Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

After reading the WT article, sounds like Flordia has a mandatory minimum and he could face 20 years if he actually fired the gun.

Ok maybe this isn't so good after all.

I wish I could say that any of this surprised me, but this is about the type of behavior I would come to expect from ST. Wonder if anyone else is willing to try to teach this kid a lesson yet besides me. Of course he still hasn't missed any mandatory team events, so I guess we can all hold our heads high and proclaim that this guy deserves to be our starting safety.

Anyways, that's all I'm saying about any of that.

A few clarifications / opinions:

One key thing to remember with Aggravated Assault is that there is no requirement that ST actually touched or harmed the alleged victims. If he brandished a gun and pointed it at someone, and they felt threatened (the jury will assume this.......anyone who has a gun pointed at them is going to feel threatened), he is guilty of aggravated assault, period. Whether he actually fired the gun has no bearing on the charge of aggravated assault. Whether the alleged victim actually suffered any physical harm has no bearing on the charge.

As to the "self defense" arguments. Forget about them based on the accusations that have been made so far. First, if the alleged victim did not brandish a gun or other deadly weapon (and there has been no indication so far that he did), then ST cannot waive a gun at him and claim he felt threatened and was only protecting himself. If ST's life was not in imminent danger, he cannot escalate the situation by pulling out a gun and still rely on self defense. Second, someone stealing your property gives you no right to either inflict physical harm on them or to threaten them with a deadly weapon. I know some have said "I'd do the same thing if someone took my property".....and if that's true, you'd be breaking the law as well. Even assuming that the alleged victims had stolen ST's ATVs, that fact would still not excuse any of ST's alleged actions as a matter of law. The reasoning for this is simple: there is a public interest in prohibiting individuals from taking the law into their own hands. While the theft would make it more understandable in our eyes, it makes the alleged actions no less criminal. Third, someone has speculated that perhaps he could say "I took the gun, because I thought those thieves could be packing" (or something like that). Again, sorry, but no defense. The right to life supersedes the right to property, so the fact that he even went to the house of the alleged thieves with a gun is inexcusable. If ST has a true fear of what he might encounter, then he should have called the police. Taking a gun to try to retrieve property in inexcusable as a matter of law.

As for how difficult a case the prosecutor really has? Well, that's hard to tell at this early stage, but I will say that I don't believe it is as difficult as some would like to believe. Certainly if the alleged victims did, in fact, steal the ATVs, then ST's defense is stronger because it will attack the credibility of the victims and could provide reasonable doubt as to the conflicting testimony related to whether a gun was brandished. If, however, the alleged victims did not steal the ATVs, Sean is absolutely screwed. Period. Eye witness testimony is among strongest pieces of evidence a defendant can have against him. Certainly the defense will try to pick it apart, but if the guy says "he pointed a gun at me" and there is no serious challenge to his credibility, and the police can produce the gun, then he's going to be found guilty, plain and simple.

As to the fact that he's a first time offender? With a charge as serious as aggravated assault, where a gun was used, I doubt his being a first time offender will have any bearing at all. Certainly, first time offenders are still subject to whatever mandatory minimums exist under Florida law (and I am not familiar with the particulars of that). To the extent Florida law mandates a certain amount of jail time for gun crimes, he will serve that minimum IF found guilty.

As to the bail issue: it all depends on the parameters of the release. The judge would have set those parameters. In a situation like this where there is a very low likelihood of flight by ST (he's just too famous to try to run and hide), I imagine the judge would allow him to travel to D.C. and back for "work". Same situation with Kobe......he was out on bail during his trial and still allowed to travel back and forth.

As to the jury/fact issue: The jury is, indeed, the fact-finder. If the jury finds that "X" happened, then for purposes of the trial, "X" happened. If they find that "X" did not happen, then "X" did not happen. In criminal trials, all facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This, of course, leads to the inevitable situation where a jury finds that "X did not happen beyond a reasonable doubt". In that situation, yes, there are many times where a defendant has, in fact, committed a crime, but the jury cannot find that they committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." So both sides of the argument are correct. On one hand, the facts are the facts ..... regardless of what the jury says it doesn't actually change what REALLY happened. However, for ST's purposes, the only "facts" that have any bearing on his future are the ones that the jury finds to be true. Hence: OJ. For our purposes, we are under no obligation to wait for the jury to determine the facts. If we believe, based on the information available, that a certain fact is true, then we are free to say so. However, I think we all need to be careful not to take as "fact" what one person or one police report says. Let's not forget, unless the officer is actually there to view the incident, police reports are usually nothing more than a collection of witness statements that the officer makes a snap judgment on.

As for my thoughts on all this: I agree, we need to keep in mind that ST is innocent until proven guilty. However, regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent of the felony, or the misdemeanor, or whatever, I just don't understand how this guy manages to find himself in these situations. I mean come on, he wasn't arrested and charged because he excercised good judgment here. One way or the other he was somewhere he sould not have been in a situation he shouldn't have put himself into. I think he's a little old to be playing cops and robbers or cowboys and indians or whatever it was he thought he was doing.

Great! I can't wait to see our reserve safeties miss tackles and slide off of ball carriers like water on a rain-x'd windshield.

Here is what the Florida Statutes say about assault and aggravated assault:

784.011 Assault
(1) An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


784.021 Aggravated assault (What Taylor has been charged with):

(1) An "aggravated assault" is an assault:

(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

Based on the "facts" known to us at this time, Taylor is being charged under 784.021 (1)(a). To prove that Taylor is guilty, the State would need to show:
(1) that Taylor brandished a firearm
(2) that Taylor threatened (by word or act) to do harm to the victim
(3) that the victim saw, or knew of, the firearm and reasonably percieved a threat to his person.

