Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I know we have several lawyer types here on the Warpath, and I think it would be good if those people could lay a little knowledge on us regarding Taylor's situation.

First off, is there any new information available regarding Taylor's case? Do we have any idea of what evidence the state has against him? Perhaps someone could also explain what the state's burden of proof is for an aggravated assault charge in Florida, in other words, what will the prosecution need to prove in order to convict Taylor? Would eyewitness accounts against Taylor be sufficient to convict him? And what do we think the chances are of him actually getting convicted?

He's obviously an extremely important part of our team, and his trial is one of the most important things to happen for the Redskins this offseason. If anybody has seen any articles on the subject lately, this thread would be a good place to post them.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I am not a lawyer but from my recollection there were multiple parties involved. 2 of which are Taylor and his associate. He has simply been charged with pointing a gun at one of the other parties. Now the one true legal discussion I read about this was months ago but the only known evidence at that time was the statements of the other parties. The state's attorney attempted to settle with both Taylor and his associate. This was noted as being revealing to some legal analysts as they viewed the attempt to settle with Taylor as an acknowledgement of the weakness of the state's case because the only evidence comes from being made by questionable characters. They also felt that the more serious crime commited has been attributed to Taylor's associate as he was charged with actually swining a bat at the other parties. The attempt to settle with Taylor's associate was seen as two fold. First it was another sign of the perceived weakness of evidence and second it was felt that the attempt was also a play to turn Taylor's associate; again another sign of weakness. Both Taylor and his associate did not settle. The basic consensus at the time I read this article was that one of two things will happen. Either Taylor will get off or he will settle to a much lower charge. A charge not requiring a mandatory 3 year sentence. This is of course assuming there was no unknown evidence and again this was months ago. I'd love if someone had a more recent outline of the case as it stands now.

I might be optimistic but when a prosecutor doesn't seem too eager to go to trial I am thinking he may know that he is going to have to settle at best. The prosecutor hasn't fought too hard against any continuances and he certainly can't still be investigating. It is a pretty basic situation. I would think if he felt he had an airtight case he'd be more eager to get this done. I hope.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I'm not a layer but I have been to quite a number of law office parties. What I do know is that this is a criminal case and thus the DA can do as he/she pleases. I also know that they have the people who Taylor allegedly pointed a gun at as their star witnesses. Some of these witnesses don't have a spotless criminal records so they do have credibility issues. Unless Taylors boys turn on him and testify against him he'll walk away scot free if the case actually goes to trial. My guess is there will be a settlement and he'll have to do some community service.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

which make u incredibly smart tafka cuz u saved an assload of money

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.[/QUOTE]

express :biggthump

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I dont see what the big deal is, its not like he shot any body...............

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

#1. I have not heard any new information about Sean Taylor's case.

#2. I do not know what evidence the prosecution has and I don't think anyone does. It is highly unlikely that even Taylor's lawyer knows all of the evidence the prosecution has. It likely rests on eyewitness accounts. However, it could possibly also consist of a seized weapon with finger-prints, ballistics tests on bullets and the firearm used, etc. We simply do not know what they've got.

#3. In Florida, to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, or with the intent to commit a felony. 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.

In other words, if the prosecution can convince a jury that Sean Taylor actually fired a firearm at a house, he's screwed.

#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.

#5. It is impossible to know whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Taylor. If you don't know the evidence against Taylor, you might as well flip a coin to decide whether he will be convicted.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I can't wait to see his knock the shit out of people in august.

as one, for a lack of a better term, passionate redskins fan said

[url="http://www.weakgame.com/data/Videos/20060118_006_go_redskins.wmv"]KILL SEAN KILL!! KILL SEAN KILL!![/url]

By the way i am glad he didn't actually kill anybody over ATVs

I need to look back at old stuff i wrote because i remember i convinced myself that he was completely innocent

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

hopefully all this crap will at least teach him to stay in washington in the offseason and come to minicamp...even though i know that it won't....and thats if he doesnt go to jail

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

whoa,bigskin!your video scares me

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I'm thinking Taylor will go free once any jury sees this video!
Wow sometimes I'm glad I'm a Redskins fan. Those guys were loaded. And uh some didn't even have a clue when loaded....
Great video! Please post more! Beer bongs in the next one! PLEASE!!!

