Dareus car race trial set for May 19

[JohnC]

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?

Let me try a different approach with you on this Dareus issue. On what basis is his attorney going to argue on his behalf? Is he going to deny what happened? Is he going to refute the accounts of the numerous people who witnessed the reckless driving and crash? If the case goes trial how is he going to refute Hughes's account that he and the immature Dareus were racing?

 

If Dareus's attorney has any legal common sense he is certainly not going to put his dopey client on the stand. Again, what is his attorney's strategy and approach in making a case for Dareus.

 

The reason I stated that I felt that this case wasn't going to trial is not because his attorney can get a better deal but because he has no other recourse other than looking like a fool in a public courtroom. What hurts Dareus's case even further is that it is going to be heard in front of judge and not a jury. So there is no chance of jury nullification due to some stupid jurist who is biased toward a hometown athlete.

 

Tell me who his attorney is going to call on his behalf? Tell me what possible strategy he is going to take for his defense?

[Doc]

Let me try a different approach with you on this Dareus issue. On what basis is his attorney going to argue on his behalf? Is he going to deny what happened? Is he going to refute the accounts of the numerous people who witnessed the reckless driving and crash? If the case goes trial how is he going to refute Hughes's account that he and the immature Dareus were racing?

 

If Dareus's attorney has any legal common sense he is certainly not going to put his dopey client on the stand. Again, what is his attorney's strategy and approach in making a case for Dareus.

 

The reason I stated that I felt that this case wasn't going to trial is not because his attorney can get a better deal but because he has no other recourse other than looking like a fool in a public courtroom. What hurts Dareus's case even further is that it is going to be heard in front of judge and not a jury. So there is no chance of jury nullification due to some stupid jurist who is biased toward a hometown athlete.

 

Tell me who his attorney is going to call on his behalf? Tell me what possible strategy he is going to take for his defense?

For starters, proving he was drag racing requires that Hughes admits they were drag racing. Do you really think that he did that? And that Marcell's attorney doesn't know? Nope. So what people, if any, saw is immaterial to the case. Again this isn't about what appeared to happen, what you think happened, or what actually might have happened, but instead what can be proven.

 

Marcell won't take the stand. And no, not because the attorney is worried about what Marcell will say. It's because he knows the DA will offer a lower charge, like what happened in the Lynch case. Any halfway decent attorney would be able to get it reduced, much less the attorney of a guy who makes multi-millions.

[JohnC]

For starters, proving he was drag racing requires that Hughes admits they were drag racing. Do you really think that he did that? And that Marcell's attorney doesn't know? Nope. So what people, if any, saw is immaterial to the case. Again this isn't about what appeared to happen, what you think happened, or what actually might have happened, but instead what can be proven.

 

Marcell won't take the stand. And no, not because the attorney is worried about what Marcell will say. It's because he knows the DA will offer a lower charge, like what happened in the Lynch case. Any halfway decent attorney would be able to get it reduced, much less the attorney of a guy who makes multi-millions.

Hughes might not be the smartest person in the room but he is smart enough with the assistance of tutoring from his counsel to tell the truth if called to the stand. The stupidest thing that Hughes can do is lie about what happened when it was witnessed by dozens of people. Dareus might be a good friend but not good enough for him to do something foolish enough to jeopardize/damage his career.

 

 

Nope. So what people, if any, saw is immaterial to the case. Again this isn't about what appeared to happen, what you think happened, or what actually might have happened, but instead what can be proven.

 

Your reasoning is getting very weird. Because so many people witnessed the incident it makes it very provable that it occurred.

 

Trust me this case is not going to again be reduced before going to trial. The DA has already demonstrated a willingness to reduce a much more serious charge to a lower charge. Why would he go further down when the evidence is so overwhelming against the defendant. (WEO has very often pointed this out to you. I don't understand why you are so unreceptive to his obvious point.)

 

This is a situation where you don't have to have a legal background to come to a reasoned position. All that it takes is a scintilla of common sense to understand what the legal situation is. When you got no ammo you got no ammo. Shooting back is futile!

[Doc]

Hughes might not be the smartest person in the room but he is smart enough with the assistance of tutoring from his counsel to tell the truth if called to the stand. The stupidest thing that Hughes can do is lie about what happened when it was witnessed by dozens of people. Dareus might be a good friend but not good enough for him to do something foolish enough to jeopardize/damage his career.

