Do you believe the NFL did not see the tape of Ray Rice (1 Viewer)

[Grateful Parrot]

One more time, why would the NFL lie about someone providing them the video when they know the person who provided it could contradict their story. If they had the tape, someone gave it to them, it didn't magically appear on Goodell's desk from Santa Clause. Additionally, what allegiance does the NFL have to Rice in the first place to want to protect him? If they really wanted to improve the reputation of the league, no player would ever get caught for using PEDs or banned substances.

Why would TMZ be able to attain the video then and not the NFL?

The only way the NFL gets this tape is if they pay someone to acquire it illegally. That's not a problem for TMZ, but it's definitely a problem for the NFL.Why would the NFL risk so much to protect Ray Rice. A consiracy theory based on this just just doesn't make any sense.

This is just so ridiculous of a statement. It would only take a court order from the police to get the tape and they would gladly share it with NFL's lawyers.

 

[CapnJB]

One more time, why would the NFL lie about someone providing them the video when they know the person who provided it could contradict their story. If they had the tape, someone gave it to them, it didn't magically appear on Goodell's desk from Santa Clause. Additionally, what allegiance does the NFL have to Rice in the first place to want to protect him? If they really wanted to improve the reputation of the league, no player would ever get caught for using PEDs or banned substances.

Why would TMZ be able to attain the video then and not the NFL?

The only way the NFL gets this tape is if they pay someone to acquire it illegally. That's not a problem for TMZ, but it's definitely a problem for the NFL.Why would the NFL risk so much to protect Ray Rice. A consiracy theory based on this just just doesn't make any sense.

This is just so ridiculous of a statement. It would only take a court order from the police to get the tape and they would gladly share it with NFL's lawyers.

I've asked this question a few times since I have no formal law education and have heard no response. Can an employer request court documents that have not been made public record simply to review them?

The best I've been able to find is this:

6. Can my employer get my summary criminal history?

Generally no. Most private employers do NOT have the right to request your summary criminal history. In fact, unauthorized use of your private information is a crime. There are some important exceptions to this rule, mostly listed in Penal Code § 11105. Some of the most important exceptions are listed below:

◦Law enforcement personnel, such as police officers or parole and probation officers, may see your summary criminal history if it is necessary for their jobs. People involved in a criminal case, such as court officers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, may see your summary criminal history if you are a party or a witness for a case.

◦Government employers, like a job with the city or state, may see your summary criminal history in considering your application for a job if authorized by law or regulation. (Labor Code § 432.7.)

◦Public utilities, especially nuclear power facilities, may be able to request your summary criminal history.

◦Some organizations are considered “agencies of the state,” and can see your records if permitted by law or regulation. This may include applications for licenses or certifications, such as entrance to the California bar or an application for a concessionaire’s license.

◦Some laws expressly allow other employers, such as schools or eldercare agencies, generally to see summary criminal history information to screen job applicants. To have access under this exception, the law must (1) explicitly authorize the employer to see summary criminal history information, (2) refer to specific criminal conduct (i.e., specific crimes, not just any convictions), and (3) require that the employer act on the existence of such information. For example, the law might require the exclusion of job applicants with certain convictions, like child molestation, from certain jobs, such as teaching.

◦Employers can also get access to some of your records (but not your “rap” sheet) through a general background check, using public record and databases kept by courts, news reporting agencies, or for-profit information-gathering services.

So if just the criminal record can be difficult to obtain (and that being a crime in some instances) I don't see how people seem to think that obtaining grand jury evidence would be a simple thing for the NFL to do.

I think people have seen too many movies.

 

[socrates]

One more time, why would the NFL lie about someone providing them the video when they know the person who provided it could contradict their story. If they had the tape, someone gave it to them, it didn't magically appear on Goodell's desk from Santa Clause. Additionally, what allegiance does the NFL have to Rice in the first place to want to protect him? If they really wanted to improve the reputation of the league, no player would ever get caught for using PEDs or banned substances.

Why would TMZ be able to attain the video then and not the NFL?

The only way the NFL gets this tape is if they pay someone to acquire it illegally. That's not a problem for TMZ, but it's definitely a problem for the NFL.Why would the NFL risk so much to protect Ray Rice. A consiracy theory based on this just just doesn't make any sense.

This is just so ridiculous of a statement. It would only take a court order from the police to get the tape and they would gladly share it with NFL's lawyers.

I've asked this question a few times since I have no formal law education and have heard no response. Can an employer request court documents that have not been made public record simply to review them?

