Doc Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 The attorney representing Dareus is not too concerned with the punishment related to the reckless driving offense. He would be willing to accept the standard punishment for the charge (range of 6 mos to yr driving suspension plus court costs and a fine). His attention is more on what the league's punishment will be after the court case is resolved. His strategy is to have the charges lessened with the same punishment for the original charge so that when Roger reviews the case under the all encompassing personal conduct clause his case will be compared to similar driving cases. There is a lot of money at stake for his immature client. The difference between a two game suspension compared to a four game suspension is substantial. Marcell's attorney is concerned with both punishments, because the criminal punishment affects the league punishment. If he can get the reckless driving plea deal charge (which isn't much of a deal) reduced to something benign, Sir Roger can't do much. The NFLPA will have a major problem with their players getting suspended for traffic tickets.
JohnC Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Marcell's attorney is concerned with both punishments, because the criminal punishment affects the league punishment. If he can get the reckless driving plea deal charge (which isn't much of a deal) reduced to something benign, Sir Roger can't do much. The NFLPA will have a major problem with their players getting suspended for traffic tickets. You basically repeated what I stated.
Doc Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) You basically repeated what I stated. In your first sentence, you said Marcell's attorney is "not too concerned with the punishment related to the reckless driving offense." He is. Hence the reason he rejected the reckless driving plea deal (which was nothing of the sort since it was what he was going to be charged with anyway) and decided to take it to court. That charge goes on his record, potentially involves jail time (won't be served though), and IIRC allows for his license to be suspended. Edited February 14, 2015 by Doc
JohnC Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 In your first sentence, you said Marcell's attorney is "not too concerned with the punishment related to the reckless driving offense." He is. Hence the reason he rejected the reckless driving plea deal (which was nothing of the sort since it was what he was going to be charged with anyway) and decided to take it to court. That charge goes on his record, potentially involves jail time (won't be served though), and IIRC allows for his license to be suspended. We are going in circles. He can handle whatever the punishment is for the original charge of reckless driving. What his attorney wants is a lower charge so when the league reviews his case it will be compared to others involved with the similar lower charge. As I stated in the prior posts there is a strong probability that he will be subjected to a costly $$$$$ suspension. If he and his attorney can get it to two games vs four games that is a substantial difference. The legal strategy is not so much to win as it is to cut one's losses. Roger Goodell has recently had a number of his cases reversed when it went to an arbitrator. So he has a strong incentive to stay within the established boundaries of prior cases. The lower the charge (regardless of the punishmist) the better position Dareus is in to receive the lower league punishment.
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 He complied with the Alabama court's pre-trial diversion program for a 1st time non-violent offense. And nowhere can I see that he had a sit down with Sir Roger after it. But we'll see what comes of the car crash case. If it gets reduced to a moving violation, and I don't think he and his attorney would have refused the plea bargain unless they felt they had a strong chance of being reduced, Sir Roger really can't suspend him over that. There is no more requisite "sit down". Everything has changed. The plea deal by the DA WAS the reduced charge. Why do you think the Da will reduce it again if he hasn't yet? As another poster (Cali DA) posted on the other Dareus thread, if there is no new evidence provided by the defense at trial, there's no new plea deal.
JohnC Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) There is no more requisite "sit down". Everything has changed. The plea deal by the DA WAS the reduced charge. Why do you think the Da will reduce it again if he hasn't yet? As another poster (Cali DA) posted on the other Dareus thread, if there is no new evidence provided by the defense at trial, there's no new plea deal. Thank you. When you got nothing new to add you got nothing new to add. As you noted the charges that Dareus is facing is less than what he could have faced. There is no reason why the DA would negotiate against itself when he has already been willing to make a fair (generous) deal for the defendant. I'm sure you are well aware of my position on Dareus's behavior He should be held accountable just like everyone else should be. Not more and not less. Isn't it ironic that when players from other teams are involved in transgressions many members on this board righteously and gleefully point out their failings. But when players representing the hometown are involved in illegal/moronic behavior that endangers the community then the moral indignation is non-existent because the miscreant is one of our own. Edited February 14, 2015 by JohnC
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Thank you. When you got nothing new to add you got nothing new to add. As you noted the charges that Dareus is facing is less than what he could have faced. There is no reason why the DA would negotiate against itself when he has already been willing to make a fair (generous) deal for the defendant. I'm sure you are well aware of my position on Dareus's behavior He should be held accountable just like everyone else should be. Not more and not less. Isn't it ironic that when players from other teams are involved in transgressions many members on this board righteously and gleefully point out their failings. But when players representing the hometown are involved in illegal/moronic behavior that endangers the community then the moral indignation is non-existent because the miscreant is one of our own. The argument about a "traffic ticket" didn't make sense to me. Dareus is going to trial because he thinks he will be found not guilty, not to get a better plea deal. The DA isn't changing his offer because he knows there is no new evidence Dareus's lawyer has to change anything to this point--otherise he would have already offered the "traffic ticket" and put this case in the books.
