This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel.
Crowder, was that a tweet or were you just creating your own hypothetical for the purpose of argument?
When I first read it, I thought it was a tweet about what happened. After reading it again, you are saying you could come up with a hypothetical as to how she is dead bang guilty.
My response is "Yeah." That's just the point. Unless we know what the argument was about and how she got to that second of that minute of that hour of that day when she put the knife into his body, we really can't say.
It's amusing how everyone is accusing me of speculating but if I'm speculating, it is that the bare facts we know does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is the innocent victim.
A person taking my position is allowed to do that.
Those who say that she is dead bang guilty and that's the only way it can be, are the ones who are not allowed to speculate.
You are saying you have proof from the facts released by the newspaper alone.
I'm saying that's evidence but not PROOF. Evidence is what goes to establish proof. Proof is the final product.
You cannot PROVE from the fact that she was stabbed and she has no injuries that she was NOT acting in self defense.
Berk, as you said, that all constitutes EVIDENCE that she was the aggressor and he was the victim but it does not constitute absolute PROOF.
Am I speculating? Yes. But one who challenges a proposition is entitled to speculation.
One claiming that the proposition he asserts is NECESSARILY the truth must be able to either show that the speculation is scientifically impossible or that it has been proven to factually not have occurred.
You guys defending Marshall can do neither at this point unless Crowder, your tweet was something that you read actually happened or you were making that up as a counter-hypothetical.
If you are, then, my response is, "You're right under that hypothetical, she would be dead-bang guilty."
.....But, that's just my point. Any unknown hypothetical leading to either guilt or self-defense on her par could be what occurred.
I'll say it for the last time because I'm getting tired. I'm not trying to tell you guys what DID happen. I'm telling you "Don't be so sure that he is a totally (and legally) innocent victim in this episode."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 10:49AM by ChyrenB.
> if he refuses to testify, they basically have no
> case and won't prosecute---is that right, Chyren?
No that is NOT the case. I have seen many cases go forward in spite of how the Victim feels. I've seen Victims removed from court screaming at the Top of their lungs to let the POS defendant go. many of these people are very abused and can't make a wise decision to help themselves.Is it easier with a willing Victim? of course. but the state can do it on their behalf. Considering the publicity this case will get i feel they will at least go through the motions and a plea will be met. Agg Battery (felony) down to simple battery Domestic Violence related. Its a win win for everyone.
Its ultimately the SA decision , but if he has a good case , physical evidence, statements , Cops do NOT like it when the SA decides to dump all charges after alot of work has been put in. They start doing that , cops will no longer work as hard to get them the evidence THEY need to be successful. It WILL go forward with or without Brandon, trust me.
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> > if he refuses to testify, they basically have
> > case and won't prosecute---is that right,
> No that is NOT the case. I have seen many cases go
> forward in spite of how the Victim feels. I've
> seen Victims removed from court screaming at the
> Top of their lungs to let the POS defendant go.
> many of these people are very abused and can't
> make a wise decision to help themselves.Is it
> easier with a willing Victim? of course. but the
> state can do it on their behalf. Considering the
> publicity this case will get i feel they will at
> least go through the motions and a plea will be
> met. Agg Battery (felony) down to simple battery
> Domestic Violence related. Its a win win for
> Its ultimately the SA decision , but if he has a
> good case , physical evidence, statements , Cops
> do NOT like it when the SA decides to dump all
> charges after alot of work has been put in. They
> start doing that , cops will no longer work as
> hard to get them the evidence THEY need to be
> successful. It WILL go forward with or without
> Brandon, trust me.
but in those cases, I bet there were witnesses, it wasn't a case where the only witnesses are the victim and the perp and the victim refuses to testify.
> TreasurecoastPhinsfan Wrote:
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> > -----
> > > if he refuses to testify, they basically have
> > no
> > > case and won't prosecute---is that right,
> > Chyren?
> > No that is NOT the case. I have seen many cases
> > forward in spite of how the Victim feels. I've
> > seen Victims removed from court screaming at
> > Top of their lungs to let the POS defendant go.
