- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Any idea when the Motion for Preliminary Hearing might be set?
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:02 pm to TIGRLEE
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:02 pm to TIGRLEE
quote:
This dude is trying to play matlock on TD.
He doesn't care about anyone's knowledge in the law. I'm a prosecutor, and he was arguing with me a few weeks ago that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are the same thing.
1
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:05 pm to Klingler7
quote:
Can we just forget about J.Jefferson and act like he never existed ? My God people. We don't want JJ on our team any more. Let it go.
I couldn't care less if he plays again or not (if he does come back he'll be a redzone only guy) but I'm interested in the resolution of the matter...
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:42 pm to tLSU
quote:
I'm a prosecutor
OK...tell me the probative value of DNA on anyone's shoes who was at the scene of a fight alone with 10-20 other people other than to show a person was at the scene.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 9:54 pm to Lonnie4LSU
I don't know anything about DNA from shoes in this case. Are you saying the victim's DNA was on the bottom of Jefferson's shoe, or are you just assuming that?
If it was shown that the victim's DNA via blood or saliva was on the bottom of a shoe in a case which involves kicking, I don't think there's any question as to the probative value.
If it was shown that the victim's DNA via blood or saliva was on the bottom of a shoe in a case which involves kicking, I don't think there's any question as to the probative value.
This post was edited on 9/18/11 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:02 pm to tLSU
quote:
I have no idea why anyone is concerned with the preliminary hearing, as it has zero effect on anything other than Jefferson's bond obligation.
Simply not true - the judge can dismiss the case, albeit without prejudice, at the end of the preliminary hearing.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:03 pm to just me
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:06 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Simply not true - the judge can dismiss the case, albeit without prejudice, at the end of the preliminary hearing.
Absolutely not.
A judge has no authority to dismiss a criminal prosecution after a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is nothing other than a hearing at which the state must show that probable cause existed to arrest. In this case, because there's a warrant, the state can simply offer, file, and introduce the arrest warrant and submit. In the unlikely event that the judge was to find no probable cause, Jefferson would merely be released from his bond obligation and the state wouldn't be impacted in the slightest way with respect to indicting him and proceeding.
In fact, a judge has no authority to dismiss any criminal case in Louisiana other than via quashing the bill of information or indictment (which hasn't even been filed in this case) and only in a few limited circumstances, i.e. prescription. There is no time during the case when the judge examines and or evaluates the weight of the evidence (other than during an actual trial by judge). The prosecution and the prosecution alone can dismiss a case.
It's nice that you're making up fairy tales, though. I particularly liked the "with prejudice" part, which doesn't even exist in criminal law.
This post was edited on 9/18/11 at 10:16 pm
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:38 pm to tLSU
I'm just asking someone who deals with this stuff what finding "blood or saliva" on a shoe is going to prove other than the person was at the scene of a fight?
It's just an evidence question cause couldn't anyone at the scene of a brawl have "blood or saliva" on shoes or socks or pants for more reasons than kicking someone?
Another question...why the delay in doing the 2nd search? That just never made any sense to me. I mean, you arrest the guy and then like 3 days later you conduct a search??
It's just an evidence question cause couldn't anyone at the scene of a brawl have "blood or saliva" on shoes or socks or pants for more reasons than kicking someone?
Another question...why the delay in doing the 2nd search? That just never made any sense to me. I mean, you arrest the guy and then like 3 days later you conduct a search??
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:39 pm to tLSU
So when will the dashit or grt off the pot in this matter. It's benn a month and jj hasn't even been arrained yet. Seems like they are dragging thief feet for no reason.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:45 pm to Slapouttiger
quote:
Seems like they are dragging thief feet for no reason.
JJ's accused of battery, not theft.
And while they took his shoes, I don't think they dragged his feet. That would've hurt with no shoes.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:50 pm to Lonnie4LSU
Sure, It could mean a lot of things, and that will of course be argued. Ultimately, that question is up to the jury. I've had a situation in the past where I had an expert testify that the type and amount of biological material on the backstrap of a gun couldn't have been transferred from the ground. Again, I'm not sure what's there, but in the end, the jury is going to have to determine whether or not they find an argument that he stepped on saliva or blood believable. Ultimately, I think that the tesimonial evidence is going to make or break this case.
I honestly can't tell you why police did anything in particular with respect to the searches.
I honestly can't tell you why police did anything in particular with respect to the searches.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:53 pm to Proud Lolly
The team has really moved on without but they still wear his number on their arms, jees Smh.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 10:59 pm to Slapouttiger
quote:
So when will the dashit or grt off the pot in this matter. It's benn a month and jj hasn't even been arrained yet. Seems like they are dragging thief feet for no reason.
He hasn't been arraigned because no charges have been filed by the district attorney. When a defendant is on bond for a felony offense, the state has 150 days to decide whether they file the bill of information or indictment. Keep in mind that similar to what I stated above, this only relates to his bond obligation, not their ability to proceed with charges. After he's indicted, he'll be arraigned, have his suppression hearings, and set the case for trial.
This waiting period isn't something unique to JJ, it's routine and is well within the law.
This post was edited on 9/18/11 at 11:00 pm
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:03 pm to tLSU
quote:
A judge has no authority to dismiss a criminal prosecution after a preliminary hearing. A preliminary hearing is nothing other than a hearing at which the state must show that probable cause existed to arrest. In this case, because there's a warrant, the state can simply offer, file, and introduce the arrest warrant and submit. In the unlikely event that the judge was to find no probable cause, Jefferson would merely be released from his bond obligation and the state wouldn't be impacted in the slightest way with respect to indicting him and proceeding
Why has the DA not brought the formal charge of 2nd degree battery against the defendants in support of the arrests? Is it the DA's right/obligation to convene the grand jury if he can not bring forth the formal charges? Would this (grand jury) occur after the preliminary hearing?
eta. I see your answer above. thanks.
This post was edited on 9/18/11 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:07 pm to TigerTailsSoup
DA can bill him or send it to a grand jury... his choice. I don't think the grand jury would give an indictment here but who really knows...
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:11 pm to Elleshoe
quote:
I don't think the grand jury would give an indictment here but who really knows
So I presume from the information here that the bill from DA or grand jury has to occur within 150 days from the incident date (or arrest date?). If the grand jury can not indict, the charges are dropped and case is over on that date?
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:16 pm to Elleshoe
If the grand jury comes back no true bill, it's because the DA wanted it that way. Keep in mind that the grand jury hears only what the DA wants them to hear. JJ has no right to be present unless he is subpoena'd by the state to testify. If he was called to testify, Unglesby could show up and be present for only his testimony, though he can't make a single objection, argument or open his mouth.
The saying that the DA could indict a ham sandwich is pretty accurante.
The saying that the DA could indict a ham sandwich is pretty accurante.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:18 pm to tLSU
quote:
it's because the DA wanted it that way
I think he does. its my theory he doesn't want to prosecute this but he doesn't want to look soft or lenient.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:18 pm to TigerTailsSoup
quote:
So I presume from the information here that the bill from DA or grand jury has to occur within 150 days from the incident date (or arrest date?). If the grand jury can not indict, the charges are dropped and case is over on that date?
150 days from the date of arrest. If the grand jury does not indict (aka "no true bill"), the case ends.
Posted on 9/18/11 at 11:19 pm to Elleshoe
Could very well be true.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News