JohnC Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 The argument about a "traffic ticket" didn't make sense to me. Dareus is going to trial because he thinks he will be found not guilty, not to get a better plea deal. The DA isn't changing his offer because he knows there is no new evidence Dareus's lawyer has to change anything to this point--otherise he would have already offered the "traffic ticket" and put this case in the books. Don't count on this case going to trial. The attorney will settle before going to trial. Just my opinion and sense of the situation.
Doc Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 We are going in circles. He can handle whatever the punishment is for the original charge of reckless driving. What his attorney wants is a lower charge so when the league reviews his case it will be compared to others involved with the similar lower charge. As I stated in the prior posts there is a strong probability that he will be subjected to a costly $$$$$ suspension. If he and his attorney can get it to two games vs four games that is a substantial difference. The legal strategy is not so much to win as it is to cut one's losses. Roger Goodell has recently had a number of his cases reversed when it went to an arbitrator. So he has a strong incentive to stay within the established boundaries of prior cases. The lower the charge (regardless of the punishmist) the better position Dareus is in to receive the lower league punishment. I can assure the legal strategy is first to win, and then to minimize damage. And whether Marcell can handle the punishment isn't he issue. There is no more requisite "sit down". Everything has changed. The plea deal by the DA WAS the reduced charge. Why do you think the Da will reduce it again if he hasn't yet? As another poster (Cali DA) posted on the other Dareus thread, if there is no new evidence provided by the defense at trial, there's no new plea deal. It changed after Marcell's incidents, thanks to Sir Roger's epic fail with his sit down with Ray Rice. The deal the DA offered is what they combine the charges into anyway, so it wasn't a deal at all, hence the reason it was rejected. Don't count on this case going to trial. The attorney will settle before going to trial. Just my opinion and sense of the situation. Exactly. They rejected the plea deal looking for a real deal, but that doesn't mean no other offers can or will be made.
3rdand12 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 This is where i get confused. He has been offered a plea down already. He did not accept it.So in my mind he is going for dismissal. His lawyer must have something of substance to offer up to the judge He should have taken the deal IMO.
JohnC Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 This is where i get confused. He has been offered a plea down already. He did not accept it. So in my mind he is going for dismissal. His lawyer must have something of substance to offer up to the judge He should have taken the deal IMO. His attorney has no grounds for a dismissal and nothing else in his arsenal other than additional billable hours.
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) I can assure the legal strategy is first to win, and then to minimize damage. And whether Marcell can handle the punishment isn't he issue. It changed after Marcell's incidents, thanks to Sir Roger's epic fail with his sit down with Ray Rice. The deal the DA offered is what they combine the charges into anyway, so it wasn't a deal at all, hence the reason it was rejected. Exactly. They rejected the plea deal looking for a real deal, but that doesn't mean no other offers can or will be made. No, he was charged with reckless endangerment (first degree), reckless driving, participating in an illegal speed contest, leaving the scene of a property-damage accident, failure to keep right, speeding and making an unsafe lane change. His plea offer was misdemeanor reckless driving--all other charges would be dropped. So of course it was a deal. No one is disputing this... His lawyer has just been quoted as: "I do not want my client to plead guilty to a crime."..... You haven't answered why the DA would make a different offer when he has had ample opportunity to do so thus far. Both sides seem to think they will prevail in court (it's a non-jury trial). Edited February 14, 2015 by Mr. WEO
3rdand12 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 a ballsy move on both parties. some one knows something we dont know. lol
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 a ballsy move on both parties. some one knows something we dont know. lol It's not ballsy for the DA. He made a good offer and the perp rejected it. It goes to the judge. Open and shut case for the DA, I think. There are no mitigating circumstances and the facts don't seem to be in dispute.
