Marcell Dareus has not been arrested again yet. (7/22)

[JohnC]

 

Why would Hughes even testify? He's not going to incriminate himself in a court of law and has a right not to do so. Also, do you understand what reasonable doubt means? Reasonable doubt is the default mindset of any decent juror, and only evidence presented by the prosecution should swing them from that. If there is no evidence there is no conviction, period.

 

Just because he's talked publicly about the case doesn't mean he can be forced to testify. Hughes has 5th amendment rights.

 

If a person is given immunity to testify he can be forced to testify. However, this isn't the type of case (level of seriousness) where such legal measures would be used by the prosecution. Just because you have the authority to compel a response doesn't mean that is what is going to happen. That's my opinion.

[Kellyto83TD]

I think he is signed through 2015. Why lock him up long-term? Wait to see if he stays out of trouble and see if he deserves another contract.

Yeah this needs to be a make or break year.

[Mr. WEO]

Why would Hughes even testify? He's not going to incriminate himself in a court of law and has a right not to do so. Also, do you understand what reasonable doubt means? Reasonable doubt is the default mindset of any decent juror, and only evidence presented by the prosecution should swing them from that. If there is no evidence there is no conviction, period.

 

Just because he's talked publicly about the case doesn't mean he can be forced to testify. Hughes has 5th amendment rights.

 

If he is called to the stand, he has to take the stand. If, after the DA asks him what he meant (regarding the alleged drag race) when he publicly said "I was there, I was involved" and "the facts are the facts", he can then take the 5th. But it is assumed that he already told the cops the same thing when they interviewed him and they chose not to charge him, how would he incriminate himself?

 

Also, you're claiming that, given the facts as the potential jurors know them now (cops were called by a witness to a scene where 2 cars were "racing", one of which lost control and crashed into a restaurant tree)---the "default mindset" of a juror would be that it is reasonably doubtful that Dareus was recklessly driving?

 

Is that what you think? Is that your "default mindset": it's reasonable to doubt even with what is now known---in other words to conclude that witnesses actually saw no racing, Hughes is admitting he was involved with something totally different than wreckless driving and that Dareus's car wrapped around that tree as a result of a brief moment of taking his eyes off the road?

 

No you don't...

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

What's this? the date 7/11 was added but ..... No Slurpee references?

[Doc]

Like I said...

[Mr. WEO]

Like I said...

 

You've said many things doc. But tell us how you concluded Dareus's guilt--you know, without a trial or any evidence presented to you?

[Doc]

You've said many things doc. But tell us how you concluded Dareus's guilt--you know, without a trial or any evidence presented to you?

I've said many things that many others have supported. And it doesn't matter how I concluded it. I won't be in the courtroom. And even if I were, given that I'm a BIlls fan and the lack of much more than a "did you read the papers?!" argument, I couldn't/wouldn't find him guilty of drag racing.

[Mr. WEO]

I've said many things that many others have supported. And it doesn't matter how I concluded it. I won't be in the courtroom. And even if I were, given that I'm a BIlls fan and the lack of much more than a "did you read the papers?!" argument, I couldn't/wouldn't find him guilty of drag racing.

 

So you are convinced, based on what you now know, that he is guilty, but on a jury you would aquit him? Got it.

 

It does matter (nice try!) how you concluded he is guilty because that's the whole issue here. Any reasonable person would conclude the same thing based on what is publicly known simply because there is no other plausible explanation for the events that the defense could tell a jury.

 

And, also, the charge that he has refused to accept is reckless driving. That's the charge he would be facing in court. How would he beat it?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[SRQ_BillsFan]

I have not heard that they have eye witnesses ready to testify. I hear that they had phone calls. Do we even know they have witnesses to anything other than the accident ready to appear in court?

 

Sure they can subpena Hughes. But he is gonna do what he can to protect his teammate and himself. What are they gonna do if he doesn't show? Throw him in jail for years for not showing up at a traffic trial?

 

I live in Florida and received a summons to show up in California for a traffic accident. There was no way I was going. I didn't and never heard another word on it.