 

Your reasoning is getting very weird. Because so many people witnessed the incident it makes it very provable that it occurred.

 

Trust me this case is not going to again be reduced before going to trial. The DA has already demonstrated a willingness to reduce a much more serious charge to a lower charge. Why would he go further down when the evidence is so overwhelming against the defendant. (WEO has very often pointed this out to you. I don't understand why you are so unreceptive to his obvious point.)

 

This is a situation where you don't have to have a legal background to come to a reasoned position. All that it takes is a scintilla of common sense to understand what the legal situation is. When you got no ammo you got no ammo. Shooting back is futile!

Again, what the people may have seen is immaterial. Hughes would need to incriminate himself, which he obviously didn't do, otherwise he'd have been charged and/or Marcell's lawyer would have taken the plea deal. And how is anyone going to prove that Hughes lied, necessitating him telling the truth?

[JohnC]

Again, what the people may have seen is immaterial. Hughes would need to incriminate himself, which he obviously didn't do, otherwise he'd have been charged and/or Marcell's lawyer would have taken the plea deal. And how is anyone going to prove that Hughes lied, necessitating him telling the truth?

There is nothing more I can say. You are saying that what numerous witnesses observed is not material is nonsensical. The same logic applies to the Hughes involvement. If numerous witnesses state that they observed Hughes racing with Dareus then that is overwhelming evidence that these consistent observations from different people are very credible. If witnesses are so immaterial then why are they used in court?

 

Your logic on this issue is beyond being perplexing. I understand your historical reluctance to admit fallibility when WEO is challenging your position but in this case listen to WEO. Sometimes things are so obvious that even the blind can see.

[Mr. WEO]

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?

 

 

Unlike Lynch, Dareus wasn't able to destroy all evidence (of drunk driving, in Beastmode's case)--and Lynch was a hit and run not caught at the scene, unlike Darreus. I think you can tell the difference. There is no similarity in these two cases at all.

 

Hughes admitted publicly that he "was involved in it". You think he doesn't mean drag racing?? You're kidding right? You think the judge doesn't know what Hughes is admitting to? Anyway, they will put Hughes on the stand. They can immunize him. Or they can just have the cop recite Hughes interview/statement. The "witnesses" are nit immaterial. The cops will read off the 911 call describing both Dareus's and Hughes's cars.

 

The charges were reduced already by the DA. If the DA's only concern, as you state, was saving taxpayers' money, he would get this case off the docket and offer a "traffic ticket", as you claim, right now.

 

The DA knows the judge better than Dareus's lawyer, I'm supposing--and he knows the Judge is familiar with the legal definition of reckless endangerment:

 

"You are guilty of Second Degree Reckless Endangerment when you recklessly engage in a course of conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person."

 

The drag racing on a public street in the middle of the day to the pout where he lost control and drove into a restaurant during business hours should qualify as a situation which Dareus knew he was putting himself, Hughes, the rest of the drivers on the road and pedestrians at or in the parking lot/restaurant in danger of of significant physical injury. I'm not sure how his lawyer will dispute this--the crash of the car is what kills Dareus's case here.

 

​Let's say a restaurant patron came out just as Dareus, completely out of control of his car, came out of the place and was struck. Or if Dareus himself was seriously injured. We wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It's pure luck that this isn't how it ended.

 

​Well..the law doesn't require that someone gets hurt. Why do you keep saying it was a "trumped up charge"?

Edited February 15, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

There is nothing more I can say. You are saying that what numerous witnesses observed is not material is nonsensical. The same logic applies to the Hughes involvement. If numerous witnesses state that they observed Hughes racing with Dareus then that is overwhelming evidence that these consistent observations from different people are very credible. If witnesses are so immaterial then why are they used in court?

 

Your logic on this issue is beyond being perplexing. I understand your historical reluctance to admit fallibility when WEO is challenging your position but in this case listen to WEO. Sometimes things are so obvious that even the blind can see.

I'm sure you're perplexed. Rest assured that Marcell's attorney is not. He's the one who knows the law inside and out, likely has tried many of these cases, and knows the facts of this particular case.

 

As for WEO, he hasn't accurately predicted the outcome of any case so far. To him, everyone (else, more on that below) should just sit there and accept whatever charges are leveled.