3rdand12 Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 It's not ballsy for the DA. He made a good offer and the perp rejected it. It goes to the judge. Open and shut case for the DA, I think. There are no mitigating circumstances and the facts don't seem to be in dispute. so how could Dareus' lawyer even consider this
Mr. WEO Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 so how could Dareus' lawyer even consider this That's what many are asking.
Doc Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 (edited) No, he was charged with reckless endangerment (first degree), reckless driving, participating in an illegal speed contest, leaving the scene of a property-damage accident, failure to keep right, speeding and making an unsafe lane change. His plea offer was misdemeanor reckless driving--all other charges would be dropped. So of course it was a deal. No one is disputing this... His lawyer has just been quoted as: "I do not want my client to plead guilty to a crime."..... You haven't answered why the DA would make a different offer when he has had ample opportunity to do so thus far. Both sides seem to think they will prevail in court (it's a non-jury trial). The first degree reckless endangerment was a trumped-up charge and had no chance in hell of ever sticking considering no one even got close to being hurt, much less dying. Toss that out and the next highest charge is reckless driving. Again, not much of a deal. Of course his lawyer doesn't want his client to plead guilty to a crime. Your point? Why would be make a different offer? To prevent wasting taxpayer's money? And the trial is set for May 19th. There is no urgency on either side to do anything until the trial date gets closer. Edited February 14, 2015 by Doc
Mr. WEO Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 The first degree reckless endangerment was a trumped-up charge and had no chance in hell of ever sticking considering no one even got close to being hurt, much less dying. Toss that out and the next highest charge is reckless driving. Again, not much of a deal. Of course his lawyer doesn't want his client to plead guilty to a crime. Your point? Why would be make a different offer? To prevent wasting taxpayer's money? And the trial is set for May 19th. There is no urgency on either side to do anything until the trial date gets closer. You need to read that law. No one has to get hurt. And the DA did toss it out--and that was a big deal because it is punishable by a year in jail. The DA has had many months to "make a different offer" to avoid "wasting taxpayers' money". So why hasn't he made a new deal? He has what sounds like a tight case and there is no jury. He made a good offer and Dareus has no defense.--with no new evidence, there is no new offer. What leverage does Dareus have to force a new offer? Taxpayer relief? That's as silly as it sounds. Why don't you just tell us how he can force a better offer---for real, I mean?
3rdand12 Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 You need to read that law. No one has to get hurt. And the DA did toss it out--and that was a big deal because it is punishable by a year in jail. The DA has had many months to "make a different offer" to avoid "wasting taxpayers' money". So why hasn't he made a new deal? He has what sounds like a tight case and there is no jury. He made a good offer and Dareus has no defense.--with no new evidence, there is no new offer. What leverage does Dareus have to force a new offer? Taxpayer relief? That's as silly as it sounds. Why don't you just tell us how he can force a better offer---for real, I mean? This really is a mystery to me. I cant imagine what is going on behind the scenes. Only thing that might have been a motivation, is delaying the punishment?
Doc Posted February 15, 2015 Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) You need to read that law. No one has to get hurt. And the DA did toss it out--and that was a big deal because it is punishable by a year in jail. The DA has had many months to "make a different offer" to avoid "wasting taxpayers' money". So why hasn't he made a new deal? He has what sounds like a tight case and there is no jury. He made a good offer and Dareus has no defense.--with no new evidence, there is no new offer. What leverage does Dareus have to force a new offer? Taxpayer relief? That's as silly as it sounds. Why don't you just tell us how he can force a better offer---for real, I mean? Okay, let's try a different approach. If this were to go to trial, what are the odds that Marcell gets "reckless endangerment"? What's that you say: slim to none? Why's that? Yes, because even you know because it's a trumped-up charge. Good job. And again, there is no reason for anyone to do anything for another 3 months. The DA put out his "deal" and is praying Marcell takes it. He may think he has a "tight case," but Marcell's lawyer thinks he can get the charges reduced. And Marcell has more to lose than the DA does, so the lawyer must be more confident than the DA. And silly was your analysis of Lynch's hit-and-run case several years ago. How'd that one work out for you again? Edited February 15, 2015 by Doc
Recommended Posts