And the Beat Goes On

[HoosierCat]

http://www.fresnobee.com/updates/story/650216.html

At this rate he'll be lucky to get to town before the season starts...

[mgilgris]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

[Thurmanation]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I think it was an alright pick, the pros out weigh the cons the way i see it. Say he works it out and becomes an amazing DT ala Henderson style, or doesn't play a snap(pretty sure he'll only be on practise squad), and most late rounders don't usually see action for awhile anyway.

[gregstephens]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

[HAPPYJAQ]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

By most accounts, he had 2nd round talent or better. Worst case, he doesn't make the team and is a non-factor, as are most 5th rounders; Best case he is a starter and impact player for the next 5 years or better. If he falls anywhere close to middle of those two, I think the Bengals would be happy, considering where he was drafted.

[HoosierCat]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

After the case went to the jury there was a problem. Apparently, after testimony was done, one of the jurors told the judge he couldn't decide the case because of some personal issue/condition that I guess somehow related to Shirley's circumstances. (Maybe he had a concussion? Was a drunk? Drove into a building? Who knows.) So he/she got replaced and then the jury deliberated, said they couldn't reach a verdict...and the judge said they hadn't deliberated long enough with the new juror. So they deliberated some more, still couldn't reach a verdict, so...do-over.

[gregstephens]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

After the case went to the jury there was a problem. Apparently, after testimony was done, one of the jurors told the judge he couldn't decide the case because of some personal issue/condition that I guess somehow related to Shirley's circumstances. (Maybe he had a concussion? Was a drunk? Drove into a building? Who knows.) So he/she got replaced and then the jury deliberated, said they couldn't reach a verdict...and the judge said they hadn't deliberated long enough with the new juror. So they deliberated some more, still couldn't reach a verdict, so...do-over.

Ah...that makes sense. It's not uncommon for an alternate to have to finish the case, although the personal issue should have been discovered in a careful voir dire of the jury pool. Jury ended up hung.

The prosecutor should have objected to that statement in closing, however. That is not appropriate to subtly draw on sympathy, celebrity, et cetera. I don't mind losing a case here and there, and it does happen unfortunately, but, by God, it's going to be a clean loss.

[COB]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

Wrong. It not only wouldn't be a mistrial, but I doubt your objection would even be sustained. The argument (and it most assuredly is argument, and this is closing after all) goes to his state of mind at the time of the commission of the offense, and would be permissible. That state of mind is undoubtedly an element of the offense with which Shirley was charged. I don't know if in California it is knowingly, purposefully, negligently, or what it is, but it is certainly an element, and that defense attorney is completely within his rights to argue that the mental element was not there.

Now, he has to do so honestly. For instance if he argued that Shirley would never have driven drunk because his dear mother was killed by a drunk driver, yet there had never been any testimony or evidence admitted about Shirley's mother having been killed, your objection would be sustained. But it undoubtedy came out that he had a pro football career in the offing, so that attorney could argue that, by gosh, his eagle scout client would never have been so stupid as to have endangered such a lucrative opportunity! Right.

In your jury trials I bet you've come up against this argument, but in a little different form. Defendant does crime in a completely stupid manner. You prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorney then stands up at closing and says, "why in the world would my client do something this stupid? It makes no sense! No one in his right mind would do this." Then on rebuttal you probably said, "The State of Ohio doesn't have to account for this defendant's total lack of judgement, brains, or sobriety on the date in question. We just have to prove the elements of the crime. We've done so. Now go back in that jury room and get him, I've got some Bengalszone posts to hack out on my blackberry!"

[HoosierCat]

Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight!

:jerry:

[BengalszoneBilly]

Lawyer fight! Lawyer fight!

:jerry:

This is getting good!

[gregstephens]

That may be a good thing. I read the defense closing arguments just to see what he would say and it was totally based on Shirley not guilty bc he would never waste the opportunity to play professional football. I know if I was a jury member that excuse would be B.S.

Why would marvin do something like this and pick a player with baggage again. There were plenty of other options at DT including Frank Okam (who also had baggage but less and no court case).

I haven't read anything about the case, but if a defense attorney pulled that in closings, it would definitely be a WTF moment and perhaps a mistrial.

Wrong. It not only wouldn't be a mistrial, but I doubt your objection would even be sustained. The argument (and it most assuredly is argument, and this is closing after all) goes to his state of mind at the time of the commission of the offense, and would be permissible. That state of mind is undoubtedly an element of the offense with which Shirley was charged. I don't know if in California it is knowingly, purposefully, negligently, or what it is, but it is certainly an element, and that defense attorney is completely within his rights to argue that the mental element was not there.