The best I've been able to find is this:

6. Can my employer get my summary criminal history?

Generally no. Most private employers do NOT have the right to request your summary criminal history. In fact, unauthorized use of your private information is a crime. There are some important exceptions to this rule, mostly listed in Penal Code § 11105. Some of the most important exceptions are listed below:

◦Law enforcement personnel, such as police officers or parole and probation officers, may see your summary criminal history if it is necessary for their jobs. People involved in a criminal case, such as court officers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, may see your summary criminal history if you are a party or a witness for a case.

◦Government employers, like a job with the city or state, may see your summary criminal history in considering your application for a job if authorized by law or regulation. (Labor Code § 432.7.)

◦Public utilities, especially nuclear power facilities, may be able to request your summary criminal history.

◦Some organizations are considered “agencies of the state,” and can see your records if permitted by law or regulation. This may include applications for licenses or certifications, such as entrance to the California bar or an application for a concessionaire’s license.

◦Some laws expressly allow other employers, such as schools or eldercare agencies, generally to see summary criminal history information to screen job applicants. To have access under this exception, the law must (1) explicitly authorize the employer to see summary criminal history information, (2) refer to specific criminal conduct (i.e., specific crimes, not just any convictions), and (3) require that the employer act on the existence of such information. For example, the law might require the exclusion of job applicants with certain convictions, like child molestation, from certain jobs, such as teaching.

◦Employers can also get access to some of your records (but not your “rap” sheet) through a general background check, using public record and databases kept by courts, news reporting agencies, or for-profit information-gathering services.

So if just the criminal record can be difficult to obtain (and that being a crime in some instances) I don't see how people seem to think that obtaining grand jury evidence would be a simple thing for the NFL to do.

I think people have seen too many movies.

I see no reason the League could not have demanded Ray Rice (through his legal representation) turn over criminal evidence for the purpose of the League's investigation. Full cooperation by Ray Rice is in his best interest. The evidence in question was almost certainly in the hands of the prosecutor's office, and if not in the hands of Rice's attorney, it was easily attainable discoverable evidence. I understand Rice's defense attorney had possession of a copy of the video. I fail to see how this is such a complex process. The League is sophisticated. They understand how to legally obtain the information they require for their investigations.

If Rice chose not to cooperate, the option is available to the Commissioner to hand down a harsher suspension, so I see no incentive for Rice to not cooperate. From all accounts, I understand Rice was cooperative with the League, and he gave a fair account of the incident.

 

[Grateful Parrot]

I think people have seen too many movies.

I don't watch movies, but don't be naive to what your employer can get a hold of. The statement you provided just kind of brushed over the background checks. But you would be amazed on what's reported depending on your requirements and how much you want to spend.

Example. I'm 55 and have a gov secret clearance. They found crap I did when I was 15yrs old.

Example 2. I worked for a credit card company that would only do background for white collar crimes. You beat the crap out of your wife, but still work for VISA.

The NFL could have easily said their lawyers would represent Rice and the NFLPA and have access to that evidence.

 

[Ksquared]

I think people have seen too many movies.

I don't watch movies, but don't be naive to what your employer can get a hold of. The statement you provided just kind of brushed over the background checks. But you would be amazed on what's reported depending on your requirements and how much you want to spend.

Example. I'm 55 and have a gov secret clearance. They found crap I did when I was 15yrs old.

Example 2. I worked for a credit card company that would only do background for white collar crimes. You beat the crap out of your wife, but still work for VISA.

The NFL could have easily said their lawyers would represent Rice and the NFLPA and have access to that evidence.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy crowd, the NJ Asst Attorney General stated the league would be breaking the law if they obtained this tape while the Grand Jury process was occurring. Afterwards I think it would have been available legally (maybe with some $$$ to get it) but I would assume most employers (inc the NFL) would take the conclusion law enforcement arrived at in their investigation if it went in front of a grand jury. DAs don't bring partial investigations in front of a grand jury very often.

Edit - also would you allow your employer to have access to evidence that your lawyer has and that they have no right to? You think the NFLPA would allow that? I would say a loud NO!! on both accounts. This is much more complex that the conspiracy crowd is indicating it to be.

 

[CapnJB]

I think people have seen too many movies.

I don't watch movies, but don't be naive to what your employer can get a hold of. The statement you provided just kind of brushed over the background checks. But you would be amazed on what's reported depending on your requirements and how much you want to spend.

Example. I'm 55 and have a gov secret clearance. They found crap I did when I was 15yrs old.

