Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

AndyJohnson said:

I don’t think the “offer” indicates they have a weak case, I think it indicates they don’t want to clog the courts and offer plea bargains all the time.
ACOD doesn’t seem to be what the state is interested in doing here.

Click to expand...

It's still early days, but I agree in general that prosecutors don't want to clog the courts and offer plea deals all the time.

PatsDeb said:

It's tough to be black and white in a grey world...

Click to expand...

Sounds blurry.

Not tough at all. Stand for something or fall for anything.

IMO, sounds like the prosecution is grasping at straws here.....

I'd not take the deal if I were actually innocent OR take it if I were guilty to bury the story and take my suspension. The worst can happen is Kraft gets slapped on the wrist with a misdemeanor...and is suspended by the NFL.

AndyJohnson said:

I don’t see what kraft has to gain.
If found guilty he will pay a fine, do community service and continue to deny any wrong doing.
If he accepts this deal he can no longer deny, must undergo STD tests, and prostitution education classes.
This seems like the opposite of buying your way out of it

Click to expand...

The sentence will be worse than the deal. That's what he loses.

Michael McCann ... too much too quote.

SI's Michael McCann on OMF: Robert Kraft prostitution case likely gets resolved in plea deal

upstater1 said:

The sentence will be worse than the deal. That's what he loses.

Click to expand...

A bigger fine and more community service is certainly worth retaining the ability to deny his guilt to kraft.

TommyBrady12 said:

Here, there were two acts - one was a massage and the other a sex act. In usual prostitution, there is no massage so the defendant has a tougher argument. Here, Kraft can pin it on the massage.

Click to expand...

If you were the judge, would you buy that lame excuse? I know I sure wouldn't.

The potential sentence is nothing to Kraft. He doesn't want to admit to the act. Pretrial diversion/deferred adjudication requiring that he admit the deed would run contrary to that goal.

I could see him pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to some failure to report an offense type of charge, which would implicate him in nothing. I expect he will fight anything else to the end, if only out of public perception concerns.

MassPats38 said:

The potential sentence is nothing to Kraft. He doesn't want to admit to the act. Pretrial diversion/deferred adjudication requiring that he admit the deed would run contrary to that goal.

I could see him pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to some failure to report an offense type of charge, which would implicate him in nothing. I expect he will fight anything else to the end, if only out of public perception concerns.

Click to expand...

Yup. Exactly.

Triumph said:

I believe the case vs Kraft is solid, but the State would rather avoid a long drawn out battle with Krafts HOF lawyers. They know every trick in the book. Everyone will be on trial but Kraft.

The video tape is not from police cameras. The massage Madam set her own cameras up and recorded the clientele. Maybe she had plans to black mail old Bob later on down the road.

Click to expand...

What? The police affidavit listed camera numbers for each camera. Either the police placed them or the police knew about them by the time Kraft was there. This wasn't her recording people without police knowledge.

IcyPatriot said:

That is not going to help him with pending league action.

Click to expand...

this

being reported he got a BJ and the cop have video of it, if he is truly innocent, they fight it all the way, the other owners are looking to bend him over again

I feel like Kraft is gonna get off.

Triumph said:

A pardon.

2020 is around the corner.

Click to expand...

Nope. The man in the White House can only pardon for federal offenses and Kraft was charged under State law. Only the Gov of Florida can pardon him for it...

Antdawg said:

I feel like Kraft is gonna get off.

Click to expand...

:drumroll:

Okay. So let me get this straight.

The madam illegally placed a camera in an unapproved location?

"How much did knowing that get you off, Bob, on a scale of 1 to 100?"

"1"

"Then you're a real schmuck."

XLIX said:

If you were the judge, would you buy that lame excuse? I know I sure wouldn't.

Click to expand...

It will never get to that point. Kraft has hired lawyers who used to work in the White House. They would throw up a thousand legitimate objections up before it even gets to that point and the judge will just throw it out. How much time do you think a judge is going to spend on this? 5 minutes at the most. A decent lawyer weasels out of this every time. It's a non-violent, non-threatening consensual offense. Hell, a driver going 10 mph over the speed limit is more of a threat to society than what Kraft is being charged with. A speeder can actually cause an accident and hurt people. No judge is going to waste more than a few minutes on this, if that much.

QuantumMechanic said:

What? The police affidavit listed camera numbers for each camera. Either the police placed them or the police knew about them by the time Kraft was there. This wasn't her recording people without police knowledge.

Click to expand...

First I hear of this too, anyone have a link to where the cameras were set up by the madam and not the police?

XLIX said:

If you were the judge, would you buy that lame excuse? I know I sure wouldn't.

Click to expand...

It's not necessarily the judge, it could be a jury trial. And the fact finder has to decide the case based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is any doubt, then Kraft slides. The league, on the other hand, will likely come down hard on Kraft since Goondell is empowered to impose rulings using a lesser standard.

PatsDeb said:

If you plead guilty, they have not dropped the charges. It's either being reported inartfully, or they are trying to fool the public. They are offering a plea deal.

Click to expand...

Could it be a badly reported/misunderstood by the media Alford plea? ("A plea under which a defendant may choose to plead guilty, not because of an admission to the crime, but because the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to place a charge and to obtain conviction in court.")