> > many of these people are very abused and can't
> > make a wise decision to help themselves.Is it
> > easier with a willing Victim? of course. but
> > state can do it on their behalf. Considering
> > publicity this case will get i feel they will
> > least go through the motions and a plea will be
> > met. Agg Battery (felony) down to simple
> > Domestic Violence related. Its a win win for
> > everyone.
> > Its ultimately the SA decision , but if he has
> > good case , physical evidence, statements ,
> > do NOT like it when the SA decides to dump all
> > charges after alot of work has been put in.
> > start doing that , cops will no longer work as
> > hard to get them the evidence THEY need to be
> > successful. It WILL go forward with or without
> > Brandon, trust me.
> but in those cases, I bet there were witnesses, it
> wasn't a case where the only witnesses are the
> victim and the perp and the victim refuses to
People don't stab themselves Bro.They don't slice up their hands either. 2 people there. You tell me who did it.
> no one is disputing he was stabbed, but the issue
> is why and with what intent. that is the crime.
> how do you prove that without his testimony?
Physical evidence. How do we prove cases with nothing but a dead body? 1 Picture is as good as 1000 words. Sliced hands can say alot. Do they have enough without a willing Victim? Maybe , maybe not. Thats why a Plea deal will be made to benifit both sides. A Misdemenor battery charge is basically a fine and 6 months probation. She could be looking at 18 to 36 months in Prison if convicted of the Agg battery with a deadly weapon. Something tells me she wouldn't last long in a prision without her make up and hair weaves. She will take the plea and run. They do everytime.
> Actually, TreasureCoast, its easier to win a case
> from the prosecutor's side when the victim is dead
> than it is when he or she is alive but unwilling.
> And, LOL, some victims make such bad witnesses
> that they almost make worst victims than dead
> victims even when they're willing.
> Brandon Marshall just might be such a victim
> although I agree that he probably won't cooperate.
I KNOW Pics were taken at the scene. Pics of the address, the knife, the wounds. The blood. Where it happened, the trail. Its all there. I know because I do it everyday. As long as no new evidence arises, as is, Its a signed and delivered Plea deal.
If he gets mad at her and decides he wants her goose cooked.....She is done. But that won't happen because of his ego , and because your right , he probably got her to that point . But she can't walk. The case is too public and we can't have people going around settling their domestic arguments with a knife. You know all about setting a Presedent. This is not a good one to start.
He probably won't testify but I disagree with your conclusion of how it will go if he does cooperate. If he does, her goose is not cooked.
Even as a prosecutor, I would love this case as a defense counsel. With his past, this case would be ten times easier for a defense counsel than the Menendez Bros., Robert Blake, or OJ. I don't care if there is no physical evidence supporting self-defense, short of a nanny-cam showing the incident and proving she has no right to self-defense.
Or short of Crowder's hypothetical being true. If it can be proven the fight arose because of another woman, she's got an uphill battle.
Otherwise, a prosecutor just can't win that case because of his history. Again, the history of the defendant is not admissible but legally, the history of the victim is admissible. The one exception to the history of the victim being inadmissible is when it is a rape prosecution and then if she's a prostitute and he is one of her "regular johns" that history is relevant.
Again Past History is a two way street. She is not snow white. Pertaining to this incident all the defense has is her word. Thats more then enough leverage for a Plea deal with no jail time. She says no and makes them do a full blown trial, her ass is grass if she gets convicted. She is Brandon marshalls wife. She never has to work a day in her life again. A misdemenor conviction with no Jail time means nothing to her. A Felony agg battery Charge would drastically change her life. Make take 2 yrs of it . No one would take that chance. Plea deal , You can write it in stone , unless new evidence is introduced. Don't see it though.
Harder to get in evidence of past conduct about her when she is the defendant than against him when he is only the defendant.
You can "open the door," however, by the defense claiming that he had a history of abusing her. That would allow him to show, if possible, that she started those fights or was the main aggressor in those fights.
Nevertheless, as a defense attorney, I'd take the chance and as a prosecutor, I wouldn't waste the money trying it.
