Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ray Rice is in deep ****

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

  • Hercules Rockefeller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hercules Rockefeller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 400HZ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 400HZ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • 91BRONCO
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    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!"

    Leave a comment:


  • Hercules Rockefeller
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • 91BRONCO
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • baja
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guess Who
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kaylore
    replied
    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.....
    Well over 95% of cases don't go to trial, so the likelihood of this being a plea is high.

    Leave a comment:


  • 91BRONCO
    replied
    Originally posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
    Normally the marital privilege doesn't apply when one spouse is the victim of the allegations.
    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.....

    Leave a comment:


  • CHEF LUIGI
    replied
    Originally posted by theAPAOps5 View Post
    Educate yourself before you speak. That doesn't apply in New Jersey and casino video trumps that.
    say what?
    regardless of the state she resides in or what state the event occurred in, a spouse cannot be FORCED to testify against their spouse.
    where were you educated, hostility university?
    enjoy a cup of reality, my friend.
    NOW that they are married, even a GRAND JURY cannot demand testimony from her if she chooses to decline.

    whether or not there is video in the elevator, is moot to the point that SHE can no longer be REQUIRED to testify before a grand jury.
    reality... enjoy a cup !

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X