SectionC3

It is human trafficking. Don’t confuse it with smuggling.

Human trafficking is a big deal. The pegulas will not tolerate this nonsense, and I deeply respect them for it. Whoever is involved in this is gone. As they well should be.

This can’t be right. I vividly recall Nsekhe blowing a pickup on a stunt and Allen getting smoked because of it. I believe it was on a completion to Brown. The comment in our house was that Ty was going get Josh killed if Ty didn’t open his eyes.

Lifting is actually how I beat it. I decided that I was done being tired, and so I hit the weights. I felt a lot better in a short period of time. But it was exhausting - I remember being so tired that I couldn’t get up one evening after laying down for a couple of minutes. Food intake was tough, too, because I had ulcers all over my throat. That part was brutal.

I’ve had it. It’s exhausting, but one can get over the tiredness with “mind over matter.” I’m not a doctor, so maybe someone with expertise can chime in on this, but I think the real issue is that a person with mono is much more prone to a liver injury in the event of physical contact. That part of it was pretty serious, at least as I recall, so it might be a little while until he’s cleared to play.

Clearly? How so?

And I just got the joke. Well done!

Yeah, I’m a good Catholic boy and I don’t believe in superstition, psychics, and stuff like that. To be clear, though, I am a big believer in culture, process, emotion, and momentum. Adrenaline and will — which arise from the aforementioned four principles — matter a lot in life, including (and perhaps especially) in football.

The allegations themselves (e.g., charges levied in an indictment or in a complaint) aren’t evidence, but the sworn testimony in open court with respect to the events giving rise to the allegations is evidence.

Basically correct. Probable cause to believe a crime has been committed is the threshold for arrest and (I believe) charge by complaint. The threshold for an indictment — which must supersede a complaint, at least in NYS, is legally sufficient evidence.

You can tell I’m a lawyer based on this response: Your reference to “armchair lawyers and psychics” is ambiguous. It’s unclear whether you meant “psychics” and “armchair lawyers,” or “armchair psychics” and “armchair lawyers.” Applying the rule that an ambiguity (in this instance, in a message board post) must be construed against the drafter, my response in no way can be deemed to have suggested that I am a psychic inasmuch as your “armchair” reference could have pertained only to the question whether I have earned/lucked into a law degree and licensure to a state bar. (And, for what it’s worth, I don’t believe in psychics.)

They’re related concepts. A charge can’t proceed to a jury unless there is legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction of that crime, e.g., a certain threshold of evidence that establishes that the jury COULD convict of the charge. Whether to convict of the crime based on that evidence, namely, whether the burden of proof has been met, is a concept that generally is referred to as the “weight of the evidence.” “Weight,” in basic terms, speaks to the jury’s evaluation of the evidence and whether the trier of fact SHOULD HAVE convicted based on that proof. No armchair here.

I think you’re looking for “corroborating” instead of “circumstantial.” E.g., evidence of physical trauma to the victim would be direct evidence of the rape and corroborate a victim’s testimony as to a rape. The corroborating evidence rule applies to accomplice testimony and confessions. Testimony of a victim, standing alone, is legally sufficient to convict in a sexual abuse/sexual assault case. That said, prosecutors are disinclined to bring a case to a grand jury (other than perhaps a child sexual abuse case) in the absence of corroborating evidence. So, technically, this case could be brought on the testimony of the victim alone. But I don’t think that will be an issue because we have the text message exchanges that corroborate at least the contention that sexual intercourse occurred. How that effects the forcible penetration element of the crime lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

There is enough. Her testimony alone would be legally sufficient to support conviction of a crime/crimes. Whether Brown should be charged, and whether a jury should convict on that testimony, are different questions. But there is enough to convict — it’s called “legally sufficient evidence” — even in the absence of a corroborating witness. **This point, of course, assumes that her version of events is credible and that she can testify credibly as to those events.

I’m not up for flipping the burden of proof. But you’ve hit on an interesting subject. The considerations here aren’t criminal — they’re basically economic for the NFL. Do you think breast cancer awareness week is an accident? I don’t. The league is actively attempting to increase its female fan base. And if there’s a hint of merit to this story, the league will not let it overshadow the 100th anniversary celebration and aggravate its female fans. No inside knowledge there - just a strong opinion. If she appears credible in a league interview then he is in deep trouble with his employer.