Example 2. I worked for a credit card company that would only do background for white collar crimes. You beat the crap out of your wife, but still work for VISA.

The NFL could have easily said their lawyers would represent Rice and the NFLPA and have access to that evidence.

I spent nine years with the Department of Energy so I understand clearances. I also worked for Capital One and had my fingerprints sent to the FBI before I could start my position. Thorough background checks are, IMO, much different than pulling court records that have been deemed not to be released to the general public. The NFL is not a law firm nor is it a law enforcement agency. If their lawyers were to have represented Ray Rice, they would have then been Ray Rice's legal council and passing off evidence to the NFL would still be an issue. Again... that's conjecture on my part since I do not know all the intricacies of lawyer/client relationships.

 

[socrates]

I think people have seen too many movies.

I don't watch movies, but don't be naive to what your employer can get a hold of. The statement you provided just kind of brushed over the background checks. But you would be amazed on what's reported depending on your requirements and how much you want to spend.

Example. I'm 55 and have a gov secret clearance. They found crap I did when I was 15yrs old.

Example 2. I worked for a credit card company that would only do background for white collar crimes. You beat the crap out of your wife, but still work for VISA.

The NFL could have easily said their lawyers would represent Rice and the NFLPA and have access to that evidence.

I spent nine years with the Department of Energy so I understand clearances. I also worked for Capital One and had my fingerprints sent to the FBI before I could start my position. Thorough background checks are, IMO, much different than pulling court records that have been deemed not to be released to the general public. The NFL is not a law firm nor is it a law enforcement agency. If their lawyers were to have represented Ray Rice, they would have then been Ray Rice's legal council and passing off evidence to the NFL would still be an issue. Again... that's conjecture on my part since I do not know all the intricacies of lawyer/client relationships.

A simple release executed by Rice would have remedied that.

 

[CapnJB]

A simple release executed by Rice would have remedied that.

And that would be on record, correct?

 

[Ksquared]

Are you implying you want an employee to be required to allow the ownership's legal counsel to have access to all evidence in a legal dispute? This is not a national security or even company security issue. Where would you stop? What if your boss does not believe in having affairs and you are going through a divorce. Do you want to give them access to the court papers/evidence to see if you had an affair? What a can of worms.....

 

[Grateful Parrot]

I think people have seen too many movies.

I don't watch movies, but don't be naive to what your employer can get a hold of. The statement you provided just kind of brushed over the background checks. But you would be amazed on what's reported depending on your requirements and how much you want to spend.

Example. I'm 55 and have a gov secret clearance. They found crap I did when I was 15yrs old.

Example 2. I worked for a credit card company that would only do background for white collar crimes. You beat the crap out of your wife, but still work for VISA.

The NFL could have easily said their lawyers would represent Rice and the NFLPA and have access to that evidence.

I spent nine years with the Department of Energy so I understand clearances. I also worked for Capital One and had my fingerprints sent to the FBI before I could start my position. Thorough background checks are, IMO, much different than pulling court records that have been deemed not to be released to the general public. The NFL is not a law firm nor is it a law enforcement agency. If their lawyers were to have represented Ray Rice, they would have then been Ray Rice's legal council and passing off evidence to the NFL would still be an issue. Again... that's conjecture on my part since I do not know all the intricacies of lawyer/client relationships.

And by no means do I know crap about of the law. I'm a high end security geek who's expertise is in HIPAA and PCI compliance. But i'm assuming (and of course can be wrong) that the NFL and NFLPA has a group of high end, high knowledge lawyers who probably do this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Rice is not the first of these criminals that teams employ nowadays. We hear it all the time, just don't see the tapes. There's no telling of the stuff that Goodell saw on Pacman while he was here in TN. And Pacman constantly got off.

 

[CapnJB]

And by no means do I know crap about of the law. I'm a high end security geek who's expertise is in HIPAA and PCI compliance. But i'm assuming (and of course can be wrong) that the NFL and NFLPA has a group of high end, high knowledge lawyers who probably do this kind of stuff on a regular basis. Rice is not the first of these criminals that teams employ nowadays. We hear it all the time, just don't see the tapes. There's no telling of the stuff that Goodell saw on Pacman while he was here in TN. And Pacman constantly got off.

The bolded is absolutely where we both agree 100%. They likely have the best of the best lawyers. And those lawyers probably know that if they need to pull favors and contact ex-FBI (as I've seen purported) to get documents in a shady way... that they should probably stay far, far, FAR away from doing that. They had the arrest report. They had Ray Rice's and his fiancé's statement of guilt (which I've still not seen). Why put the powerful NFL in a compromising position if they didn't need to?

