Deshaun Watson accused of sexual assault in lawsuit

[XLIX]

Is not the Attorney hired to speak on behalf of the women filling suit?

It depends what you mean by "speak on behalf" of a client. Attorneys are hired to argue on behalf of their client. They are not, however, hired to testify on behalf of a client. Please continue reading where I clarify what I mean....

Happens everyday. If I choose not to testify, my Attorney speaks for me and shares what I have told him. If I say that I didnt rob the bank when I did, isnt my Attorney spreading hearsay defending me as innocent?

In court, your lawyer cannot "share what you told him" as far as actual evidence goes. Your lawyer can't discuss facts not entered into evidence or, for example, tell the jury "my client was home during the bank robbery and I know this because that's what he told me." That would be hearsay and would be inadmissible (even if it was true). That statement would have to be entered into evidence somehow (such as by you yourself testifying.... or maybe someone who was with you at that time testifying... or maybe even something like video evidence or phone GPS).

If the accusations against Watson go to court (which I doubt they will but that's another issue), Buzbee cannot just take the stand and testify about all the things his clients claim Watson did to them. He can't tell the jury "Deshaun Watson did XYZ" without ever presenting any evidence/testimony establishing XYZ.

Post Script #1: Opening statements can and do discuss evidence not yet presented to the court, but only in the sense that they discuss the evidence which the lawyer plans to present. A lawyer can say "my client was home during the bank robbery" assuming he plans to support that statement with actual evidence/testimony during the trial.

Post Script #2: An attorney stating "my client is not guilty" is understood to be an argument and not evidence. So that would not be considered hearsay if stated by your attorney in, for example, closing arguments.

Post Script #3: There are situations which allow hearsay to be admissible, especially when involved parties are dead. But I sure can't think of a situation where the attorney himself would be allowed to present hearsay evidence on his own based on "my client told me such and such..."

Post Script #4: Please bear in mind that all the above refers to courtroom procedure. If, for example, we are talking about a press conference or instaface, then a lawyer can “speak for his client” pretty much in any way he darn well wants.

 

[Simpelton]

There's no way Watson will survive the season with all the allegations piling up. It will be at least an 8 game suspension by NFL and maybe more. It doesn't have to be criminal wrong doing. A civil trial is enough for the league to suspend, Ala Antonia Brown.

AB wasn't suspended for being accused. He was suspended for throwing a tantrum and doxxing his accuser. Frankly he's lucky his skinny behind didn't wind up in the clink for that little trick.

 

[venecol]

Should that mean Watson could be charged with soliciting prostitution? I hate to be cynical but I believe most of the women who said Watson was a gentleman were formerly on the Russian weight lifting team.

Agree with this. Time to release pictures of these women. Enough with the anonymity of accusers. DW was apparently spraying his load everywhere. I'm looking for dna. Didn't someone save a garment with precious bodily fluids on it? With Sleezbe acting as the carnival barker, let's turn this into a real sideshow. Let's goo.

She's Russian:

 

[sb1]

Just noticed that Watson's lawyer is the same guy that defended Roger Clemens in his trial.

Rogers Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, on the PED trial - ESPN The Magazine Interview Issue

 

[venecol]

Just noticed that Watson's lawyer is the same guy that defended Roger Clemens in his trial.

Rogers Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, on the PED trial - ESPN The Magazine Interview Issue

He's defended a bunch of athletes. He never loses. Sleezbe is stacking up cases because they're probably all weak. Individually they don't stand a chance so he needs this to be a pattern. Unfortunately, this isn't a class action suit. These are all individual cases and as such, Hardin will tear through them. I doubt Watson settles. It's too late. He'll want to recoup whatever is left of his reputation. Spending $5M in legal fees is nothing compared to potential loss of $40M/yr.

 

[Triumph]

It depends what you mean by "speak on behalf" of a client. Attorneys are hired to argue on behalf of their client. They are not, however, hired to testify on behalf of a client. Please continue reading where I clarify what I mean....

In court, your lawyer cannot "share what you told him" as far as actual evidence goes. Your lawyer can't discuss facts not entered into evidence or, for example, tell the jury "my client was home during the bank robbery and I know this because that's what he told me." That would be hearsay and would be inadmissible (even if it was true). That statement would have to be entered into evidence somehow (such as by you yourself testifying.... or maybe someone who was with you at that time testifying... or maybe even something like video evidence or phone GPS).

If the accusations against Watson go to court (which I doubt they will but that's another issue), Buzbee cannot just take the stand and testify about all the things his clients claim Watson did to them. He can't tell the jury "Deshaun Watson did XYZ" without ever presenting any evidence/testimony establishing XYZ.

Post Script #1: Opening statements can and do discuss evidence not yet presented to the court, but only in the sense that they discuss the evidence which the lawyer plans to present. A lawyer can say "my client was home during the bank robbery" assuming he plans to support that statement with actual evidence/testimony during the trial.