Now, he has to do so honestly. For instance if he argued that Shirley would never have driven drunk because his dear mother was killed by a drunk driver, yet there had never been any testimony or evidence admitted about Shirley's mother having been killed, your objection would be sustained. But it undoubtedy came out that he had a pro football career in the offing, so that attorney could argue that, by gosh, his eagle scout client would never have been so stupid as to have endangered such a lucrative opportunity! Right.

In your jury trials I bet you've come up against this argument, but in a little different form. Defendant does crime in a completely stupid manner. You prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorney then stands up at closing and says, "why in the world would my client do something this stupid? It makes no sense! No one in his right mind would do this." Then on rebuttal you probably said, "The State of Ohio doesn't have to account for this defendant's total lack of judgement, brains, or sobriety on the date in question. We just have to prove the elements of the crime. We've done so. Now go back in that jury room and get him, I've got some Bengalszone posts to hack out on my blackberry!"

I'll go on the assumption you are also a lawyer, or just watch a heck of a lot of Law and Order , but I assure you there are five out of seven judges in my county that would at least sustain the objection because frankly, it's not relevant or proper. This argument is, at the least, the same as saying, "My client would never do this because he's a lawyer, or a cop, or a doctor," which is not a proper manner of arguing witness credibility because, let's face it, football players and lawyers and cops and doctors do commit crimes. That would be like me, as a prosecutor, arguing the opposite and saying the defendant must have committed the crime because he doesn't have a job and had nothing to lose by committing the crime.

At the most, this lawyer was trying to impress upon the jury, of which I'm sure were some males, that this is a future NFL football player and, by inference, is above the law. You may have a fair amount of ability to argue in closing, but that's not carte blanche. Argument must be based on the evidence presented and logical inferences as to how the laws apply to that evidence. Arguing in a criminal trial that my guy has a promising future as a football player and thus wouldn't be stupid enough to do this crime isn't going to fly in a majority of courts. Out of the five of my judges that I know would sustain the objection, I bet one or possibly two would strongly consider a mistrial.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

At the most, this lawyer was trying to impress upon the jury, of which I'm sure were some males, that this is a future NFL football player and, by inference, is above the law. You may have a fair amount of ability to argue in closing, but that's not carte blanche. Argument must be based on the evidence presented and logical inferences as to how the laws apply to that evidence. Arguing in a criminal trial that my guy has a promising future as a football player and thus wouldn't be stupid enough to do this crime isn't going to fly in a majority of courts. Out of the five of my judges that I know would sustain the objection, I bet one or possibly two would strongly consider a mistrial.

Was closing the first time that Shirley's career was mentioned in the trial? If so, I could see how a judge would get pissed about that, but if it had been previously brought up then it seems fair game. Because if it came up before, the prosecutor would have had the chance to introduce statistics that show that alcohol-related crimes are higher among NFL players than the general population. Right?

*I'm no lawyer, but I do play one on message boards*

[gregstephens]

At the most, this lawyer was trying to impress upon the jury, of which I'm sure were some males, that this is a future NFL football player and, by inference, is above the law. You may have a fair amount of ability to argue in closing, but that's not carte blanche. Argument must be based on the evidence presented and logical inferences as to how the laws apply to that evidence. Arguing in a criminal trial that my guy has a promising future as a football player and thus wouldn't be stupid enough to do this crime isn't going to fly in a majority of courts. Out of the five of my judges that I know would sustain the objection, I bet one or possibly two would strongly consider a mistrial.

Was closing the first time that Shirley's career was mentioned in the trial? If so, I could see how a judge would get pissed about that, but if it had been previously brought up then it seems fair game. Because if it came up before, the prosecutor would have had the chance to introduce statistics that show that alcohol-related crimes are higher among NFL players than the general population. Right?

*I'm no lawyer, but I do play one on message boards*

I think the only way anything about his career or profession would have any relevance in any criminal case would be if a football player was charged with d.v. or other crime of violence, there was evidence he was on roids, and that 'roid rage' caused him to behave the way he did. Then that would be more of a defense presentation. The statistics on NFL players and alcohol-related crimes wouldn't be admissible, in fact would unduly prejudice Shirley's case while having no probative value. It'd be like an attorney charged with a DUI and a prosecutor introducing evidence that the percentage of alcohol abuse is among the highest among professions in the legal field (which it is statistically), therefore the defendant must have been drunk because he's a lawyer.