But I could be wrong... my kid brought home some elementary school kid krud so I'm hopped up on Mucinex right now.

 

[White Lightning]

The local DA stated the elevator tape in their possession was part of the Grand Jury evidence. According to PA law and the statement, the DA would not be able to turn over GJ evidence or testimony without the NFL satisfying a VERY high legal burden. Assuming the NFL requested the video (which they state they did not), the DA would not have released GJ evidence to the NFL under these circumstances. I am currently a DA and I have filed several motions to quash the subpoena of GJ evidence/testimony, and under Illinois law, there is no way that we would release this evidence to the NFL.

 

[The Commish]

I don't think they saw the video. I think they turned down the opportunity to see it. I think Rice told them exactly what happened and there was nothing they saw in the video that Rice didn't tell them. Given these three things, we're splitting hairs and asking the wrong question(s). Questions should be about why the change in punishment and why don't the punishments match the new "rules" Goodell put out (first time offender gets a 6 game suspension, not an indefinite one).

 

[RUSF18]

@AP: BREAKING: Law enforcement official sent copy of Ray Rice tape to NFL executive in April

 

[VaTerp]

A law enforcement official told the AP he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive three months ago.

 

[jurb26]

A law enforcement official told the AP he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive three months ago.

Total nuclear meltdown in... 3... 2...1

 

[McGarnicle]

Whoops

 

[socrates]

A simple release executed by Rice would have remedied that.

And that would be on record, correct?

Not necessarily. If a release was executed by Ray Rice for his defense attorney to release certain evidence to the NFL, that release would be a part of Rice's legal defense file, but not public record in the least. However, if Rice had provided that type of release, I am certain he would be stepping forth now to make certain that information was out there, in light of recent happenings.

My point was the NFL could have obtained that evidence (and such a release can be limited in time and scope to incriminating and exculpatory evidence in a single matter. It does not mean an employer has carte blanche access to everything associated with the employee).

While I suspect the NFL had the full videos from the surveillance cameras, both outside the elevator and inside the elevator, I have seen nothing reported yet that confirms the NFL did in fact have it. If they did, they are now liars. If they did not, they failed in their investigation. Regardless, I am deeply troubled that the league has opted to indefinitely suspend Rice after they already issued a 2-game suspension for this same incident.

 

[mquinnjr]

A law enforcement official told the AP he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive three months ago.

Total nuclear meltdown in... 3... 2...1

 

[socrates]

The local DA stated the elevator tape in their possession was part of the Grand Jury evidence. According to PA law and the statement, the DA would not be able to turn over GJ evidence or testimony without the NFL satisfying a VERY high legal burden. Assuming the NFL requested the video (which they state they did not), the DA would not have released GJ evidence to the NFL under these circumstances. I am currently a DA and I have filed several motions to quash the subpoena of GJ evidence/testimony, and under Illinois law, there is no way that we would release this evidence to the NFL.

Is this discoverable evidence available to Ray Rice's defense attorney?

 

[Jerry Curl]

A law enforcement official told the AP he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive three months ago.

Total nuclear meltdown in... 3... 2...1

Not good if true, hearing there is a voicemail out there now.

 

[RUSF18]

Story from the AP, with mention of the voicemail confirming its receipt (allegedly coming from a female).

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-source-says-rice-video-sent-nfl

 

[CapnJB]

I don't think they saw the video. I think they turned down the opportunity to see it. I think Rice told them exactly what happened and there was nothing they saw in the video that Rice didn't tell them. Given these three things, we're splitting hairs and asking the wrong question(s). Questions should be about why the change in punishment and why don't the punishments match the new "rules" Goodell put out (first time offender gets a 6 game suspension, not an indefinite one).

I'd surmise that the couple severely downplayed the incident something like, "We were both drunk and got in a fight, she hit me and in defending myself I hit her back, she hit her head and blacked out. It was awful and we feel horrible about it."

The NFL buys it and issues the 2 game suspension.

When the video is released the NFL sees it and says 'Oh, hell no!" The added punishment may be for falsifying their statements.

Have we seen what their statement were, verbatim, btw? I keep seeing people saying Ray said this and Ray said that but I'm not sure I've seen the transcript. Is it available online?