Post Script #2: An attorney stating "my client is not guilty" is understood to be an argument and not evidence. So that would not be considered hearsay if stated by your attorney in, for example, closing arguments.

Post Script #3: There are situations which allow hearsay to be admissible, especially when involved parties are dead. But I sure can't think of a situation where the attorney himself would be allowed to present hearsay evidence on his own based on "my client told me such and such..."

Post Script #4: Please bear in mind that all the above refers to courtroom procedure. If, for example, we are talking about a press conference or instaface, then a lawyer can “speak for his client” pretty much in any way he darn well wants.

Seems like Watsons attorney is repeating hearsay and information that was from Watson himself.

Rusty Hardin fires back at Deshaun Watson lawsuits

The statement claims one of the accusers asked for $30,000 to remain silent.

www.chron.com

 

[XLIX]

Seems like Watsons attorney is repeating hearsay and information that was from Watson himself.

Rusty Hardin fires back at Deshaun Watson lawsuits

The statement claims one of the accusers asked for $30,000 to remain silent.

www.chron.com

Please read post script #4 in my way-too-detailed post. I specifically addressed that very point.

 

[Triumph]

Please read post script #4 in my way-too-detailed post. I specifically addressed that very point.

We have the word of one lawyer who claims to be accurately representing the statements of 24 women. That is literally the definition of hearsay.

The 24 accusers Attorney has only filed the documents and isnt in court, but he is commiting hearsay repeating what the women have told him.

Watson Attorney isnt in court, but he is not commiting hearsay repeating what Watson has told him.

We have the word of Watsons lawyer that one woman asked for $30,000.

 

[XLIX]

We have the word of one lawyer who claims to be accurately representing the statements of 24 women. That is literally the definition of hearsay.

The 24 accusers Attorney has only filed the documents and isnt in court, but he is commiting hearsay repeating what the women have told him.

That’s correct that it’s hearsay but it isn’t like he’s actually in court so he can say whatever he darn well wants and people will decide on their own what they believe.

Watson Attorney isnt in court, but he is not commiting hearsay repeating what Watson has told him.

I absolutely never said any such thing. When Watson’s attorney repeats what Watson told him, that’s hearsay too.

We have the word of Watsons lawyer that one woman asked for $30,000.

Actually we have a sworn affidavit by someone claiming to be a first hand witness, but I digress.

My friend, you presented to me a hypothetical whereby you were accused of robbing a bank. I tried to explain to you how rules of evidence apply in a courtroom, but that all clearly fell on deaf ears. I also specifically stated that no such rules apply in press conferences. A lawyer can pretty much say whatever he wants there. That too seems to have fallen on deaf ears. If Watson’s attorney gives a press conference where he tells the world what Watson told him, then yes that’s hearsay.... but, as I have noted several times, you can do whatever the hell you want in a press conference.

Apprently you’re just not understanding my point so let me make it as clear and succinct as possible:

If Watson fights this all the way to an actual court of law, then in that court of law, the accusers are going to have to show up and testify. They can’t stay away and simply have their lawyer “testify on their behalf.” That would be hearsay and inadmissible.

In the meantime, in the court of public opinion, there are no rules of evidence. Lawyers can/do say whatever the hell they want in the media. I just happen to be someone educated enough to recognize what hearsay is and not ascribe to it terribly much validity. However, I seem to be in the minority.

 

[borg]

I could've sworn I saw public service announcements during the height of Covid that said: Don't neglect you favorite bartenders, waiters, and masseuses.

 

[Simpelton]

In the meantime, in the court of public opinion, there are no rules of evidence. Lawyers can/do say whatever the hell they want in the media. I just happen to be someone educated enough to recognize what hearsay is and not ascribe to it terribly much validity. However, I seem to be in the minority.

Yep. The best part is I'm a college dropout and full time failure, and I'm educated enough to note the distinction too. Anyone with a 4 year degree has ZERO excuse to fail to note the difference between rumor and evidence.

If Watson fails to cave to Buzzsaw's full court press and this thing actually goes to trial, which I think it will at this point, all 24 of those women will be called to testify at the trial, either by the prosecution or by the defense. This is part of an American's Sixth Amendment rights, and I believe is also a common-law right, to face one's accusers in open court.

The defendent has an absolute legal right to cross examine any witness or accuser who brings a matter before the court. These women are eventually going to have to show their faces. By making an affidavit accusing another person of a crime, these women have basically consented to being cross examined at some point. There's no way around it, especially against an athlete like Watson who has the money to fight.

 

[Simpelton]

The really weird thing is, Buzz Buzz definitely knows that these women will eventually have to show their faces in open court and talk about what Watson allegedly did to them. So why are they hiding behind a cloak of anonymity when we all know that that cloak is going to go away?

Seems to me the answer's clear enough, Buzzfeed is trying to force a settlement that will allow the accusers to keep their identities to themselves. Thing is, I doubt Watson will let him get away with that. We'll see in the end, but I doubt it.