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

yeah. Lol i think those guys are from oakland. People are laughing about that video on other team's fans boards too. I thought everyone had seen it via the
[url="http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=8823"]Super Happy Fun Thread[/url] and as for more videos everyone knows that is the hottest place for funny stupid videos :)

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]I am not a lawyer but from my recollection there were multiple parties involved. 2 of which are Taylor and his associate. He has simply been charged with pointing a gun at one of the other parties. Now the one true legal discussion I read about this was months ago but the only known evidence at that time was the statements of the other parties. The state's attorney attempted to settle with both Taylor and his associate. This was noted as being revealing to some legal analysts as they viewed the attempt to settle with Taylor as an acknowledgement of the weakness of the state's case because the only evidence comes from being made by questionable characters. They also felt that the more serious crime commited has been attributed to Taylor's associate as he was charged with actually swining a bat at the other parties. The attempt to settle with Taylor's associate was seen as two fold. First it was another sign of the perceived weakness of evidence and second it was felt that the attempt was also a play to turn Taylor's associate; again another sign of weakness. Both Taylor and his associate did not settle. The basic consensus at the time I read this article was that one of two things will happen. Either Taylor will get off or he will settle to a much lower charge. A charge not requiring a mandatory 3 year sentence. This is of course assuming there was no unknown evidence and again this was months ago. I'd love if someone had a more recent outline of the case as it stands now.

I might be optimistic but when a prosecutor doesn't seem too eager to go to trial I am thinking he may know that he is going to have to settle at best. The prosecutor hasn't fought too hard against any continuances and he certainly can't still be investigating. It is a pretty basic situation. I would think if he felt he had an airtight case he'd be more eager to get this done. I hope.[/QUOTE]

FRPLG, nice post, you reminded me of some things. I had forgotten about the prosecution's attempt to settle. We may not know the evidence against Taylor (and I guess we might never know what the evidence is since we're not lawyer's with the DA's office down there). But the attempt at settlement by the prosecution is pretty telling; but Taylor's rejection of the settlement is even more telling. If a prosecutor tries to settle, his case could be weak, or maybe he's just got too many other cases on hand and just wants to clear a couple off his desk. The fact that Taylor and his lawyer decided to reject the plea seems to indicate that they too feel that the state's case is weak. I think if any good defense lawyer thought there was a chance Taylor could get convicted in a trial, he would advise Taylor to take the plea. But he didn't. We may not know the evidence, but I think that's pretty telling. You're right, he's probably good to go.

Anybody know when the trial date is?

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]#1. I have not heard any new information about Sean Taylor's case.

#2. I do not know what evidence the prosecution has and I don't think anyone does. It is highly unlikely that even Taylor's lawyer knows all of the evidence the prosecution has. It likely rests on eyewitness accounts. However, it could possibly also consist of a seized weapon with finger-prints, ballistics tests on bullets and the firearm used, etc. We simply do not know what they've got.
[/quote]
Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]
#3. In Florida, to be found guilty of aggravated assault, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, or with the intent to commit a felony. 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.

In other words, if the prosecution can convince a jury that Sean Taylor actually fired a firearm at a house, he's screwed.
[/quote]
Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]
#4. Eyewitness statements would likely be sufficient to sustain a conviction if the jury chooses to believe the witnesses.
[/quote]
Based on what experience? Eye witness testimony is relatively corruptable by a decent defense attorney. I don't know of too may proecutors who'd feel great about their chances with simple eye witness testimony. All it takes is one jury member to not believe the witnesses and in the case here I am guessing the questionable character issues make believeing them even that much harder. Especially since they as suspected of coming back to his hosue and firing at him.
[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]
#5. It is impossible to know whether there is sufficient evidence to convict Taylor. If you don't know the evidence against Taylor, you might as well flip a coin to decide whether he will be convicted.[/QUOTE]
Well duh. But that doesn't stop legal analysts from ever analyzing cases. No one can ever know if they have enough. So why should it stop us from discussing it. I'd love if we could find some people who really know what is going on here. Not just with this case but with Fla law and even with specific area and prosecutor.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.[/QUOTE]

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.

