jackie hayes

You have to hope the Houston fans don't take their frustrations out on Mario Williams. It's hard to believe, but the #1 overall pick could be reviled by his own team's fans.

Will the Texan fans be ticked? Thanks for your input, screwcharliecasserly.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 09:41 PM) Didn't Houston run a 3-4 defense last year? Are they going to switch back to a 4-3 this year after this selection? If not, what are they thinking? Kubiak is switching to a 4-3.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 28, 2006 -> 03:54 PM) Jackie, I responded to you with legal precedent and the fact that this rule is almost never applied to prosecutors and has been severely attacked by almost all legal commentators. There is a balancing with a prosecutors first amendment right and with the accused right to a fair trial. So far you have not given me any appellate level or higher case law that supports your reading of the ABA rule. With out case law to further support your stance, I just am not going to waste my time arguing opinions. You believe one thing, from what my research has revealed the case law of the United States stands for another. If you would like to get in a legal debate, then please bring precedent. We all have our opinions, but in the legal community it is not my opinion that matters, it is the opinion of the higher courts that is binding precedent. While you can always argue in good faith for the over turning of a case or law, it is a very hard mountain to climb, especially when you do not even have persuasive authority. Persuasive as opposed to binding, is when a court sits in a different jurisdiction than the court you are in. IE We are in the 7th circuit, and I cite a 2nd circuit case in my appellate brief. Anyways, if you do not have access to a law library, westlaw, or lexisnexis, I would suggest using one of the free sites on the web, findlaw, or any other of the free sites that are readily available to non-lawyers. Im going to end with, from my understanding of the rule, the prosecutor did nothing wrong. You mention the OJ case, and that case had much more publicity than this case and no one even mentioned ARDC complaints. If what the prosecutor was doing was really that bad, the actual Defense lawyers would be filing an ARDC complaint (they can not threaten an ARDC complaint as that is against the rules). Since they will not file one, I think it is safe to say that what the prosecutor is doing does not violate rule 3.8 because of the exceptions outlined in 3.6, and the subsequent case law. If you find a case youd like me to look at please provide the cite and Ill do it, otherwise Ill leave it at we have different opinions. I mostly am here to discuss the Sox, so a million little apologies if I don't write a brief on every point. What I pointed out was this -- your 9-month thing referred to a specific Pennsylvania murder case. It does not appear to say that 9 months is always and everywhere the very essence and definition of sufficient 'dissipation' time. This case has received far more publicity than most cases, even murder cases, so I don't see any reason to believe that the same standard should apply. If you want to provide the exact language which supports your assertion that the court held that 9 months is the immutable standard for 'enough time', be my guest. But you did not cite that above. And without that, it's merely your "opinion" that the same time frame applies. If that were generally accepted, there would never be any reason to move a trial. Just wait nine months and, poof, prejudice is gone. Yet trials still get moved. Weird. And I can't figure out why arguments were heard about actions more than a year before the trial, almost 10 years after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court already decided the question for the rest of us. As for your challenge, sorry, I do have better things to do than conduct full historical investigations of past murder cases to determine exactly how much publicity requires a 9-month wait, 1-year wait, etc. And I don't have to if all I want to do is point out that your precious precedent is not principle. I know FindLaw well enough, thank you, and I know they have message boards over there. Is it just too difficult finding people there to condescend to?

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 07:41 PM) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060427/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl If all three of the men that she accused back then were white, this story is going to get even uglier. Nope, they were black.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 11:46 PM) Well since you were so kind to provide us rule 3.8, lets look at rule 3.6 which governs trial publicity in general. If you look at most of the exceptions, those are the exact facts the prosecutor is giving out. He is allowed to state all facts that are public record, then it says he may make any statement that is necessary to " protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client." Since the defense team has opened the door on the victim, the prosecutor is given even more room to respond. It also says he may say any step in the litigation process, which means he can give as many interviews as he wants. Its not the quantity, it is what they have said. And also here is the comment about timing of the case, which is important because this case is not near trial. Note the 9 month time period between trial and publicity was sufficient "cooling" off time. This case is not near to trial so it is possible that even if he does say something really bad, that a court could find that the time between the statement and trial was far enough apart that it no longer would have a bearing on the case. Present case law seems to suggest that it is very hard for a prosecutor to charged with either a violation of rule 3.6 or 3.8. The prosecutor's client is the state, not the accuser. So questioning the accuser's credibility does not give "more room to respond". He stated clearly that this was a racially tinged crime. Meaning that he was certain the perpetrators are white. 70+ interviews or 1, that's pretty damn leading. Moreover, he certainly didn't limit his public discourse on the case to what was "necessary". The 9 month period -- in the particular case you cite, it was deemed sufficient. In this case, I don't think it will be. It's silly to think that there's some fixed limit over which all is forgot, for every single case (and your quote does not support that interpretation). Would 9 months be sufficient in a Nixon trial, or an OJ trial?