 

Even if he pushes how is all of this gonna help get the DA reelected? What is his gain in pushing this and making a big deal out of it. In the end there will be a lesser charge and community service. There is no gain in the DA taking this to trial.

Edited July 12, 2014 by SRQ_BillsFan

[Mr. WEO]

I have not heard that they have eye witnesses ready to testify. I hear that they had phone calls. Do we even know they have witnesses to anything other than the accident ready to appear in court?

 

Sure they can subpena Hughes. But he is gonna do what he can to protect his teammate and himself. What are they gonna do if he doesn't show? Throw him in jail for years for not showing up at a traffic trial?

 

I live in Florida and received a summons to show up in California for a traffic accident. There was no way I was going. I didn't and never heard another word on it.

 

Even if he pushes how is all of this gonna help get the DA reelected? What is his gain in pushing this and making a big deal out of it. In the end there will be a lesser charge and community service. There is no gain in the DA taking this to trial.

 

Re-elected? You think the majority of voters who elected this guy give 2 shites about Dareus and his legal problems?

 

Anyway, no witnesses needed in court, other than the cops who responded to witnesses claims of racing. They will be asked why they happened to respond the the scene. They will say they were responding to a complaint of street racing. The jurors will be smart enough to know what this means.

 

If Hughes doesn't respond to a subpoena to respond to a criminal trial, a warrant can be issued for his arrest, he could also be fined, etc. If yours was a criminal subpoena, don't be surprised if there is an outstanding warrant on you in Cali...

 

But, again, yes the DA doesn't want to try a small time case like this. That's why he reduced the charge to reckless driving (from racing), so he has already, as you say, been a reduction to a lesser charge. If Dareus refuses the lesser charge, I don't know how he would defend himself. He was obviously recklessly driving. You don't even doubt that.

[3rdand12]

So you are convinced, based on what you now know, that he is guilty, but on a jury you would aquit him? Got it.

 

It does matter (nice try!) how you concluded he is guilty because that's the whole issue here. Any reasonable person would conclude the same thing based on what is publicly known simply because there is no other plausible explanation for the events that the defense could tell a jury.

 

And, also, the charge that he has refused to accept is reckless driving. That's the charge he would be facing in court. How would he beat it?

This is the part i cant fathom Edited July 12, 2014 by 3rdand12

[K D]

Hi guys, just checking in to see if Dareus got arrested again yet. This is the last week of freedom to smoke them J's and street race before camp starts so I'll check back again soon!

[SRQ_BillsFan]

I have not heard that they have eye witnesses ready to testify. I hear that they had phone calls. Do we even know they have witnesses to anything other than the accident ready to appear in court?

 

Sure they can subpena Hughes. But he is gonna do what he can to protect his teammate and himself. What are they gonna do if he doesn't show? Throw him in jail for years for not showing up at a traffic trial?

 

I live in Florida and received a summons to show up in California for a traffic accident. There was no way I was going. I didn't and never heard another word on it.

 

Even if he pushes how is all of this gonna help get the DA reelected? What is his gain in pushing this and making a big deal out of it. In the end there will be a lesser charge and community service. There is no gain in the DA taking this to trial.

 

 

Ok so I can call the police and say I saw you or someone else driving backwards with your feet on the steering wheel going 50 mph in a 30 zone the wrong way on a one way street and to the police that means you did it? A defendant has a right to question/challenge a witness.

 

 

And yes if Darius were suspended as a result of this, I think the DA would worry about how that would affect voters.

 

Again he may have done it, they may have mountains of proof. My key point is if they did Darius would be a fool not to jump at the lesser charge. The fact that his attny didn't is what makes me question what evidence they have. Again he is not stupid. If it was open and shut then they would jump at the plea.

 

My Cali thing was a traffic accident where one of the drivers got in a physical fight with a police officer. I spoke to an attny who told me that unless they were paying for my airfare and other costs to attend a trial 3,000 miles away that I did not need to attend and that I would not have a warrant in California.

[Doc]

So you are convinced, based on what you now know, that he is guilty, but on a jury you would aquit him? Got it.