[QUOTE=FRPLG] Since the initial details to come out were that Taylor simply pointed the gun and there was no mention of any firing of said weapon I am surprised that the aggravated part of the charge is there. Perhaps in Fla their standards for aggravatd aren't quite as bad as having to have fired the gun. I am guessing this is the first place the prosecution will have to fold on. He didn't fire it so aggravated would seem excessive.[/QUOTE]

I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense..[/QUOTE]




i learned that from watching "my cousin vinny".:)

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]I can't wait to see his knock the shit out of people in august.

as one, for a lack of a better term, passionate redskins fan said

[url="http://www.weakgame.com/data/Videos/20060118_006_go_redskins.wmv"]KILL SEAN KILL!! KILL SEAN KILL!![/url]

By the way i am glad he didn't actually kill anybody over ATVs

I need to look back at old stuff i wrote because i remember i convinced myself that he was completely innocent[/QUOTE]


Question: Was the Kill Sean Kill video shot by Trojan Man? Believe it or not I have met the guy who dropped the F-bomb 223 times. He asked me if I wanted 10W30 or 5W30.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.[/QUOTE]

By no means am I an expert. But, I worked as a paralegal for several years on several dozen felony cases in New York for a former state court judges-turned defense attorney. I drafted (not just typed) motions, attended numerous court hearings/trials, I attended in-chambers meetings between judges and the parties' attorneys, etc. I worked as intern for a federal court district judge and drafted decisions in both criminal and civil cases. I worked in a law clinic representing federal inmates in criminal appeals and I have been in law school for two years.

Discovery doesn't reveal everything. For example, in a case like this, where witness statements are going to be key, you don't get to depose the witnesses prior to trial. You know who the witnesses are going to be, but you don't know what the eyewitnesses are going to say. In some states (i.e. New York), you also aren't entitled to police reports. I know what discovery is and whether you believe me or not, there are many surprises at trials.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]
Based on what experience? Eye witness testimony is relatively corruptable by a decent defense attorney. I don't know of too may proecutors who'd feel great about their chances with simple eye witness testimony. All it takes is one jury member to not believe the witnesses and in the case here I am guessing the questionable character issues make believeing them even that much harder. Especially since they as suspected of coming back to his hosue and firing at him.[/QUOTE]

The question was whether eyewitness statements alone could support a conviction. If you notice what I said in the original post, eyewitness testimony can be sufficient to sustain a conviction [I]if it is believed by the jury[/I]. Of course, the defense attorney will try to impeach the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses.

[QUOTE=FRPLG]
Well duh. But that doesn't stop legal analysts from ever analyzing cases. No one can ever know if they have enough. So why should it stop us from discussing it. I'd love if we could find some people who really know what is going on here. Not just with this case but with Fla law and even with specific area and prosecutor.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't trying to "shut down debate." I was just saying that I doubt people know enough about the case to even hazard an educated guess at this point.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=BigSKINBauer]

[url="http://www.weakgame.com/data/Videos/20060118_006_go_redskins.wmv"]KILL SEAN KILL!! KILL SEAN KILL!![/url]

[/QUOTE]





uuummmmmm.............can you say potty mouth:spank:

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]
Anybody know when the trial date is?[/QUOTE]

March 20th.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10][quote=FRPLG]Not sure what legal credentials you have but I have none and even I know that whatever evidence there is the defense has to know about it. It is called discovery and it is a basic tenant of our US justice system. The prosecution doesn't get to surprise the dfense with evidence come trial time.[/quote]

I'm also not a lawyer, but I know this to be true as well. If the prosecution has evidence, it must by law share it with the defense.[/quote]

No, but this is a common misperception thanks to television shows. The prosecution has to disclose any [b]exculpatory[/b] evidence. That is, they can't just sit on evidence that would tend to show the defendant is innocent. They don't have to open their files to the defendant, though.
[url]http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_11_72/ai_111496590[/url]