I hate these "If you had only..." articles. Forget Bonds, every team in MLB passed on Pujols 12 times. There's 100, your next article of moaning is written for you. Imo, it's fair to talk about guys like Darko, where EVERYONE was telling you to go Melo. But noone knew what Jordan, Bonds, Pujols,... would be. It's inane+ to write an article like this unless you called, loudly, every single one of these.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 09:13 PM) I am not going to waste my time finding the quotes, but that's EXACTLY what they were intending... 'to make their impact felt'. "Make their impact felt" is not the same as bringing the country to its knees. 'See how important we are for a day' is not the same as 'We'll use scorched earth tactics until you capitulate'.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 08:05 PM) I love it when people knowingly break our laws repeatedly, and expect to not only to be welcomed into the country, they are threatening to punish us if we don't give into their demands. How is this punishment? These protestors are not going to work for one day. They're also not getting paid. What's the big deal? People are acting as if they vowed to bring the US to its knees. The stores aren't gonna run out of meat on account of this.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 27, 2006 -> 05:51 PM) Jackie, First, I dont think he violated the model rule. The pertinent part: Means that a prosecutor can not make statements that will make the public pre-judge the case. An example of this would be the DA saying "We have so much evidence of Finnerty's guilt that the defense team wont even know what hit them." etc. From what I have seen about the DA's remarks, he has been very careful to tailor his answers only about why he is moving forward with the case and what he is doing. The key phrase is "substantial liklihood" nothing that he has said will over come that burden, because he really has not said anything that would cause the public to condemn the 3 players more than they should be. The only thing that may result in the ARDC opening up a case is perhaps the leak of the email. Im not exactly sure how that got into the public, but an email that said they wanted to "skin a stripper" is something that will cause the public to condemn and really there is no necessity to inform the public of it. Second, You keep relying on what she supposedly said in the line up. I already addressed how this is hearsay and probably will not be able to get into court. I also do not have the transcript so I can not see in what context or what she exactly said. The media is not very trustworthy, especially when it comes to the legal field. Most journalists are not lawyers, and do not have a sophisticated understanding of evidentiary procedures. What you hear in the media is just not very reliable evidence, and I would not take that she said "100%" as fact. "...because he really has not said anything that would cause the public to condemn the 3 players more than they should be..." It's telling that you believe you already know how much condemnation they "should" get. You're wrong about Nifong. He hasn't just explained what he's doing, he's announced to an already edgy community that this was a racial crime. He didn't limit his comments to what was "necessary" -- 70-some interviews were necessary, when there was nothing the public could do? Come on. You are also wrong about the email. It was not leaked, it was included in the search warrant used to search the sender's dorm room, which is in the public record. There's no controversy there. You seem to be the only one who thinks that the defense bamboozled some dumb reporter into backing up their story. She doesn't have to understand "evidentiary procedures", herself, she just has to be able to read. It's not that tough to figure out if they did or did not show the accuser only the lacrosse pictures. Then someone who does understand proper identification procedures can say if that was proper. (I haven't heard anyone argue that it is.) So as long as she understands English, I'd say she's credible on this. Whether it does get admitted is uninteresting to me. I readily admit that even if the players are completely innocent, and Nifong has jack s***, they may still be convicted, with the emotion aroung this case. It would make a joke of our legal system, but yeah, it could happen.