 

[socrates]

I don't think they saw the video. I think they turned down the opportunity to see it. I think Rice told them exactly what happened and there was nothing they saw in the video that Rice didn't tell them. Given these three things, we're splitting hairs and asking the wrong question(s). Questions should be about why the change in punishment and why don't the punishments match the new "rules" Goodell put out (first time offender gets a 6 game suspension, not an indefinite one).

That is what I would like to know. The NFL already issued their decision on this incident.

 

[jurb26]

So we can await the NFL's release of their 100th statement on this in about 36 hours now.

What a disaster this is.

 

[shader]

Boom

RG is done. Media is out for blood.

 

[jurb26]

Boom

RG is done. Media is out for blood.

He won't be the only one if this all come to fruition. Many in Balt got some explaining to do as well.

 

[Doug B]

Boom

RG is done. Media is out for blood.

Twitter link was give in the FFA thread ... no link here yet.

EDIT: Link -- AP reports NFL had full video back in April.

 

[Doug B]

Boom

RG is done. Media is out for blood.

He won't be the only one if this all come to fruition. Many in Balt got some explaining to do as well.

Saw an article also questioning how RaY Rice got into the diversion program over some other specific first-time offenders (local to the AC area). Fallout could affect local prosecutors, police, etc.

 

[jurb26]

So is the NFL spin now that they had it but chose not to view it? Probably bit that isn't really a logic I and I'm sure many others will accept or follow.

 

[JFS171]

Boom

RG is done. Media is out for blood.

He won't be the only one if this all come to fruition. Many in Balt got some explaining to do as well.

I could see Baltimore getting by... they supposedly saw it for the first time on Monday, and he was cut that afternoon. If they truly trusted the NFL to handle the disciplinary process and the NFL failed miserably, that's not on Baltimore.

Now if they too saw it and didn't act, shame on them.

 

[JFS171]

So is the NFL spin now that they had it but chose not to view it? Probably bit that isn't really a logic I and I'm sure many others will accept or follow.

Probably that a low-level executive received the video and didn't alert superiors as appropriate... failure of the chain of command if you will.

 

[Doug B]

So is the NFL spin now that they had it but chose not to view it? Probably bit that isn't really a logic I and I'm sure many others will accept or follow.

That, alone -- if Goodell had to answer to a single person -- would be a summary termination.

 

[Doug B]

Probably that a low-level executive received the video and didn't alert superiors as appropriate... failure of the chain of command if you will.

Goodell told Sean Payton during Bountygate: "If you didn't know, you should have".

 

[VaTerp]

I never thought Goodell's job was in jeopardy until this latest turn of events. But now I think ole Roger may be kissing his $44 million salary good bye. As a last act he should #FREEJOSHGORDON of course.

And I saw this on twitter and had to laugh:

-@nflcommish Maybe Josh Gordon can put in a word at the dealership for you.

 

[socrates]

If it is determined that the NFL did in fact have access to the video surveillance tapes, does Rice's indefinite suspension get vacated and his two-game suspension go back into place? While he is not currently on a roster, and no team probably wants to bring this circus into their city and lockerroom, I believe the indefinite suspension should be lifted.

 

[njherdfan]

Now might not be the best time to ask this with the story just being leaked, but why is there this insistence that the NFL can't just buy videos or documents? They couldn't be used in a court of law, but that's not what the NFL discipline system is.

 

[socrates]

I never thought Goodell's job was in jeopardy until this latest turn of events. But now I think ole Roger may be kissing his $44 million salary good bye. As a last act he should #FREEJOSHGORDON of course.

And I saw this on twitter and had to laugh:

-@nflcommish Maybe Josh Gordon can put in a word at the dealership for you.

 

[White Lightning]

The local DA stated the elevator tape in their possession was part of the Grand Jury evidence. According to PA law and the statement, the DA would not be able to turn over GJ evidence or testimony without the NFL satisfying a VERY high legal burden. Assuming the NFL requested the video (which they state they did not), the DA would not have released GJ evidence to the NFL under these circumstances. I am currently a DA and I have filed several motions to quash the subpoena of GJ evidence/testimony, and under Illinois law, there is no way that we would release this evidence to the NFL.

Is this discoverable evidence available to Ray Rice's defense attorney?

Yes. During the discovery process the defense attorney would be able to obtain the GJ testimony and evidence including the elevator tape. The NFL, on the other hand, is not party to the criminal investigation, is not party to a companion civil case, and would not be able to obtain the material.

 

[mquinnjr]

So is the NFL spin now that they had it but chose not to view it? Probably bit that isn't really a logic I and I'm sure many others will accept or follow.

