Mountain_Commando
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,138
- Reaction score
- 962
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The judge will “waste” as much time as it takes to hear the case.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
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.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.
We have already learned that if this actually makes it to trial, it will be a judge and not a jury.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.
And you called it "weaseling out" so get off your high horse.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".
Is this true? I know Kraft requested a non-jury trial, but was that granted?We have already learned that if this actually makes it to trial, it will be a judge and not a jury.
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.
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.Is this true? I know Kraft requested a non-jury trial, but was that granted?
Regards,
Chris
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.Either way, the burden is on the state to prove his guilt, not on Kraft to prove his innocence.
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)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.
If the video exists as the prosecution described then that sure proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to any intelligent, clear thinking individual.The video, without audio, simply does not prove solicitation occurred.
I think a bunch of people here are confusing "reasonable doubt" with "any doubt".If the video exists as the prosecution described then that sure proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to any intelligent, clear thinking individual.
Might be my best effort at sarcasm yet!
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.")
First, it’s not going to cost the state millions to go to trial. Second, who says there will be an appeal?
Is Wang talking?