The hurdles in convicting Taylor of the above-referenced charge are (1) proving that Taylor brandished a weapon and (2) that Taylor brandished the weapon in connection with threatening acts or words. If the only witnesses to the "incident" are Taylor, his friend, and the victim(s), it comes down to "he said," "she said." It's hard to get a conviction based solely on the testimony of the alleged victim - especially IF that victim is a "shady character" who might have recently taken part in another crime.

A jury MIGHT be sympathetic to Taylor - who just had possessions taken from him and used a firearm when confronting the people who had just stolen property from Taylor.

Moreover, Taylor's "self-defense" claim could be that he was looking for his stolen property, he knew that he might run into the people who stole it, and oftentimes such criminals are armed - so he took along a weapon.

Based on what I currently know, my guess is this that due to the aforementioned hurdles the DA will need to jump to get a felony conviction, the parties will be plead down to Assault (as opposed to Aggravated Assault) - which is a misdemeanor. But, it's too early to tell.

This is nice work...your title should be changed to Legal Expert.

Can anyone tell me if ST has any history of trouble before coming to the NFL and did he graduate from college or leave early for the NFL?

PSU, great post man. It's nice to get the solid legal perspective. There's only so much Law & Order reruns can teach you!!

In your professional opinion, if Taylor pleads guilty to aggravated assault, how much time do you think he'll actually serve? I was wondering if he'd do less time if he just pled guilty than he would if he tried to fight it and lost.

On football matters, I'm on your side now man. If it's at all feasible to our salary cap, I say get rid of him through trade or release, either way, just get rid of him. I wonder if we'll have a claim to get back any signing bonus money.

Great! I can't wait to see our reserve safeties miss tackles and slide off of ball carriers like water on a rain-x'd windshield.

are you forgetting how great our backup safeties did last year when matt bowen was injured. if sean taylor doesn't play this season, im sure we have solid backups who can play the position good enough for our defense, just not be playmakers in the secondary. ryan clark is good enough. pierson proleau (sp) is good enough, so are all the other safeties we have. we had a lot of key injuries to our defense last season and we finished third. i don't think our defense is gonna drop a spot because of taylor's absence. hell, remember the dallas game where we could've won 10-6 but sean taylor made a mistake that cost us the game.

We need Sean Taylor, but we can do without him if need be. I think our secondary will do just fine without him. I'm just curious to see what comes out of this situation.

PSU, great post man. It's nice to get the solid legal perspective. There's only so much Law & Order reruns can teach you!!

In your professional opinion, if Taylor pleads guilty to aggravated assault, how much time do you think he'll actually serve? I was wondering if he'd do less time if he just pled guilty than he would if he tried to fight it and lost.

On football matters, I'm on your side now man. If it's at all feasible to our salary cap, I say get rid of him through trade or release, either way, just get rid of him. I wonder if we'll have a claim to get back any signing bonus money.

Thanks Schneed.:biggthump

As far as plea bargaining, if he were to plead guilty to aggravated assault, and there was a mandatory minimum in place for that offense, he would most likely be stuck with that mandatory minimum (I say most likely because a judge is always free to disregard any arrangements worked out between the parties and give more or less as long as it's within the sentencing guidelines......even if the prosecutor recommends the minimum, the judge could go higher). As for how long that is? That I don't know because I'm not intimately familiar with Florida law. I believe I saw in a prior post by RF that it starts at 5 years (gun charges are typically really tough).

Now, as a practical matter, ST probably wouldn't plead guilty to aggravated assault. Most likely his attorney would work out something with the prosecutor to get the charge dropped down to simple assault and then plead guilty to that (which is a misdemeanor). Then, it's up to the judge. If the judge is a prick, he could jail him for up to one year. More likely scenario (and here is where a clean record can help you): the judge will cut him some slack, give him a year probation, some community service, anger management courses, fines, etc., but no serious time. Whether the prosecution takes the deal to drop the charges down in exchange for a plea will, of course, depend on how strong the case is. If the alleged victims stole the ATVs, then expect a plea bargain because the victims would make poor witnesses (the type any lawyer would just love to cross examine on the stand). If they didn't steal the ATVs, then the prosecution has a strong case and may want to go forward with trial. So to answer your question, he can't get below whatever the mandatory minimum is for whatever crime he pleads guilty to. If that's aggravated assault, he'd be screwed. Of course, there is always getting out early for good behavior, and I'm not sure how Florida law works in that regard, but I'd imagine he'd be looking at at least a couple years before parole would be an option.

As for the contract and whether we could get any $ back? Same situation as Winslow right now. If there is a clause in there related to committing felonies or missing games/team events because of crimes, then certainly the Skins could sue for breach of contract and get some money back. I don't know if there are clauses in there like that or not though. Also don't know what, if any, effect that has on salary cap.

I'm willing to wait a little while to see if it's looking really bad for him before casting him off, but I agree, if he did this, or even if it just becomes painfully evident that he did something seriously wrong here, I'd rather not have him on my team than have him. I just can't cheer for guys that do things like this if even some of the allegations are true.

mooby, I agree that our back ups are good, but I was more or less referring to Bowen who in the previous years couldnt make a tackle to save his life. No, we're not screwed if we lose Taylor but our secondary will get torched.