Even if they were able to show numerous episodes where she started the fight, the jury will have a tendency just to "wash their hands of the whole affair" and say "a pox on both their tribes" and the way they walk away is to acquit her.
Hey, but I understand TreasureCoast saying it's a good bust. Absolutely it's a good bust. Read my early posts in the thread. The cops would have been derelict in NOT busting her and they had no basis to cuff him.
But convicting her is a different matter and although you'd think the case would be solid from the facts of the arrest, but well, I could just repeat everything else I said.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/26/2011 03:00PM by ChyrenB.
I don't think so. Here is my reasoning. You let people stab others and get away with it your eventually going to have a big problem on your hands. All anyone has to do is stab a person and claim self defense, everyone is going to say it no matter the circumstances. You try to successfully prosecute someone else after you let Ms Marshall go. How can you do that?
Thats what I meant by a presedent. Once you set that standard you are screwed. your inviting others to commit the same crime.
This SA would be doing the public a huge diservice by not getting at least a Plea deal done. Has to happen. here is another thing your not considering......they let her go scott free. 2 months later they have another spat and this times she DOES kill him. From a liable sense you need to take it as far as you can or you can be held accountable. I've seen it happen. people suck.
Oh, he'll take a plea. I'm not saying the prosecutor is going to refuse to take a plea. I don't think it will come to that because I don't think Marshall will cooperate and if he does not cooperate (although the physical evidence supports the crime and there is an "absence of evidence of self-defense", I don't think they will file.
You are talking about precedence. You are saying that by not prosecuting, the prosecutor will set a precedent that you can stab someone and get away with it.
First all, most common folks know that if they had been OJ or Robert Blake they would have been convicted.
Even so, if this were a case wherein a guy fell in love, left the priesthood, married a stripper and got sliced, 1) we wouldn't be arguing because the stripper WOULD GET prosecuted and 2) maybe, just maybe, they could try the stripper without the cooperation of the former priest because the jury would understand where he's coming from by not pursuing prosecution.
But that's not what you have hear, people listening to this case will only get the message that if you batter women regularly, even if you didn't batter this one and even if you are the victim, no one is going to prosecute anyone who gets the better of you.
Treasurecoast, don't you kinda think that most people kinda already know that?
Nope. I've been to many a jury picking as well. The defense will look for people that know Brandon , while the Prosecutor will ask to dismiss most people that know Brandon and his past exploits. In order for a fair and just trial the Jurors won't be Football fans. Miami is full of people that don't know Brandon Marshall from Jenifer lopez. Pics of the stabbing vs her word of , It was self defense along with Eye wittness testimony from the 1st responding officers who state , she did not have a mark on her will be hard to refute. A Plea from a felony down to a Misdemenor would be a Killer deal . They would be Nuts not to take it and move on.
I'm not saying that the jurors would be personal acquaintances of either.
That is not permitted. You are automatically excluded from the jury if you even KNOW, let alone are personal acquaintances not only of the defendant or the victim but even if you even KNOW any of the witnesses.
In a typical trial, the prospective jury (that means far more than 12 usually about 70 or 80) is sent down from the jury assembly room.
The first thing they do is have a chalk board of all the names of the parties and witnesses.
The whole audience of prospective jurors are read those names and asked to hold up their hands if they know anyone.
Those who raise their hands are toast and sent back to the jury assembly room.
Now, it is true that people who have extensively read or paid attention to news account either of the incident or Brandon Marshall's past will also be excluded from the jury (not for cause like the people who are acquainted with him) but on the basis of a "peremptory" challenge a number of which is allotted to both sides.
Therefore, both sides will exclude such persons.
But even if every such person is excluded, what good will it do the prosecution.
STILL, the defense can simply drag out that past history which would be relevant to support her claim of self-defense. Trust me, TreasureCoast. If the judge refuses to allow that evidence in, some Deputy Attorney General like me but only in Florida is going to have to try to defend the conviction and he's going to lose.
But it won't happen, because if there is no plea, no way will any DA or SA as you call it take this case to trial.