[Mr. WEO]

I'm sure you're perplexed. Rest assured that Marcell's attorney is not. He's the one who knows the law inside and out, likely has tried many of these cases, and knows the facts of this particular case.

 

As for WEO, he hasn't accurately predicted the outcome of any case so far. To him, everyone (else, more on that below) should just sit there and accept whatever charges are leveled.

 

So you're saying the Judge and DA do not know the law inside and out?

 

Again, what do you think Hughes was publicly admitting to? Why do you think the reckless driving charge is "trumped up"?

 

Expound...

[Doc]

 

 

Unlike Lynch, Dareus wasn't able to destroy all evidence (of drunk driving, in Beastmode's case)--and Lynch was a hit and run not caught at the scene, unlike Darreus. I think you can tell the difference. There is no similarity in these two cases at all.

 

Hughes admitted publicly that he "was involved in it". You think he doesn't mean drag racing?? You're kidding right? You think the judge doesn't know what Hughes is admitting to? Anyway, they will put Hughes on the stand. They can immunize him. Or they can just have the cop recite Hughes interview/statement. The "witnesses" are nit immaterial. The cops will read off the 911 call describing both Dareus's and Hughes's cars.

 

The charges were reduced already by the DA. If the DA's only concern, as you state, was saving taxpayers' money, he would get this case off the docket and offer a "traffic ticket", as you claim, right now.

 

The DA knows the judge better than Dareus's lawyer, I'm supposing--and he knows the Judge is familiar with the legal definition of reckless endangerment:

 

"You are guilty of Second Degree Reckless Endangerment when you recklessly engage in a course of conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person."

 

The drag racing on a public street in the middle of the day to the pout where he lost control and drove into a restaurant during business hours should qualify as a situation which Dareus knew he was putting himself, Hughes, the rest of the drivers on the road and pedestrians at or in the parking lot/restaurant in danger of of significant physical injury. I'm not sure how his lawyer will dispute this--the crash of the car is what kills Dareus's case here.

 

​Let's say a restaurant patron came out just as Dareus, completely out of control of his car, came out of the place and was struck. Or if Dareus himself was seriously injured. We wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? It's pure luck that this isn't how it ended.

 

​Well..the law doesn't require that someone gets hurt. Why do you keep saying it was a "trumped up charge"?

First degree reckless endangerment involves "recklessly creating a grave risk of death to someone" and is a felony. Second degree is "substantial risk of serious physical injury" and is a misdemeanor, and would have been the more appropriate charge since assuming someone would have died and not just been injured is a huge leap. So yes, trumped-up to make the "plea deal" look like a deal.

So you're saying the Judge and DA do not know the law inside and out?

 

Again, what do you think Hughes was publicly admitting to? Why do you think the reckless driving charge is "trumped up"?

 

Expound...

Not sure what the judge has to do with anything since he won't be ruling on it unless/until there's a trial. And while the DA knows the law inside and out, he's hoping they accept the plea deal. Again he has nothing to lose, while Marcell has a lot to lose and his lawyer wouldn't be gambling if the didn't think he had a good case. Like how Lynch's lawyer advised him to remain silent because he knew the facts.

[Mr. WEO]

First degree reckless endangerment involves "recklessly creating a grave risk of death to someone" and is a felony. Second degree is "substantial risk of serious physical injury" and is a misdemeanor, and would have been the more appropriate charge since assuming someone would have died and not just been injured is a huge leap. So yes, trumped-up to make the "plea deal" look like a deal.

Not sure what the judge has to do with anything since he won't be ruling on it unless/until there's a trial. And while the DA knows the law inside and out, he's hoping they accept the plea deal. Again he has nothing to lose, while Marcell has a lot to lose and his lawyer wouldn't be gambling if the didn't think he had a good case. Like how Lynch's lawyer advised him to remain silent because he knew the facts.

 

From any number of sources...

 

 

"Dareus is facing three misdemeanor charges and four traffic charges stemming from the incident. The misdemeanor charges include: reckless endangerment, reckless driving and participating in an illegal speed contest."

 

"Dareus, 24, was charged with misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment and reckless driving, and several violations of vehicle and traffic law, following what police said was a drag race last May 30 along Mile Strip Road."

