PATRIOTS NEWS Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[shmessy]

That's one heck of a long time period to file an appeal (most of the time it's around 30 days). I wonder what happened? ..........

I KNEW it........Belichick should've taken Brady out earlier in that Miami game when they were already up by 36..........

.

 

[Kdo5]

Who would want to watch that?

People have desired to watch far worse than an old man getting a hand job.

 

[Joker]

so...."human traffickimg!!!!" on the table again according to ....uh...somebody?

 

[PatsDeb]

I KNEW it........Belichick should've taken Brady out earlier in that Miami game when they were up by only 30..........

.

The funny thing is, the next week, against the Jets, I felt the Patriots bowed to that pressue a little bit by putting in Stidham in the 4th quarter. We all saw how that went, and then Brady trotting back out for the next Patriots' offensive series. I could just hear BB grumbling on the side line, "yeah, Ernie, we won't be doing that again." Ha!

 

[maust]

I don't know enough about FL politics to know how this would matter...Who is running for re-election? The judge? the DA?

I have no clue. The post was meant in humor.

 

[PatsDeb]

I have no clue. The post was meant in humor.

Whoops! I guess I am lacking in humor today!

 

[venecol]

That's one heck of a long time period to file an appeal (most of the time it's around 30 days). I wonder what happened? Motion for Reconsideration finally denied, maybe? They should just drop the case.

They asked for 2 extensions. I guess they couldn't figure out how to get it done. Maybe they subbed it out, lol.

 

[venecol]

I'm sure Kraft's people were hoping the deadline would quietly pass...

They actually objected to the 2nd time extension.

 

[venecol]

Oh snap. Just when Bob thinks he’s won a medal for ethics, look what happens. I
Can’t decide if I want Bob’s video released or not. Major shameful violation of our freedoms, but maybe then he’d step down from his new de facto GM role with the Patriots.

I hear you Ice, but no dice, I live in FL and don't want these cops to abuse these sneak and peak warrants for misdemeanors. Frankly, these should only be reserved for organized crime or terrorism cases imo.

I hope Kraft wins the case, but something tells me the video gets out anyway.

 

[fnordcircle]

I wanna see that ****

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm not sure if I am understanding your point, but in this case Bob Kraft's high priced lawyers getting the video(s) tossed benefitted everyone involved. Are you saying they appealed because Bob Kraft is the defendant, but wouldn't have otherwise?

No. According to the reports I've heard and read, one aspect of the appeal argues that Kraft doesn't have standing to assert the 4th amendment defenses.

“Mr. Kraft lacks standing to vicariously assert the Fourth Amendment rights of third parties,” Moody’s office wrote. “ ... Second, in no event would Mr. Kraft be entitled to total suppression of all video in the case; rather, he would be entitled to suppress only the unlawfully seized videos, a class which would not include the video evidence of his own prostitution offenses.”

Florida AG’s office files appeal in Robert Kraft prostitution case; claims guilt a ‘virtual certainty’ - The Boston Globe

This is the sort of thing where the gov't gets away with bad behavior because of the person against whom that unlawfully obtained evidence gets used. It's along the lines of an automobile search, where a passenger doesn't have standing to object to an illegal search of the vehicle, should that search yield something being used as evidence against him at trial.

 

[IcyPatriot]

So who has the upper middle leg in this .... DA or Kraft?

 

[maust]

Whoops! I guess I am lacking in humor today!

My bad, should have used the humor font.

 

[PatsDeb]

No. According to the reports I've heard and read, one aspect of the appeal argues that Kraft doesn't have standing to assert the 4th amendment defenses.



Florida AG’s office files appeal in Robert Kraft prostitution case; claims guilt a ‘virtual certainty’ - The Boston Globe

This is the sort of thing where the gov't gets away with bad behavior because of the person against whom that unlawfully obtained evidence gets used. It's along the lines of an automobile search, where a passenger doesn't have standing to object to an illegal search of the vehicle, should that search yield something being used as evidence against him at trial.

Well, they're arguing that he doesn't have standing to assert someone else's 4th amendment rights, not his own. The prosecutors are trying to get the Court to rule that each case, and each video, must be considered separately (so throw out only the ones of innocent people), while Kraft's attorneys were successful in arguing that the blanket warrant, which covered a lot of videos, was flawed and therefore anything captured under it is out. The prosecutor's argument is circular though. "Kraft is guilty so he doesn't have a right to stop an illegal serarch." I don't see how arguing that someone's guilt is a "virtual certainty" if they could just use the excluded evidence helps the prosecutors. It looks really desperate, and if I'm the appeals judge, I say, "Well, duh." to that argument. Sneak and peek warrants are definitely worrisome though.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, they're arguing that he doesn't have standing to assert someone else's 4th amendment rights, not his own...

Exactly. It's legal sleight of hand designed to allow otherwise inadmissible evidence into court.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Well, they're arguing that he doesn't have standing to assert someone else's 4th amendment rights, not his own. The prosecutors are trying to get the Court to rule that each case, and each video, must be considered separately (so throw out only the ones of innocent people), while Kraft's attorneys were successful in arguing that the blanket warrant, which covered a lot of videos, was flawed and therefore anything captured under it is out. The prosecutor's argument is circular though. "Kraft is guilty so he doesn't have a right to stop an illegal serarch." I don't see how arguing that someone's guilt is a "virtual certainty" if they could just use the excluded evidence helps the prosecutors. It looks really desperate, and if I'm the appeals judge, I say, "Well, duh." to that argument. Sneak and peek warrants are definitely worrisome though.

I guess the prosecutor is unfamiliar with the basic tenets of suppressed evidence?

 

[rochrist]

I really don't like the idea of being about to release such videos publicly if the accused doesn't play ball. Sounds too much like a legal form of blackmail to me.

I question the public good in ever releasing such forms of evidence.

The whole case has been a legal form of blackmail since Day 1.

 

[NormZauchin]

Did Antonio Brown post anything?

I believe he just tweeted that he was really embarrassed by Kraft's conduct and concerned about the effect on the Patriots' image.

 

[PatsDeb]

I guess the prosecutor is unfamiliar with the basic tenets of suppressed evidence?

Well, I didn't read the actual brief, just the Globe's interpretation of it, so the Globe's interpretation could be flawed or misleading. However, arguing "we really need that evidence, so you should let it in, because this guy is super guilty." is just about the dumbest argument ever made, and shouldn't get you anywhere in a court of law, but these days everything is so whacky, it's hard to predict what will happen.

 

[Joker]

are you saying you "read" men's briefs???...kinky. I knew you lawyers were debauched...