 

It does matter (nice try!) how you concluded he is guilty because that's the whole issue here. Any reasonable person would conclude the same thing based on what is publicly known simply because there is no other plausible explanation for the events that the defense could tell a jury.

 

And, also, the charge that he has refused to accept is reckless driving. That's the charge he would be facing in court. How would he beat it?

Again, if Marcell was drag racing, why was his partner in crime not charged? That right there is reasonable doubt. And again, I'm a Bills fan so I won't convict anyway. The DA knows this and as a result, won't let this get to the trial stage. And reckless driving is what he would have been charged with anyway, so it's hardly a deal. Hence the reason he didn't take it, on the advice of someone who knows infinitely more about the law than you.

[JohnC]

 

 

 

 

Anyway, no witnesses needed in court, other than the cops who responded to witnesses claims of racing. They will be asked why they happened to respond the the scene. They will say they were responding to a complaint of street racing. The jurors will be smart enough to know what this means.

 

The bottom line in this case (so far) is that the police didn't witness the speeding and the police have (as I understand) no actual witnesses (willing to testify) to the event. It's very common for the police to respond to various complaints regarding incidents. But when it comes to taking a case to the court room the authorities can't merely rely on assumptions.

 

So far Dareus's attorney's are not agreeing to a deal, even to a lesser charge.

 

There's an obvious reason for that. His representatives don't believe that the authorities have a case.

 

But, again, yes the DA doesn't want to try a small time case like this. That's why he reduced the charge to reckless driving (from racing), so he has already, as you say, been a reduction to a lesser charge. If Dareus refuses the lesser charge, I don't know how he would defend himself. He was obviously recklessly driving. You don't even doubt that.

 

Dareus is not obligated to prove his innocence in court. By legal strategy his voice would not be heard in court. It's the prosecution's responsibility to prove his guilt. There is a difference between thinking you know what he did and proving it in a court of law.

Edited July 13, 2014 by JohnC

[Beerball]

This thread is proof positive that 2-3 people can argue the same points ad infinitum.

[Mr. WEO]

Ok so I can call the police and say I saw you or someone else driving backwards with your feet on the steering wheel going 50 mph in a 30 zone the wrong way on a one way street and to the police that means you did it? A defendant has a right to question/challenge a witness.

 

 

 

I'm betting the majority of citizens who voted for the DA learned who Dareus was for the first time when they saw his car on the tree.

 

If the cops find the driver's car, backwards, on the wrong side of the road, wrapped around a tree, do you really think the cops (or a jury) will need to locate the witness who called it in to conclude what happened?

 

Again, if Marcell was drag racing, why was his partner in crime not charged? That right there is reasonable doubt. And again, I'm a Bills fan so I won't convict anyway. The DA knows this and as a result, won't let this get to the trial stage. And reckless driving is what he would have been charged with anyway, so it's hardly a deal. Hence the reason he didn't take it, on the advice of someone who knows infinitely more about the law than you.

 

You could have saved yourself a lot of effort (and face) if you had limited your response to this entire discussion with your above conclusion: that you know he's obviously guilty, but as a fan you wouldn't convict under any weight of evidence.

 

 

The bottom line in this case (so far) is that the police didn't witness the speeding and the police have (as I understand) no actual witnesses (willing to testify) to the event. It's very common for the police to respond to various complaints regarding incidents. But when it comes to taking a case to the court room the authorities can't merely rely on assumptions.

 

 

 

There's an obvious reason for that. His representatives don't believe that the authorities have a case.

 

 

 

Dareus is not obligated to prove his innocence in court. By legal strategy his voice would not be heard in court. It's the prosecution's responsibility to prove his guilt. There is a difference between thinking you know what he did and proving it in a court of law.

 

Everyone here, I'm certain, has assumed he's guilty of what he is charged with--reckless driving. Yet there seems to be some belief that a jury, knowing the same things that we all know to this point, would somehow not be able to, or not be allowed to, come to the same conclusion that everyone else here has.