 

Anyway, if this was a jury trial, I might understands Dareus's position. But it's not. Why would a judge think this is not reckless endangerment? I really just want to know your straight answer on this.

 

Again, this has nothing in common with Lynch's case. Marshawn's lawyer's only valuable piece of advice (which kept him out of jail, likely) was "do not answer the door!". Unlike that case, there is no way for Darues or his lawyer to mitigate the facts of this case. They can't hide anything.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

 

From any number of sources...

 

 

"Dareus is facing three misdemeanor charges and four traffic charges stemming from the incident. The misdemeanor charges include: reckless endangerment, reckless driving and participating in an illegal speed contest."

 

"Dareus, 24, was charged with misdemeanor counts of reckless endangerment and reckless driving, and several violations of vehicle and traffic law, following what police said was a drag race last May 30 along Mile Strip Road."

 

Anyway, if this was a jury trial, I might understands Dareus's position. But it's not. Why would a judge think this is not reckless endangerment? I really just want to know your straight answer on this.

 

Again, this has nothing in common with Lynch's case. Marshawn's lawyer's only valuable piece of advice (which kept him out of jail, likely) was "do not answer the door!". Unlike that case, there is no way for Darues or his lawyer to mitigate the facts of this case. They can't hide anything.

In post #52, you said he was facing reckless endangerment (first degree), which is a felony, which is why I said it was trumped-up. Second degree is a misdemeanor, and if that's what he was actually charged with, as I said, that's more appropriate. I should have verified it myself. My bad.

 

In any case, since they're all misdemeanors, they usually package them into one misdemeanor as the "plea deal." But again, his lawyer figures he can get less than that, since it all ties into the "illegal speed contest," which is what will have to be proven. Again I doubt Hughes rolled on his teammate and I doubt they even have the actual speed they were traveling, and how credible are the witnesses, if there are any? Those are the angles I'd be willing to bet his lawyer is going after. But you'd have to ask him.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

In post #52, you said he was facing reckless endangerment (first degree), which is a felony, which is why I said it was trumped-up. Second degree is a misdemeanor, and if that's what he was actually charged with, as I said, that's more appropriate. I should have verified it myself. My bad.

 

In any case, since they're all misdemeanors, they usually package them into one misdemeanor as the "plea deal." But again, his lawyer figures he can get less than that, since it all ties into the "illegal speed contest," which is what will have to be proven. Again I doubt Hughes rolled on his teammate and I doubt they even have the actual speed they were traveling, and how credible are the witnesses, if there are any? Those are the angles I'd be willing to bet his lawyer is going after. But you'd have to ask him.

 

 

Second degree, I misspoke . But, as I also pointed out in that post: ​"His plea offer was misdemeanor reckless driving--all other charges would be dropped".

 

So, all charges have been rolled into one misdemeanor. What else are you looking for then? He wasn't overcharged. All charges have been reduced to a single misdemeanor--exactly as you have said. That IS the the deal. All of your conditions have been met, so why would you tell the guy not to take the deal?

 

They don't need witnesses of the drag race to testify on the stand. They have a call in to the cops telling them of a drag race involving Dareus's and Hughes's cars. They have Hughes confirming publicly (he can't tell the cops otherwise) that he was "there and involved in it". They have Dareus's car wrecked on a tree in front of a restaurant.

 

​What exactly do you think a judge would conclude at trial? What does his lawyer think? Hughes's statements in public and to the cops are a matter of record--it doesn't matter what he does't say now.

 

Just tell me why the DA would give an offer? Why would he fear bringing this to trial (no one cares about the taxpayer doc)? You really think the judge would think they were NOT drag racing in the middle of the day on a main road? That's not possible. The wrecked car implies they were traveling fact enough for Darues to lose control and wreck. No one is disputing there was a drag race--not credibly anyway.

 

No new evidence, no new deal. DA would love a win here--especially since they crapped on his deal. Where's the leverage in Dareus's camp? I can't find it.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Doc]

Again, I went by what you said, i.e. that he was charged with a felony. That would have been over-charging him.

 

As for what new evidence there is or ways to get around the charges, again, ask his attorney. I'm sure you think Marcell is getting bad advice, just like you thought Lynch was (well, except during that fictitious phone when the cops were at his house).