Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing

[Boxcar]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Shelved with pay in 2021........a thorough investigation.........and then a full season suspension in 2022 is about the only way the NFL doesn't come off looking much too lenient if he is guilty of this behavior.

 

It's a much bigger issue for the NFL than his season's pay check..........they really can't let him play from a PR standpoint.

 

With prior sexual assault type cases it was typically one person claiming they were harmed...........in that case there is usually the distinct possibility that perhaps the interaction was consensual or was embellished or even a lie...........this is a couple dozen different women.

He's also admitting that these events happened, just that they were consensual. It's like the It's Always Sunny skit with Mac and Dennis except replace boat with wherever Watson is getting massaged.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Boxcar said:

He's also admitting that these events happened, just that they were consensual. It's like the It's Always Sunny skit with Mac and Dennis except replace boat with wherever Watson is getting massaged.

 

 

 

But remember there is zero burden on Watson to prove they were consensual. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove they weren't.

[cba fan]

24 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But remember there is zero burden on Watson to prove they were consensual. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove they weren't.

LOL. This is a civil case not criminal.

 

So DW very well has to prove he is more likely innocent than he is gulity to avoid losing.

Edited May 18, 2021 by cba fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

34 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But remember there is zero burden on Watson to prove they were consensual. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove they weren't.

 

Also remember that in a civil case, the burden of proof is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  BIG difference.

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Also remember that in a civil case, the burden of proof is "more likely than not", not "beyond a reasonable doubt".  BIG difference.

 

It is indeed, but responsibility for proving that burden remains on the plaintiff. The implication I was responding to was that Watson needed to prove the meetings were consensual. He doesn't. That is assumed walking into the court.

[GunnerBill]

6 hours ago, cba fan said:

LOL. This is a civil case not criminal.

 

So DW very well has to prove he is more likely innocent than he is gulity to avoid losing.

 

No he doesn't. That is a misunderstanding of the law I am afraid. The standard of proof is the lower standard - the balance of probabilities - but the burden to prove that standard falls on the plaintiff. That bit is no different to a criminal case. The defendant's version of events is assumed and the claimant must prove to the court that their assertion is more likely than not true. The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. What it has to do is simply create sufficient doubt about the assertions of the plaintiff. You need to create more doubt in a civil case because of the lower standard but you don't have to prove innocence. That is not what the law is founded on. It is founded on the principle that one must prove guilt (or liability to be precise as we are talking civil law). 

 

I have said already in this thread on numerous occasions that I think on the basis of the evidence that is in the public domain the plaintiff has a strong case to prove the civil standard. But the burden remains on them to prove it.

[glazeduck]

I've not read through the previous 51 1/2 pages of this thread, but just here to say, any thought on this story that isn't defaulting to Watson settling to keep this out of courts is naïve. Sadly, this is no longer about what did or didn't happen or to what extent Deshaun is or isn't guilty, it's all about negotiating leverage... ZERO chance this plays out fully in civil court. 

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is indeed, but responsibility for proving that burden remains on the plaintiff. The implication I was responding to was that Watson needed to prove the meetings were consensual. He doesn't. That is assumed walking into the court.

He and his lawyer, for all practical purposes, have to “prove” to a jury that these women are lying. That is his defense.

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

He and his lawyer, for all practical purposes, have to “prove” to a jury that these women are lying. That is his defense.

 

They really don't. The women have to prove they are telling the truth. The defense's job is just to pick holes you don't have to present an entire proven case that they are lying. It is likely a little trickier given your system still has jury trial in these cases, but there is no requirement on the defense to prove anything. Indeed generally speaking trying to prove an alternative case is not a good defense strategy because you are then giving the jury (or judge) a binary choice "do you like the plaintiff's theory or ours?" As a rule good defense counsel will avoid giving the jury (or judge) that binary choice. It is only really advisable if you have a water tight defense which Watson based on the papers in the public domain definitely does not.

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They really don't. The women have to prove they are telling the truth. The defense's job is just to pick holes you don't have to present an entire proven case that they are lying. It is likely a little trickier given your system still has jury trial in these cases, but there is no requirement on the defense to prove anything. Indeed generally speaking trying to prove an alternative case is not a good defense strategy because you are then giving the jury (or judge) a binary choice "do you like the plaintiff's theory or ours?" As a rule good defense counsel will avoid giving the jury (or judge) that binary choice. It is only really advisable if you have a water tight defense which Watson based on the papers in the public domain definitely does not.

 

"For all practical purposes" is the operative phrase.  This day and age, WEO is right, though you are technically correct.