[membengal]

Another lawyer here, but will not be weighing in on the lawyer spat. What I will note is that often, when a mistrial gets declared, for whatever reason, it will spur a deal to get cut. Don't know if the DA will do that in his case since it is probably considered a little more high profile than your average drunk-guy-crashes-into-apartment case, but often times a deal will get cut as both sides sift over how the evidence came in...

[gregstephens]

Another lawyer here, but will not be weighing in on the lawyer spat. What I will note is that often, when a mistrial gets declared, for whatever reason, it will spur a deal to get cut. Don't know if the DA will do that in his case since it is probably considered a little more high profile than your average drunk-guy-crashes-into-apartment case, but often times a deal will get cut as both sides sift over how the evidence came in...

Welcome, lawyer friend of mine. Actually, it's rare a case gets tried a second time after a hung jury. A lot of it depends if the lawyers involved find out the split. If I get a 11-1 in favor of acquital, I'll try to resolve it or even get rid of it. Now, 11-1 for conviction brings a different story from all involved.

[membengal]

We're on the same page, greg, with regard to the rarity of a re-trial. That's where, at least down here in Western TN, sometimes a deal will get cut (if the matter is not completely dropped). It's just that here, where the defendant is a little high profile, I am not sure if that will impact the way this is going to play out.

[HoosierCat]

Apparently, they are real hard-asses out in Fresno.

Jurors began deliberations after 3 p.m. Tuesday and said they were deadlocked Wednesday afternoon. After being asked to deliberate further, they returned to the courtroom about noon Thursday, unable to make a decision.

Chief Assistant District Attorney John Savrnoch said it is a fairly common occurrence to retry a DUI case.

"We take DUIs very seriously," Savrnoch said. "In the case of hung juries, we typically retry. This would be following the rule and not the exception."

Magill said differently.

"They are making an example of him," Magill said.

[gregstephens]

We're on the same page, greg, with regard to the rarity of a re-trial. That's where, at least down here in Western TN, sometimes a deal will get cut (if the matter is not completely dropped). It's just that here, where the defendant is a little high profile, I am not sure if that will impact the way this is going to play out.

Oh absolutely. It all depends on if the prosecutor is trying to make for himself. Guys like the Duke Lacrosse prosector give us all a bad name, unfortunately.

[gregstephens]

Apparently, they are real hard-asses out in Fresno.

Jurors began deliberations after 3 p.m. Tuesday and said they were deadlocked Wednesday afternoon. After being asked to deliberate further, they returned to the courtroom about noon Thursday, unable to make a decision.

Chief Assistant District Attorney John Savrnoch said it is a fairly common occurrence to retry a DUI case.

"We take DUIs very seriously," Savrnoch said. "In the case of hung juries, we typically retry. This would be following the rule and not the exception."

Magill said differently.

"They are making an example of him," Magill said.

Case in point. We don't believe in 'making examples' of famous people. We'd do our best to evaluate this case fairly regardless of his 'celebrity' status. But, that is CA.

[mgilgris]

Well today is Brooks trial in KY. Any word on that? Sure Curnette forgot and didnt even have anyone there.

[HoosierCat]

Actually the Enquirer's Brooks coverage is here...

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...050014/-1/CINCI

[mgilgris]

Good find hoosier cat, appreciate the link

[membengal]

Apparently, they are real hard-asses out in Fresno.

Jurors began deliberations after 3 p.m. Tuesday and said they were deadlocked Wednesday afternoon. After being asked to deliberate further, they returned to the courtroom about noon Thursday, unable to make a decision.

Chief Assistant District Attorney John Savrnoch said it is a fairly common occurrence to retry a DUI case.

"We take DUIs very seriously," Savrnoch said. "In the case of hung juries, we typically retry. This would be following the rule and not the exception."

Magill said differently.

"They are making an example of him," Magill said.

Case in point. We don't believe in 'making examples' of famous people. We'd do our best to evaluate this case fairly regardless of his 'celebrity' status. But, that is CA.

Yup. That is an outcome that I will file under "not surprising"...

[HoosierCat]

New headline on the Enquirer's Bengals page:

Brooks takes mediation deal

Bengals linebacker Ahmad Brooks has accepted mediation on charges he punched a Florence woman in the left eye during an altercation in April.

No story update yet.

Edit: now some details: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...PT02/306060083/

[HAPPYJAQ]

His case is petty, compared to the Henry and Odell situations. He seems to have learned from his mistakes. Plus, he was only a 5th round pick and has to be better upside than Greg Brooks and Jeff Rowe. He'll be fine.