Taylor & Courts

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

Again, that is up to the jury to decide. All the judge can look at is that there are statements by three eyewitnesses. The fact that they are known felons doesn't affect the case's ability to proceed to trial (though it might affect how much the prosecution is willing to bargain, knowing they have a weaker case).

The jury will get to hear some of the evidence about how they are bad people, but in general courts work to keep out blatant character-trashing evidence against witnesses. In addition, the only character or reputation evidence you can enter against witnesses is evidence that speaks to their truthfulness, which generally excludes other crimes. Courts take pains to prevent the defense from poisoning the jury into thinking "This guy has drug charges? He is a bad person and must be lying." The notable exception is crimes of falsehood.

Evidence of past crimes of falsehood (crimes involving fraud or deception) will be allowed in because they speak directly to the witness' truthfulness. Whereas someone who has robbery convictions might be a bad person, it does not mean he is a liar. But someone convicted of fraud has actually been found by the court to conduct himself in an untruthful manner.

However, Taylor for sure has a crack legal team who will find some ways of having this come out in court...even if it is not actually admitted as evidence the jury will still have heard it.

Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.

Did everybody see this?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/04/04/bc.fbn.redskins.taylor.ap/index.html

You have to be pretty confident in your case to reject a plea deal for no jail time.

Yeah, seriously. Sounds like the DA is just trying to save face with SOME kind of conviction.

Yes, but in this case, if the legal team proceeds with the defenses that Taylor was trying to reclaim stolen property, or defend himself, then character/reputation evidence could be much more broadly admitted to show that Taylor believed they were criminals, or that he believed he was defending himself.

I was actually thinking the same thing at first, but here is the problem. He is not claiming self-defense or any other affirmative defense; he is simply saying there was no gun involved and he never pointed a gun at anyone. Therefore, what he reasonably believed about these people is irrelevant because it's not an element of his defense.

I don't see how it is even an option for him to plea bargain to no jail time, but take the felony rap. This would allow the accusers to come after his money in Civil Court. This prosecutor is really starting to piss me off. I hope things go smoothly and he gets embarassed. I'm still worried this guy has some kind of trick up his sleeve and he is setting Taylor up. Otherwise this case should have been dropped a long time ago and now that this new eveidence comes out that all three witnesses are complete criminals I don't see how the prosecution can even proceed?

Although I believe what you're saying is accurate, because I don't know the law I really don't for sure. I say that to say, it's this kind of insight, knowledge and commentary that makes this community, The Warpath, invaluable and head and shoulders above the rest.

To that end, this is why I'm glad there was no "split" and all of the respective members here are here to stay.

Good job, man.

Thanks 12thMan :) I love that about Warpath too, the people are just great and are always willing to answer my questions. No question that its the quality of the people that keep me coming back all day at work. Well that and the fact that its much more interesting than my job!

I think that info should be mostly right...but I did only get a B+ in Evidence last semester, so perhaps I should punt the question to one of the A students!

what are your opinions of the resent news tha the won't make a deal and it's going to trial he's pleading not guilty. comments

His attorneys have analyzed his situation. If he did it they would tell him to take the plea. Plain and simple. You don't jeapordize your livelyhood and freedom to avoid a felony on your record.

This must be a slam dunk.

more important stuff,who sponsered the poll?