The $75,000 point is misleading. She asked for damages in excess of 75k in the complaint. But ultimately I agree with you that, at this point, he looks like a viable candidate for the exempt list. I assume the NFL will speak with the plaintiff shortly, and if she appears credible Brown may have a problem with his employer. I didn’t see it but I’m not surprised. This case is a bit unique for these agents — it’s an active sexual assault complaint and perhaps investigation. It requires a delicate touch that most of them — and perhaps particularly Rosenhaus — aren’t used to having.

No surprise there. Doing his job, trying to take the story back, and trying to protect the guaranteed cash. Rosenhaus might seem like a slippery guy, but he is good at his job.

There’s a lot of self-blame in situations like that. I understand your point, and it’s one that perhaps someday a jury or juries will wrestle with. But I don’t think it’s dispositive of anything.

Based on the dope that he has repping him now, I’m with you. Mr. “countersue the complainant” is going to get run over if this case goes to trial. I’ve only seen a photo of the guy, but strongly suspect that the female jurors will detest him.

Well said. The process has to play out, but there are hints here that this could turn into a headache for Brown. I tend to think the angle here is for plaintiff to force a settlement by the timing of the complaint (falls right after NFL’s opening weekend), but that strategy doesn’t mean that the claims are bogus. Perhaps the client doesn’t want to testify about the most traumatic incident of her life. Perhaps counsel is worried about some of the weaknesses in the case that I noted. But, at bottom, this was a solid hit job by plaintiff’s attorneys — seemingly well-planned, cognizant of media implications w/ polygraph points and text screenshots, and put Brown on his heels right off the bat. There was no need to put the “extra” information re: the poly test and the screen shots in the complaint — in some instances, it’s bad lawyering because it could be a tip of the hand. Here, however, the revelations were designed to influence the media, stress the opponent, and perhaps influence the jury pool. Brown is not dealing with amateurs here.

This point was made in the complaint. The polygraph results are inadmissible. The reference to the polygraph in the complaint was made to affect public opinion. And, frankly, it’s good lawyering to put her to a polygraph. In a high profile case like this, competent counsel should perform his/her own polygraph of the client before commencing a lawsuit. It’s a sign to me that her lawyers know what they’re doing, have worked the case up a bit before commencing the action, and aren’t going to get rolled by the threat of a counterclaim for libel/slander. Brown’s not dealing with a bunch of clowns here, and if I was him I’d like for the best female litigator in this area that I could find.

They talk. Outcries normally are made to a trusted person e.g., loved one, friend, etc.

Let’s see if the lawyer verifies the counterclaim. Then I’ll put a little more stock in whatever that lawyer has said about this case.

To be fair, “going through the routine” doesn’t happen in every instance of rape for a variety of reasons. Frankly I question whether the majority or even a near majority of rapes are followed by such a procedure.

I’m not sure how a sexual assault exam would be irrelevant here. Sure, the scientific evidence collected through a rape kit (e.g., ***** sample, hair, fingernail scrapings) would be of relatively little value because there is no dispute as to the identity of the perpetrator. (Fingernail scrapings might support a victim’s contention that she fought off her attacker, but that’s besides the point as of now). Where I STRONGLY disagree with you is with respect to physical examination that is conducted in conjunction with the performance of the rape kit. The examination easily could have produced evidence of the use of force against the victim, including forcible penetration. Ultimately, this is a case that will come down to the evaluation of the plaintiff’s credibility. From both civil and criminal perspectives (I appreciate that there is no criminal proceeding [yet]), the victim’s testimony that she was raped is sufficient to meet the burden of proof. I suspect that the case will be settled out of court — there appear to be weaknesses in her case (no rape kit, probably no admissible prompt outcry evidence inasmuch as I understand the first disclosure of the alleged rape to a friend to have been very distant in time from that event, possible subsequent friendly contact with defendant), but if this is a contest of credibility and I’m Antonio Brown I’m not sure that I want any part of it for a variety of reasons. (Along those lines, the counterclaim for slander or whatever his attorney intends to allege is not a great idea because it threatens the possibility of aggravating impressionable jurors.) So, thumbnail sketch, it’s not a slam dunk but this is at least a headache and perhaps even a very big problem for Brown.