You keep mentioning the defensive wounds on the hand. What I keep trying to tell you is that (stay with me now, I'm not saying it happened and I'm not even saying that she won't take a plea) the fact that he has defensive wounds DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT HE WAS NOT APPROACHING HER WITH HIS FISTS AT THE TIME.
As a cop, that possibility cannot prevent you from making an arrest but that's the difference between your job and my job. You only have to deal with what is shown by the scene. I have to deal with the fact that if this turd beat the shit out of her every night and this is the one night she hid a knife to her back and when he came at her, she tried to defend her self and he put his hands up to protect his chest from a stab, that is still self-defense.
I'm telling you that if they can't talk her into a plea deal, there will be no trial. I'm also betting that given the fact that she now has legal representation, if those defense attorneys have talked to Brandon and are sure that he won't cooperate, they will even refuse the plea deal. In that case, charges won't be filed at all. That's where my money is.
So, first I say, in prediction, charges will not be pursued. Secondly, I would bet with you that there will be a plea deal. Thirdly, if neither of the first two happen, there will be an acquittal.
> You keep mentioning the defensive wounds on the
> hand. What I keep trying to tell you is that
> (stay with me now, I'm not saying it happened and
> I'm not even saying that she won't take a plea)
> the fact that he has defensive wounds DOES NOT
> AUTOMATICALLY PROVE THAT HE WAS NOT APPROACHING
> HER WITH HIS FISTS AT THE TIME.
So basicslly what you are saying is that all you have to do is say it and that makes it so. Well I might as well just go out and commit Murder right now. All I have to do is SAY it was self defense and I'm good to go. Prove it wasn't.
Prove he wasn't approaching with fists? Are the wounds on the inside of his hands or on his knuckles? if he was in such a violent rage , a knife wouldn't have stopped him. Maybe on TV, but he probably wouldn't even have felt the stabbing. She would have something , on her face , hands, body.
Sorry brother. But your argument makes no sense at all. People will say things and try to paint themselves as Victims whenever they have done wrong. from a simple traffic stop to attempted murder, its never their fault.
All of the time? of course not. But when that happens there is usually some evidence to back up the story. She has NOTHING . Na da. Doughnuts. Nothing but her word. Thats it. It is not consistant with anything. Not the Pictures, not the word of the first officer on scene. How upset was she? Most women will say something like....."I didn't mean to do it" in a spontanous utterance . Things of that nature. Did she say it? I don't know , but chances are she was very upset and saying a bunch of stupid shit. They always do. Then the next day they lawyer up and claim Victim. I've been through it 1000 times.
Lets let it go for now and see what happens. As long as there is no new evidence thats how it will end. mark my word.
And I've put in my prediction too and I've explained all of the points you've made above over and over. Of course, she's going to claim self-defense, guilty or not, and 9 times out of 10, it won't help the defendant.
But usually that 10th time is where the victim can submit evidence that the defendant has consistently beat not only her but other domestic partners as well.
Do me a favor. You must have built up relationships with prosecutors either in New York or Florida. Call one of them up and/or email them my posts and let them explain it to you.
> But usually that 10th time is where the victim can
> submit evidence that the defendant has
> consistently beat not only her but other domestic
> partners as well.
Where is that evidence? Don't see it. And if it did exist , I'm sure there is ample evidence against her as well. Plea Time baby, its a done deal .
Even if she lies, you can't PROVE its a lie. And the other instances of past abuse will convince enough jurors that she's telling the truth. And if Brandon doesn't testify, it's that much more harder to convince the jury that she's lying.
That's the great thing about being a criminal defendant in this system. They can't bring up your past criminal behavior and (except in rape cases) you can ALWAYS put the victim and his or her past on trial, and all you have to do is convince the jurors in this case that YOU THOUGHT he was coming at you to beat you up (mind you, you don't even have to prove he ACTUALLY was, all you have to do prove is that YOU THOUGHT HE WAS and that that thought was "reasonable" given the past).
Lesson, don't make a habit of beating someone up because you make it "open season" on yourself and 2nd lesson, "Ain't it grand to be a criminal defendant in America?"