[QUOTE=Schneed10]I'm not certain, but I believe the definition of aggravated assault is simply an assault using a deadly weapon. Since an assault just represents a threat to do harm to someone, all Taylor has to do is point a gun at someone and that equals aggravated assault. I don't think firing it is required to qualify for aggravated assault. But a lawyer would be able to confirm.[/QUOTE]
As someone posted above, it's more than that. There is an increased intent requirement on the part of the defendant.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]No, but this is a common misperception thanks to television shows. The prosecution has to disclose any [b]exculpatory[/b] evidence. That is, they can't just sit on evidence that would tend to show the defendant is innocent. They don't have to open their files to the defendant, though.
[/QUOTE]
True but as we have all seen defense lawyers are very good at twisting and turning evidence to their advantage. For that reason generally isn't most evidence made available so as to avoid mistrials due to discovery failures? I thought most prosectors erred on the side of caution and let defenses see most anything. Then there isn't any chance that the defense can convince a judge that the evidence the prosection sees as merely damaging is in reality potentially exculpatory.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]True but as we have all seen defense lawyers are very good at twisting and turning evidence to their advantage. For that reason generally isn't most evidence made available so as to avoid mistrials due to discovery failures? I thought most prosectors erred on the side of caution and let defenses see most anything. Then there isn't any chance that the defense can convince a judge that the evidence the prosection sees as merely damaging is in reality potentially exculpatory.[/QUOTE]

We need to distinsguish between mandatory discovery and permissive discovery. The prosecution MUST turn over exculpatory evidence. The defense has a right to REQUEST pretty much all non-work product evidence. If the defense doesn't ask for something that isn't mandatory, the prosecution has no duty to turn it over. Even failure to turn over exculpatory evidence isn't necessarily reversible error unless the defense can prove that it impacted the outcome on the case or that the prosecution acted maliciously.

Anyhow, the original statement was: "It is unlikely ST's lawyers know all the evidence against him." If they are good attorneys and know what to ask for, then they probably know pretty much everything.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

i think that it will be miracle if sean taylor doesn't come back this season i think that sean taylor's lawyers will pull it through but you never know

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I just hope they dont bring up how he assaulted other people, in court......................................like Terry Glenn, and Darryl Jackson just to name a few. lol sory had to do it

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]We need to distinsguish between mandatory discovery and permissive discovery. The prosecution MUST turn over exculpatory evidence. The defense has a right to REQUEST pretty much all non-work product evidence. If the defense doesn't ask for something that isn't mandatory, the prosecution has no duty to turn it over. Even failure to turn over exculpatory evidence isn't necessarily reversible error unless the defense can prove that it impacted the outcome on the case or that the prosecution acted maliciously.

Anyhow, the original statement was: "It is unlikely ST's lawyers know all the evidence against him." If they are good attorneys and know what to ask for, then they probably know pretty much everything.[/QUOTE]

They probably know a lot, but not everything. By that I mean, they likely don't know what exactly the witnesses saw or heard. They don't know what precisely they are going to testify to at trial. When you don't know exactly what the witnesses are going to testify to and their testimony is likely going to constitute the bulk of the evidence against ST, I'm not sure that you can say that they will know everything. Moreover, if they intend to tell half-truths on the stand, or ST is telling half-truths to his attorneys, it may make for some surprises. That's just my two cents.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]They probably know a lot, but not everything. By that I mean, they likely don't know what exactly the witnesses saw or heard. They don't know what precisely they are going to testify to at trial. When you don't know exactly what the witnesses are going to testify to and their testimony is likely going to constitute the bulk of the evidence against ST, I'm not sure that you can say that they will know everything. Moreover, if they intend to tell half-truths on the stand, or ST is telling half-truths to his attorneys, it may make for some surprises. That's just my two cents.[/QUOTE]

The defense will know the testimonial evidence the prosecution plans to present (i.e., what witnesses they plan to present and for what reason). If the defense has not prepped properly, they might not ask the "right" questions of the witnesses during depositions and interviews and might not uncover a crucial fact. So, the defense will have the [b]opportunity[/b] to get pretty much everything but could miss an opportunity.

