Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

Now they're saying Taylor didn't fire the shots, he was shot at (http://washtimes.com/sports/20050607-120506-9397r.htm)

At least he didn't FIRE it, thank God.

PSU,

While it is true that thousands are convicted on a (weekly/monthly) basis entirely because of eye-witness testimony, it is far from true that eye-witness testimony is questioned when the defense is trying to show mistaken identity.

The purpose of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility or reliability of the witness. I'd say in 99% of cross-examinations, eye-witness testimony is questioned on grounds other than potential mistaken identity.

Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient. In fact, eye witness testimony is all that most prosecutors need to convict someone of a crime. Regardless of what phsychiatrists have said or what studies are done, in our legal system eye witness testimony is still highly regarded and acts as very damaging evidence against a defendant. Furthermore, a witness may only testify as to the information he knows at the time of questioning. Prior unsworn-to statements are inadmissible as hearsay unless they are being used to impeach the witness for inconsistencies.

Second, I am well aware of the purposes of cross examination. However, as it relates to "eye-witness" testimony, and given the facts that we have so far, I don't believe the defense has much to work with here. Obviously mistaken identity won't work. That, by the way, is essentially the same thing as reliability. When an eye-witness's testimony is questioned on reliability grounds, the defense is essentially challenging whether the eye-witness was in a position to see what he says he saw. They would challenge the lighting, the eyesight of the witness, whether the witness was under the influence of any drugs or alcohol, etc. I've not yet seen any facts that would support a challenge along those lines, but, of course, it is still early.

As to credibility, again, I'm not so sure there are strong grounds to challenge the witnesses there either. First, assuming the alleged victims called the police, it seems more likely than not that they didn't actually steal the ATVs (of course that's an assumption on my part). Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony and think "oh heck, is that all they have? A guy saying ST pointed a gun at me." I think we need to recognize that in the typical case, that's all the prosecutor really needs to get a conviction. The battle over challenging the credibility of the witness would be a fierce one, and would be one that both sides would brief thoroughly (which neither of us are prepare to do here).

FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute. :)

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?

FINALLY someone said something. I was worried for a minute. :)

Seriously though, anyone think he'll actually do jail time if convicted?

If convicted of what he's been charged with? ... he has to. Mandatory minimum of 3 years. If he pleas down to a lesser charge, I'd say either no time or only during the next off-season.

Go plea bargain go...

After all this, I couldn't be more unhappy with him. He has insurance to replace his ATVs if they WERE stolen. Not only that, who knows if those people had guns themselves (it seems like SOMEONE did) and he could have been killed?

Now they're saying Taylor didn't fire the shots, he was shot at (http://washtimes.com/sports/20050607-120506-9397r.htm)

This is certainly some very good news for Taylor. At least now the defense knows where they start their bargaining from. If he fired the gun, he was looking at 20 years. Now, we know that the worst case scenario is three years on the aggravated assault charge. If they can bargain down from that charge, there is a very real possibility he could escape jail time.

VERY Poor decision making, no doubt MC. :banghead: :smashfrea

You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?

You think there is any way the facts might shift to where he was pointing a gun in self defense? Or is that chance completely gone?

Hey, there's always a chance. It doesn't seem plausible right now just because why would the other guys point a gun at ST, not fire on him, have him pull a gun on them, still not fire at ST, and then fire on him after he comes back a second time? So right now, it doesn't seem like that's what happened, but who knows.....it's still really early.

The more likely scenario is ST shows up, waives a gun at them, punches one of them, then takes off. By the time he comes back 10 minutes later, the other guys have had time to go get their guns and it's all ganster warfare from there. Again though, all speculation at this point.