Kraft Orchids Case - Prosecuters Want a Tug Rule?

[Mountain_Commando]

Kraft is a fighter. He proved that during Deflategate and Spygate.

Well done!

 

[Ring 6]

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.

The judge will “waste” as much time as it takes to hear the case.
You seem to think that judges find you innocent of you promise to be a pain in the @ss

 

[Antdawg]

The judge will “waste” as much time as it takes to hear the case.
You seem to think that judges find you innocent of you promise to be a pain in the @ss

Not surprised in the least that you equate defense attorneys bringing up legitimate legal objections to the prosecution's case with being a "pain in the ass".

 

[XLIX]

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.

The fact that it is such a low-level offense is a double-edged sword. You're right, no judge is going to waste more than 5 minutes on this... which is why all those fancy legal maneuverings are often more difficult in a case like this. This isn't a murder case. No one is going to jail. A good judge isn't going to listen to countless hours of lawyering.

 

[XLIX]

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.

We have already learned that if this actually makes it to trial, it will be a judge and not a jury.

 

[XLIX]

Not surprised in the least that you equate defense attorneys bringing up legitimate legal objections to the prosecution's case with being a "pain in the ass".

And you called it "weaseling out" so get off your high horse.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Is Wang talking?

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

We have already learned that if this actually makes it to trial, it will be a judge and not a jury.

Is this true? I know Kraft requested a non-jury trial, but was that granted?

Regards,
Chris

 

[Antdawg]

The fact that it is such a low-level offense is a double-edged sword. You're right, no judge is going to waste more than 5 minutes on this... which is why all those fancy legal maneuverings are often more difficult in a case like this. This isn't a murder case. No one is going to jail. A good judge isn't going to listen to countless hours of lawyering.

Either way, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Kraft to prove his innocence. Kraft gets the benefit of any doubt, the state does not. So it's not exactly a double-edged sword. Kraft walks in with the advantage and with a legal team you'd expect to see for a murder trial.

It's clear the state is holding the embarrassing video over Kraft's head as an intimidation factor. If the video has no audio, the judge could very well agree to throw out the video on that alone. The video, without audio, simply does not prove solicitation occurred. I hope Kraft fights it until the end due to the Gestapo tactics being deployed and the dishonest nature by which LE has characterized this entire ordeal.

 

[XLIX]

Is this true? I know Kraft requested a non-jury trial, but was that granted?

Regards,
Chris

I didn't realize all we had was that he requested it but I cannot imagine any sort of circumstances whatsoever where a guy accused of a misdemeanor requests a non-jury trial and that request is denied.

 

[XLIX]

Either way, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Kraft to prove his innocence.

That is 100% correct. And, as I have stated many times before, if the prosecution has the video evidence they claim they have, that's some pretty solid evidence right there.

It's clear the state is holding the embarrassing video over Kraft's head as an intimidation factor. If the video has no audio, the judge could very well agree to throw out the video on that alone.

It will not be thrown out based on the fact there is no audio. Most surveillance cameras have no audio. (Note that I am not saying there is no chance it gets thrown out, I am just saying that the fact that there is no audio does not make video evidence inadmissible)

The video, without audio, simply does not prove solicitation occurred.

If the video exists as the prosecution described then that sure proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to any intelligent, clear thinking individual.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If the video exists as the prosecution described then that sure proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to any intelligent, clear thinking individual.

I think a bunch of people here are confusing "reasonable doubt" with "any doubt".

Here's the MA jury instructions on reasonable doubt that the judge gives. MA is not FL, but I imagine all states say something similar:
The burden is on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge(s) made against him (her).

What is proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The term is often used and probably pretty well understood, though it is not easily defined. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt, for everything in the lives of human beings is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. A charge is proved beyond a reasonable doubt if, after you have compared and considered all of the evidence, you have in your minds an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, that the charge is true. When we refer to moral certainty, we mean the highest degree of certainty possible in matters relating to human affairs -- based solely on the evidence that has been put before you in this case.

I have told you that every person is presumed to be innocent until he or she is proved guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. If you evaluate all the evidence and you still have a reasonable doubt remaining, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and must be acquitted.

It is not enough for the Commonwealth to establish a probability, even a strong probability, that the defendant is more likely to be guilty than not guilty. That is not enough. Instead, the evidence must convince you of the defendant's guilt to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces your understanding and satisfies your reason and judgment as jurors who are sworn to act conscientiously on the evidence.

This is what we mean by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[RobertWeathers]

View attachment 22864

Well done!

Might be my best effort at sarcasm yet!

 

[Joker]

Once again, a whole bunch of extremely intelligent people posting in this thread are making the ASSUMPTION that the judge hearing this case in that venue is NOT a Bobby Joe Bumpkin, but a jurist on the level of jurists in major northeastern metro jurisdictions. LOOK at this case and the people we KNOW are involved so far...this "district attorney" is straight out of a Stirling Silliphant/John Ball screenplay (In The Heat Of The Night). This local magistrate hearing this case is probably in cahoots with his "good buddy" county D.A.,Sammy "Sum*****" Sassafras and just salivating like a cracker at a free pig roast in anticipation of "gettin' sum!" for the good people of Crookedhatchie County.

I think Kraft should spend whatever it takes to mash these Mayberry Gomers into the Atlantic Ocean. If you can't see that this massage joint along with all the other joints in the area weren't paying off the local constabulary the past ten years at least, I have no idea what you've been watching in this country the past 50 years.Somebody with big bucks and an agenda is behind all this.

 

[MassPats38]

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.")

The feds do this the same way. The defendant is essentially brought to court (there are variations in which the defendants sits down with the police and credibly, according to the police, explains what happened), admits guilt, and then is placed on a form of probation. If successfully completed, then the charge goes away. If probation is violated, then the charge is reinstated. The States have variations that require and don't require admissions of guilt.

Alford/no lo pleas are actual pleas to a charge followed by sentences. The article seems to be describing a diversion proceeding.

 

[patman52]

First, it’s not going to cost the state millions to go to trial. Second, who says there will be an appeal?

Kraft has already got three lawyers sending in reams of paperwork, trying to tie up the DA's office. What are they going to do have a first year lawyer answering questions in discovery so that it will get thrown out? One mistake and if convicted they have the appeal. and why wouldn't he appeal if he is not just going to "admit facts" and get it discharged without finding after community service or whatever.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Krafty Bob is going to fight this. I guess he loves to fight if it's his own hide, but if it's Brady he'll throw him under a bus.

 

[RayClay]

It's obvious that a billionare accused of getting a hand job gets this squashed before it sees the light of day. Seems the former owner of this establishment is very highly connected and this could be a case of potential blackmail, or at least influence..

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Photos Of Female Who Preformed Sexual Acts On Robert Kraft At Florida Massage Parlor Released

 

[Antdawg]

Is Wang talking?

I thought it was Wang doing all the talking in the first place.