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah I know how it works. So, like I said, for now we don't have the word of 24 women. We have the word of one lawyer who claims to be accurately representing the statements of 24 women. That is literally the definition of hearsay.

If Watson fights this, they simply won't be able to remain anonymous to him (and his counsel) indefinitely. There comes a point where they will actually have to testify. However, IMHO, we are headed towards settlement city.

Settlements may be an issue. They won’t be cheap and who knows how many more are yet to show up.
If the persona suggested by these accusations is true, it could be in the hundreds. Hell he reached the point where he ran out of targets in Houston and had to fly one in from Atlanta.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

Agree with this. Time to release pictures of these women. Enough with the anonymity of accusers. DW was apparently spraying his load everywhere. I'm looking for dna. Didn't someone save a garment with precious bodily fluids on it? With Sleezbe acting as the carnival barker, let's turn this into a real sideshow. Let's goo.

She's Russian:

View attachment 31575

what's HIS name.

 

[XLIX]

Yep. The best part is I'm a college dropout and full time failure, and I'm educated enough to note the distinction too. Anyone with a 4 year degree has ZERO excuse to fail to note the difference between rumor and evidence.

If Watson fails to cave to Buzzsaw's full court press and this thing actually goes to trial, which I think it will at this point, all 24 of those women will be called to testify at the trial, either by the prosecution or by the defense.

Agreed. The plaintiff would certainly have to call them because without their testimony, there is literally no case. Buzbee can't say in court Watson committed sexual assault without having someone there to testify that Watson committed sexual assault. As discussed above, the lawyer can't testify on behalf of the clients.

NOTE: There are ways to establish evidence of sexual assault without the victim's testimony. For example, if it was witnessed by others or if there was some sort of video or forensic evidence. But my understanding based on current reports is we do not have that sort of situation here.

The defendent has an absolute legal right to cross examine any witness or accuser who brings a matter before the court. These women are eventually going to have to show their faces. By making an affidavit accusing another person of a crime, these women have basically consented to being cross examined at some point. There's no way around it, especially against an athlete like Watson who has the money to fight.

Well, there is one way around it, and that's to settle out of court, which is what Buzbee clearly wants to do.

 

[Deus Irae]

The really weird thing is, Buzz Buzz definitely knows that these women will eventually have to show their faces in open court and talk about what Watson allegedly did to them. So why are they hiding behind a cloak of anonymity when we all know that that cloak is going to go away?

Seems to me the answer's clear enough, Buzzfeed is trying to force a settlement that will allow the accusers to keep their identities to themselves. Thing is, I doubt Watson will let him get away with that. We'll see in the end, but I doubt it.

You can't possibly be this clueless.

 

[Simpelton]

You can't possibly be this clueless.

But you can be this irrelevant.

 

[Ring 6]

Yep. The best part is I'm a college dropout and full time failure, and I'm educated enough to note the distinction too. Anyone with a 4 year degree has ZERO excuse to fail to note the difference between rumor and evidence.

If Watson fails to cave to Buzzsaw's full court press and this thing actually goes to trial, which I think it will at this point, all 24 of those women will be called to testify at the trial, either by the prosecution or by the defense. This is part of an American's Sixth Amendment rights, and I believe is also a common-law right, to face one's accusers in open court.

The defendent has an absolute legal right to cross examine any witness or accuser who brings a matter before the court. These women are eventually going to have to show their faces. By making an affidavit accusing another person of a crime, these women have basically consented to being cross examined at some point. There's no way around it, especially against an athlete like Watson who has the money to fight.

The 24 women will not be called to testify at a trial. The right to face your accuser applies to a criminal trial.
These will be up to 24 civil trials not one criminal trial.
The plaintiff will make whatever case they feel necessary, which will most surely include the individual plaintiff testifying. They can also choose not to but then there would be no plaintiff case presented.
If this goes as it could Watson may spend years in court, fighting dozens of separate cases.

 

[Ring 6]

You can't possibly be this clueless.

Dont sell him short.

 

[venecol]

In looking at the summary of the complaints, the prevailing accusation is DW wants a nude massage, wants them to concentrate in the groin area, and his penis touches their hand. There's a couple that say he ejaculated, one or two talk about unwanted kissing, one talks about forced oral sex, one talks about wanting his ass touched.

You have a 25 yo man that's specifically looking for relaxation nude massages concentrating in the groin area and he's letting many of the women know via IG. It's not hard to believe a masseuse that's massaging a nude 25 yo man in the groin area, would have her hand come in contact with his penis once he gets an erection because of the massage. I'm sure this happens all the time during nude full body massages unless the dude is old AF and needs 2 little blue pills to get a woody.

The forced oral sex is the worse of the accusations and a huge problem if true. A good trial attorney should be able to tear through most of these cases if all they have are the public facts which is unfortunate if the accusations are true.