Why can't they go for the death penalty without it being a hate crime? Since when does a grisly premeditated murder in Texas require something extra to get capital punishment?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) Jackie, I think I may not have been as clear as necessary on what I meant with Finnerty. Im saying the DA would offer 2 things, 1) the assault charges being dropped, and 2) either immunity in the rape case or a vastly reduced sentence. Its not just 180 days, its potentially 5-10 years that he could save himself if he is willing to play ball with the DA. Also im of the opinion that Finnerty would not even want to spend 180 days in jail, because if he goes into the pen as "the white guy who raped the black stripper" his life will be hell for those 6 months. She said she was 100% certain he was a rapist. If that's true, he's going to jail no matter what. I don't care if he was the "main rapist" or the 2nd rapist. If it's not, I don't believe her at all. If someone says they are CERTAIN, they damn well better be right.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 04:13 PM) Hayes, The defense has a right to see the information. But the DA does not have to turn over the information "as soon as he receives it". So long as the defense gets the information with enough time to prepare for trial, it is okay. Often times a DA will show up the morning of a trial and have "new evidence". The defense will then ask for continuation so that they can look at the evidence. Right now they are not even close to that stage. There have been no depositions, which is where the stripper would have to tell her story. As you can see the defense is trying to take the case to the public, so they are going to jade whatever they can when they give it over to the media. This case is some what of an aberration because generally defense attorneys will not want to show their cards this early. As for the ID, it is unlikely that evidence will ever get into trial. Its hearsay through anyone else but the stripper and when she testifies she can easily explain what happened in a different way then it is on the police report. Im not exactly sure what the rules in NC jurisdiction are to police reports, but some jurisdictions do not allow them because they are based entirely on hearsay which is not allowed at trial. Another problem is because she was not under oath, they can not use the statement as a "prior inconsistent" statement for impeachment purposes, as you can not perfect the impeachment. I didn't say he has to turn over evidence "as soon as he receives it". He has to turn it over in a "timely" manner. I also don't see why it matters, since he already HAS turned it over. I saw Nifong "take the case to the public" first, so I'm not going to demand the defense attorneys heads for this. I think his actions are much more unusual. From the ABA's "Model Rules for Professional Conduct", for prosecutors: Nifong was a disgrace in this respect. 70-odd interviews aren't "necessary to inform the public &c.", and he certainly shouldn't have been as inflammatory and accusatory as he was.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 01:42 AM) That is why you do not release the evidence. If you start with one story and then evidence comes that disputes that story, you look silly. Its much better to let all the evidence come out, and then see what transpires. All we know is that she ID'd 3 people, we do not know in what context or what she has said about the 3. And DA's cut deals all the time for the person who is willing to turn in his friends first. If letting one of them get off easy, means the other 2 are convicted a DA has to weigh that against potentially not convicting any of them. It all depends on the evidence and how good they feel about whether or not they can get a conviction. If they are waivering and Finnerty testifying will ensure conviction, I think they would offer a plea. Maybe not completely off, but substantially reduced sentence. What are you talking about? The defense has a right to see the evidence, and they showed the police report detailing the identifications to a reporter who confirms their version of that report -- that the accuser was shown only lax players, and that she said she was 100% certain about Seligmann and Finnerty (and 90% certain of another, unnamed player). So you're saying that, not only are the defense attorneys lying, but on top of that, the reporter is conspiring to feed this misinformation to the public. Okay... As for cutting a deal, I get the concept, thanks. The question is whether he'd "flip" to avoid the assault charge, as you suggested. A full conviction on that charge is 180 days. A sentence that substantially reduced for this case is not going to happen.

Thanks.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 11:12 PM) Ok, all 6 blogs are linked. if any of you have any other ideas for links, just click "web links" on the front page and hit "add link". We'll review it and add it.... Another category for message boards of other teams would be useful. I don't often get to be so pushy.

QUOTE(Purdue129 @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:49 PM) For those interested I'd like to throw my site into the mix: South Siders WPA I was just talking to Jason about it and I know not everyone here is huge on stats, but figure at least a few people will find it interesting. I'm trying to log every game I can and welcome everyone's comments. I'm planning on adding a SoxTalk specific post later this week, as I've actually had a couple of Japanese Sox fans e-mail regarding the site and I've referred them over here. I'd never seen it before, but that's a pretty good idea, and I like the blog. I know Cheat has blogged before on this idea, but it's one of my favorite baseball stats ideas, so a whole blog dedicated to/documenting it sounds awfully interesting.