 

John, if the DA went to court today with only what is publicly known about this incident, the jury would reach of verdict. Why would they conclude any differently than the posters here?

 

As with any crime where there are no witnesses (or videotape) to testify, the jury is being asked to do exactly what you say---voting based on what they think they know. The "proof" lies in the ability of the DA to convince the jury of what happened.

 

No, Darues wouldn't testify in such a case. But the defense would still have to examine the state's witnesses (cops, Hughes) and they would HAVE to establish some plausible alternative explanation for how Dareus's car came to meet the tree: i.e., that the people who clued the cops were lying or don't understand what two cars racing on the road REALLY looks like.

 

It's an impossible task.

 

This thread is proof positive that 2-3 people can argue the same points ad infinitum.

 

Hey now! What are we supposed talk about? Soccer's over (isn't it?).

 

I just get a kick out of posters saying "well, yes he's guilty, but you could never convince a jury of it!".

 

As for doc, he always sooner or later will toss out his argument for the obvious "he's a Bill, I would never convince him of anything". It just took "later" than "sooner" this time.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Everyone here, I'm certain, has assumed he's guilty of what he is charged with--reckless driving. Yet there seems to be some belief that a jury, knowing the same things that we all know to this point, would somehow not be able to, or not be allowed to, come to the same conclusion that everyone else here has.

 

John, if the DA went to court today with only what is publicly known about this incident, the jury would reach of verdict. Why would they conclude any differently than the posters here?

 

As with any crime where there are no witnesses (or videotape) to testify, the jury is being asked to do exactly what you say---voting based on what they think they know. The "proof" lies in the ability of the DA to convince the jury of what happened.

 

No, Darues wouldn't testify in such a case. But the defense would still have to examine the state's witnesses (cops, Hughes) and they would HAVE to establish some plausible alternative explanation for how Dareus's car came to meet the tree: i.e., that the people who clued the cops were lying or don't understand what two cars racing on the road REALLY looks like.

 

It's an impossible task.

 

We can go in circles on this issue and still get no where. So let's just see how this actually develops. It appears that the defense believes that the prosecution doesn't have sufficient evidence to make its case, at least adequately enough for him to make a deal on the offered charge. Maybe it is holding off for an even lesser charge?

 

You can be sure that the defense is going to argue that this case is not about assumptions but about evidence, of whichi the prosecution has little. The defense is going to remind the jury that their job is to base their decision on the qualtiy of the evidence or lack of and not to base their decision on a preconceived notion.

 

 

 

I understand your stance. It's very reasonable. But very often what seems obvious is not so obvious in a courtroom when it is not buttressed with evidence. As I stated in my very first posting on this topic sometimes assuming what happened doesn't necessarily prove what happened from a legal standpoint.

 

I suspect a deal will be reached on a lesser charge. Dareus has enough money to buy high quality representation. Without a doubt the quality of his represntation will influence the outcome.

Edited July 13, 2014 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

We can go in circles on this issue and still get no where. So let's just see how this actually develops. It appears that the defense believes that the prosecution doesn't have sufficient evidence to make its case, at least adequately enough for him to make a deal on the offered charge. Maybe it is holding off for an even lesser charge?

 

You can be sure that the defense is going to argue that this case is not about assumptions but about evidence, of whichi the prosecution has little. The defense is going to remind the jury that their job is to base their decision on the qualtiy of the evidence or lack of and not to base their decision on a preconceived notion.

 

 

 

I understand your stance. It's very reasonable. But very often what seems obvious is not so obvious in a courtroom when it is not buttressed with evidence. As I stated in my very first posting on this topic sometimes assuming what happened doesn't necessarily prove what happened from a legal standpoint.

 

I suspect a deal will be reached on a lesser charge. Dareus has enough money to buy high quality representation. Without a doubt the quality of his represntation will influence the outcome.

 

That was the lesser charge. But I appreciate your perspective, John.

[gobillsinytown]

ProFootballTalk doesn't have anything new about Marcel getting arrested again........but then again, ProFootballTalk is leading with:

 

"Brian Hoyer isn’t thinking about what his teammates do off the field"