[Mr. WEO]

41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They really don't. The women have to prove they are telling the truth. The defense's job is just to pick holes you don't have to present an entire proven case that they are lying. It is likely a little trickier given your system still has jury trial in these cases, but there is no requirement on the defense to prove anything. Indeed generally speaking trying to prove an alternative case is not a good defense strategy because you are then giving the jury (or judge) a binary choice "do you like the plaintiff's theory or ours?" As a rule good defense counsel will avoid giving the jury (or judge) that binary choice. It is only really advisable if you have a water tight defense which Watson based on the papers in the public domain definitely does not.

 

As I qualified it, in a practical sense. 

 

Jurors will want him to "prove" all these women are lying, no matter on whom this burden falls.  It's a natural bias against the accused.  Poking holes in one or two claims is spitting into the wind on this case.  

 

His lawyer will absolutely have to show convincing evidence that they are all lying or he's done.   The sheer number of accusers puts the (functional) burden on the defense.

[Patrick Duffy]

19 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

As I qualified it, in a practical sense. 

 

Jurors will want him to "prove" all these women are lying, no matter on whom this burden falls.  It's a natural bias against the accused.  Poking holes in one or two claims is spitting into the wind on this case.  

 

His lawyer will absolutely have to show convincing evidence that they are all lying or he's done.   The sheer number of accusers puts the (functional) burden on the defense.

Are there even any jurors in a civil case? Thought jurors were there for criminal/appeals etc. Thought just had to convince the judge as for he/she dealt the verdict? I'm not 100% on that but anyways....

Edited May 19, 2021 by Patrick_Duffy

[mannc]

19 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But remember there is zero burden on Watson to prove they were consensual. The burden is on the plaintiffs to prove they weren't.

Not in the Court of Public Opinion, which is highly relevant to this situation...

[chongli]

5 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

Are there even any jurors in a civil case? Thought jurors were there for criminal/appeals etc. Thought just had to convince the judge as for he/she dealt the verdict? I'm not 100% on that but anyways....

 

Yes:

 

https://www.texaspress.com/law-a-the-media-in-texas-civil-trial-01

 

"Law & the Media in Texas — Civil Trial

 

[...]

 

Juries in justice and county courts consist of six members. District court juries have 12 members. Either side may request a jury. A 10 to 2 verdict is sufficient in civil district trials, but a unanimous verdict is necessary in criminal district trials. "

[Patrick Duffy]

2 minutes ago, chongli said:

 

Yes:

 

https://www.texaspress.com/law-a-the-media-in-texas-civil-trial-01

 

"Law & the Media in Texas — Civil Trial

 

[...]

 

Juries in justice and county courts consist of six members. District court juries have 12 members. Either side may request a jury. A 10 to 2 verdict is sufficient in civil district trials, but a unanimous verdict is necessary in criminal district trials. "

ok, was curious because every claims court (which is also civil right?) I have ever had the pleasure of attending there was no jury. I see that's Texas so figured states do different things so wasn't sure.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Patrick_Duffy

[mannc]

1 minute ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

ok, was curious because every claims court (which is also civil right?) I have ever had the pleasure of attending there was no jury. Figured states do different things so wasn't sure.

The general rule in every state is that civil cases are tried before a jury, but there are many exceptions, depending on the type of case.  Divorce cases, for example, are usually tried before a judge, with no jury.

[Patrick Duffy]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

The general rule in every state is that civil cases are tried before a jury, but there are many exceptions, depending on the type of case.  Divorce cases, for example, are usually tried before a judge, with no jury.

Yeah and so are small claims like evictions or like someone owes you money and whatnot....at least the ones I was involved with and I'm in N.C ( if makes a difference). But anyways, thanks for the info

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, mannc said:

The general rule in every state is that civil cases are tried before a jury, but there are many exceptions, depending on the type of case.  Divorce cases, for example, are usually tried before a judge, with no jury.

 

We don't have jurors in civil hearings in the UK. It is very old fashioned to me. Indeed I was in charge of the legislation that abolished the last presumption in favour of jury trial in civil proceedings (in defamation) in 2013.  

 

Edit: actually I think there is still a presumption for false imprisonment in the civil courts although in reality the presumption is always rebutted and the trials are judge only.

Edited May 19, 2021 by GunnerBill

[Patrick Duffy]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

We don't have jurors in civil hearings in the UK. It is very old fashioned to me. Indeed I was in charge of the legislation that abolished the last presumption in favour of jury trial in civil proceedings (in defamation) in 2013.  

I didn't think there was here. At least not the civil cases I have been involved with. A poster posted a link that they do, however that was in Texas. So maybe some states do and some don't. Anyways...

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, Patrick_Duffy said:

I didn't think there was here. At least not the civil cases I have been involved with. A poster posted a link that they do, however that was in Texas. So maybe some states do and some don't. Anyways...

 

I don't think there are in the Delaware commercial courts which hear a lot of international litigation. They are judge only. I did quite a bit of analysis of that system when I led a review into our commercial court competitiveness in 2015/16. 

Edited May 19, 2021 by GunnerBill