QUOTE(juddling @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 10:27 PM) i'm not sure about this but doesn't the Bush girls have a Secret Service detail??? Maybe the big lumbering guys in the suits with the earpieces in the back of the class should have given the teacher a clue. Besides....is it normal to be handed politcal tapes after a spin class??? Besides...who goes to the gym to hear political talk from their instructors? Some oddities in DC. I wouldn't rule it out. I dunno how it works. Maybe the fitness center knows, but the instructor doesn't always know. It may not matter to him. All I'm saying is that the title doesn't reflect the article. If you read the article, it's hard to miss that.

Just a thought -- It would be nice if there were a "reference" section of Soxtalk, with frequently requested items. A list of Sox blogs, links to message boards for other teams, etc. These items get requested every so often, and I have a couple of threads like that bookmarked, but it would be easier if they were just organized in one section of St. Either a locked thread with just one post, or a basic html linked from the front page, something like that. Fwiw.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) That is why eventhough it is not an "official" record, beating Ruth's personal record is so important to baseball players. Ruth is the standard that everyone is compared to, therefore to be able to say you beat Ruth in any category is an accomplishment in itself. The same would occur if anyone started to approach Gehrig's games played streak. Eventhough Ripken broke it, Gehrig will always be the man symbolized as the iron man, Some people/players are so great that they will always be what people compare themselves to, no matter what else may occur. For someone who demands Bonds' exact words, this is an odd argument -- it's certainly not the way Bonds described it. And he should want to pass Aaron too, right? If he wants records, and wants to be remembered among the greatest, why doesn't he care about matching HH?

QUOTE(Steff @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 03:03 PM) Of course he cares. Anyone who plays wants to hold records and they are damn liars if they state differently. Look at how I stated that without using a racist comment. This I don't get. Ruth's mark is not a record. If he wants a record he has to shoot for Aaron, which is exactly what he said he doesn't care about. Sorry, but Ruth is the best that ever played the game in MLB, and it's not even close. The only way Bonds gets into the discussion was with his steroid-addled years, and just like I discount Mac and Sosa for those, I discount Bonds. And I feel damn comfy saying that even that doesn't bring him all the way. He should make the Hall, certainly. And he's one of the best players of all time. But not nearly the best.

Except the story says nothing even close to that. He mocked the prez, not Jenna. He didn't even know she was in the class. When you start seeing sentences that aren't there, time to seek help. If Jenna can't bear to hear any criticism of daddy, I know I wouldn't mind if she locked herself up in a room so the men of the world don't have to look at that anymore...

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 07:22 PM) Hayes, What I am saying is that if he is willing to flip on another lacrosse member, the prosecutor will most likely be able to get him off on the Rape and the Assault. He wont have to spend any time in jail, and will not have to have a felony on his record. That is going on the assumption that Finnerty has information that would help the prosecution in the rape case, and that he was not the main rapist. A "main rapist"? So the da will announce, 'It's okay to give him a deal, he only raped her a little bit.' She reportedly said that she was 100% certain that he was one of the rapists. If that's true, how the hell do you cut this guy a deal less than 180 days? If it's not, what does that say about her credibility, and the viability of this case?

QUOTE(samclemens @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 05:25 PM) you are right. finnerty will be convicted of a felonious assault in a completely unrelated incident. yeah, it will make him look bad at the rape trial, but that doesnt change the fact that the strippers alleging this are money-hungry liars and that this case is complete b.s. from what we have seen thus far. soxbadger is acting like either of them have a chance of being convicted. in my humble opinion, we havent seen a single fact yet to show that this entire trial's purpose is for some lying strippers to get money (s***, she already has a scholarship) and a DA to get re-elected. To be clear, I'm not backing the "money-hungry" part. The 'other' stripper, okay, sure. But the woman claiming she was raped, I'm not at all sure about her motivation.

This has been known for a long time, Sb. But for the assault he'd get 180 days and (for his family) pocket change. You're telling me that if he fesses up for raping someone he'll get a better deal than that?