscious, dragged her out of the room and left her on the hallway floor out cold? Well, it's obvious why the team is sticking by him ... she's still alive after all.

                    Just read where he married that b-b-eautiful fiance of his three days ago. He didn't have to do that ... sounds like the prosecutor's satisfied he has what he needs even without her testimony though.



                    New law in these United States as of about 2007 ... in DV situations, prosecutors can now use the 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule to permit cops to testify to what the vic said at the scene when vic is unavailable (hiding/recanting after reconciling) to testify ... all without violating defendants rights to confront and cross. For some of you, that's important information. You know who you are
                    Only if it's non-testimonial. That covers very few DV cases.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 91BRONCO View Post
                      I'm just saying- it's a very tough sell to the jury if you have the "victim" on the stand pleading for no punishment or prosecution. It raises other ethical and privacy issues regardless of the evidence. It's one of the reasons these types of cases plea or get outright dropped.
                      It's not tough at all if there is video. The prosecution would likely call a domestic violence expert to explain how and why around 95% of victims recant. A victim trying to explain away an obvious assault plays right into the narrative of a long-term, abusive relationship.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
                        New law in these United States as of about 2007 ... in DV situations, prosecutors can now use the 'excited utterance' exception to the hearsay rule to permit cops to testify to what the vic said at the scene when vic is unavailable (hiding/recanting after reconciling) to testify ... all without violating defendants rights to confront and cross. For some of you, that's important information. You know who you are
                        That's what they did before Crawford. No victim, get a cop to lay the foundation for an excited utterance and then just have them repeat what the victim told them. Like 400HZ said, they can only do that for non-testimonial statements now.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 91BRONCO View Post
                          I'm just saying- it's a very tough sell to the jury if you have the "victim" on the stand pleading for no punishment or prosecution. It raises other ethical and privacy issues regardless of the evidence. It's one of the reasons these types of cases plea or get outright dropped.
                          It's not at tough sell if you've got a good DA, and a lot of times they can be easier than a cooperative victim.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X