That said, if the witnesses lie, you are correct, the defense will not know the truth.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

Thanks for hittin us up with a clarification on the rules of discovery. But I still think the most telling part of all this was the prosecution's attempt to plea the case down. Though the prosecution may or may not be required to share evidence with the defense, I'm sure he does his business just like the rest of us do: he tries to work efficiently and save himself time. If he was totally confident in his case, I think he wouldn't even bother making a plea agreement with Taylor; he'd just go straight to trial. But the fact that he took the time to meet with him probably indicates he doesn't have an open and shut case.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]Thanks for hittin us up with a clarification on the rules of discovery. But I still think the most telling part of all this was the prosecution's attempt to plea the case down. Though the prosecution may or may not be required to share evidence with the defense, I'm sure he does his business just like the rest of us do: he tries to work efficiently and save himself time. If he was totally confident in his case, I think he wouldn't even bother making a plea agreement with Taylor; he'd just go straight to trial. But the fact that he took the time to meet with him probably indicates he doesn't have an open and shut case.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't read too much into to the plea agreement offer. Prosecutors usually try to reach an out-of-court agreement in every case for one reason or another. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good overview of the pros and cons of plea agreements:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargain[/url]

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

The latest I saw, was on the continuation until March 20th.

Prosecution brought up the spitting incident, and wanted the hearing held regardless. Judge went with the continuence.


I have also heard the prosecution evidence is weak, but that may be media bias.

I've studied a little Criminal Law, some Administrative Law, some Appropriation Law, and some Business Law over the years.

I know enough that I don't want to hazard a guess on S. Taylor and the trial outcome.

This much I know. Prosecution has to prove beyond a shadow of doubt.

Defense only needs to bring in enough of a shadow, and so it all boils down to:

He said, He said.


S. Taylor may never make it to trial, or the charge may be reduced, or the jury may not buy the prosecution's proof.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=onlydarksets]The defense will know the testimonial evidence the prosecution plans to present (i.e., what witnesses they plan to present and for what reason). If the defense has not prepped properly, they might not ask the "right" questions of the witnesses during depositions and interviews and might not uncover a crucial fact. So, the defense will have the [b]opportunity[/b] to get pretty much everything but could miss an opportunity.

That said, if the witnesses lie, you are correct, the defense will not know the truth.[/QUOTE]

But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

I hope this link works.


[url]http://cbs.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9163149[/url]

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

My question is: Does anyone know if a gun was actually seized? It is my understanding that FL law is pretty unforgiving if a handgun is in the picture.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

whether it is pointing a gun or spitting in someones face (sean taylor)...
this is something we have come to expect from graduates from Miama U.

GOOOOOOO VIRGINIA TECH!!!!!!!!!!!!

but we will all forgive sean taylor b/c he hits hard

end of story.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

o yeah, i think i stayed at a holiday inn once

it was nice there.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]But the problem is, the defense attorneys will not have an opportunity to depose or interview the witnesses. In a civil case depositions are routine and a matter of course, but in criminal cases there are almost never depositions.
As for informal interviews, why would ST's alleged victims cooperate and hold an interview with ST's defense attorney? I am sure they are not going to talk to ST's defense attorneys until the trial.

Yes, the prosecution must provide notice of the witnesses they intend to call at trial and the substance of what they are testifying to. But, no those notices rarely let the opposing attorney know what exactly the witness is going to say.[/QUOTE]

I see your point. You are right - defense attorneys are not guaranteed the right to interview witnesses. Practically speaking, however, they do interview witnesses (prosecutors can't prevent it) - and a lot of non-interested witnesses do cooperate with both sides. But, as you point out, there are definitely times when witnesses decline to talk to defense attorneys.

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

[QUOTE=TAFKAS]I'm not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn.[/QUOTE]

LOL

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

This can't be good

[url]http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060126-115354-2078r.htm[/url]

Re: Sean Taylor's Legal Situation
 

Funnily enough. This is the advertisement that came up when I checked the Taylor situation.

[img]http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/1866/funy6zo.jpg[/img]