That, alone -- if Goodell had to answer to a single person -- would be a summary termination.

Didn't Goodell state more than once in an interview on ABC News last night that he had no knowledge of the tapes?

He's done based on that alone, either it's a complete cover up or he's a horrible leader.

The media and women's rights groups are not going to rest until he's out, now that it can be easily painted as a cover up. League sponsors supporting a brand that indirectly endorses abuse of women via "cover up," etc.

This should move quickly.

 

[socrates]

The local DA stated the elevator tape in their possession was part of the Grand Jury evidence. According to PA law and the statement, the DA would not be able to turn over GJ evidence or testimony without the NFL satisfying a VERY high legal burden. Assuming the NFL requested the video (which they state they did not), the DA would not have released GJ evidence to the NFL under these circumstances. I am currently a DA and I have filed several motions to quash the subpoena of GJ evidence/testimony, and under Illinois law, there is no way that we would release this evidence to the NFL.

Is this discoverable evidence available to Ray Rice's defense attorney?

Yes. During the discovery process the defense attorney would be able to obtain the GJ testimony and evidence including the elevator tape. The NFL, on the other hand, is not party to the criminal investigation, is not party to a companion civil case, and would not be able to obtain the material.

Not directly from the DA's office, but they could obtain it from Rice's defense attorney, if Rice opted to cooperate with the NFL and sign a Release to grant his attorney permission to turn it over to the League.

 

[KellysHeroes]

At the risk of offending -- Why the flip is everyone losing their minds after seeing the video? In all seriousness, what did people THINK happened in that elevator? For crying out loud, the guy ADMITTED he punched her in the face. We knew he knocked her unconscious.

Rice told his teammates he was fending off an attack from his fiance. Plenty of message board posters were suggesting that she was at fault, that she attacked him, that she was drunk and fell and hit her head. All those excuses faded away when the video was seen. Now some people seem angry the video was seen, it appears.

Then why has the Ravens confirmed the tape is pretty much what Rice and his fiance told them?

 

[Henry Ford]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-source-says-rice-video-sent-nfl

Having a hard time believing them right now.

A law enforcement official says he sent a video of Ray Rice punching his then-fiancee to an NFL executive three months ago, while league officers have insisted they didn't see the violent images until this week.

The person played The Associated Press a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number on April 9 confirming the video arrived. A female voice expresses thanks and says: "You're right. It's terrible."

 

[KellysHeroes]

http://www.wcnc.com/story/sports/nfl/2014/09/10/law-enforcement-official-tells-ap-nfl-saw-ray-rice-video/15408433/

Goodell going tap someone too take the fall but it might not be enough.

 

[Ksquared]

The local DA stated the elevator tape in their possession was part of the Grand Jury evidence. According to PA law and the statement, the DA would not be able to turn over GJ evidence or testimony without the NFL satisfying a VERY high legal burden. Assuming the NFL requested the video (which they state they did not), the DA would not have released GJ evidence to the NFL under these circumstances. I am currently a DA and I have filed several motions to quash the subpoena of GJ evidence/testimony, and under Illinois law, there is no way that we would release this evidence to the NFL.

Is this discoverable evidence available to Ray Rice's defense attorney?

Yes. During the discovery process the defense attorney would be able to obtain the GJ testimony and evidence including the elevator tape. The NFL, on the other hand, is not party to the criminal investigation, is not party to a companion civil case, and would not be able to obtain the material.

Not directly from the DA's office, but they could obtain it from Rice's defense attorney, if Rice opted to cooperate with the NFL and sign a Release to grant his attorney permission to turn it over to the League.

I keep asking you why an employee would allow this, especially if it is damaging to him?

 

[rickyg]

And there you have it, folks.

PROOF that this move to suspend rice had nothing to do with morals and values. Strictly a PR move from a scumbag organization with no values.

 

[KellysHeroes]

so, still a conspiracy?

 

[Doug B]

Then why has the Ravens confirmed the tape is pretty much what Rice and his fiance told them?

People have been saying all kinds of CYA things since Monday.

 

[DaveL]

So yesterday the attorney general says it would have been illegal for law enforcement to provide the video to the NFL.

Today it comes out that law enforcement sent the video to some executive in the NFL.

 

[Doug B]

I keep asking you why an employee would allow this, especially if it is damaging to him?

Because failure to comply is a tacit admission of guilt. The NFL does not have to abide by the 5th Amendment ... they can sanction an employee for failure to aid a "self-incriminating" investigation.