"Prominent" Vick teamate may be called to testify (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

From http://www.cbs46.com/news/13896367/detail.html

ATLANTA -- The plea hearing for one one of Michael Vick's co-defendants has been moved.

CBS46.com has confirmed the hearing, which was supposed to be taking place Thursday, will now be held at 9:15 a.m. Friday, the same time that the plea hearing for the second co-defendant, Quanis Phillips, is scheduled to be held.

Also, sources told CBS 46 Tuesday that Michael Vick’s defense team is divided over a possible plea deal for the Atlanta Falcons quarterback.

Those sources told CBS 46’s Gil Tyree Tuesday that one part of the defense team wants to cut a deal, while the other wants to take its chances with a trial.

Vick and others are accused of running an interstate dogfighting enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels" on Vick's property in rural Virginia.

If the Vick case does go to trial, sources said Tuesday that one of Vick's teammates, who is a prominent member of the team, could be called to testify. The sources say the Falcons know about this.

The Falcons did not comment on the case Tuesday night.

Owner Arthur Blank is vacationing at his summer home in Montana.

Report say federal prosecutors have given the Vick defense team until Friday to reach a plea deal or possibly face new charges stemming from the dogfighting investigation.

I have to wonder what testimony a teamate could give that wouldn't mean the teamate was somehow aware of what was going on to be able to say Vick wasn't involved. I suppose it could just be character reference, but if so then it doesn't seem to be a big enough deal to put in a story. If the player testifies knowledge about what went on, I'd have to imagine another suspension would result.With the money NFL players make and their ability to fly around the country it could be any prominent player on the team I suppose. But with Deangelo Hall being from Virginia, it's kind of natural to start wondering if it might be him. Any other prominent Falcons with ties to the Virginia area?

 

[Wilbur Wood]

From http://www.cbs46.com/news/13896367/detail.html

ATLANTA -- The plea hearing for one one of Michael Vick's co-defendants has been moved.

CBS46.com has confirmed the hearing, which was supposed to be taking place Thursday, will now be held at 9:15 a.m. Friday, the same time that the plea hearing for the second co-defendant, Quanis Phillips, is scheduled to be held.

Also, sources told CBS 46 Tuesday that Michael Vick’s defense team is divided over a possible plea deal for the Atlanta Falcons quarterback.

Those sources told CBS 46’s Gil Tyree Tuesday that one part of the defense team wants to cut a deal, while the other wants to take its chances with a trial.

Vick and others are accused of running an interstate dogfighting enterprise known as "Bad Newz Kennels" on Vick's property in rural Virginia.

If the Vick case does go to trial, sources said Tuesday that one of Vick's teammates, who is a prominent member of the team, could be called to testify. The sources say the Falcons know about this.

The Falcons did not comment on the case Tuesday night.

Owner Arthur Blank is vacationing at his summer home in Montana.

Report say federal prosecutors have given the Vick defense team until Friday to reach a plea deal or possibly face new charges stemming from the dogfighting investigation.

I have to wonder what testimony a teamate could give that wouldn't mean the teamate was somehow aware of what was going on to be able to say Vick wasn't involved. I suppose it could just be character reference, but if so then it doesn't seem to be a big enough deal to put in a story. If the player testifies knowledge about what went on, I'd have to imagine another suspension would result.With the money NFL players make and their ability to fly around the country it could be any prominent player on the team I suppose. But with Deangelo Hall being from Virginia, it's kind of natural to start wondering if it might be him. Any other prominent Falcons with ties to the Virginia area?

I suspect that it is someone who was invited to be a spectator at a fight.

 

[redman]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

 

[AnonymousBob]

They'll bring in Michael Koenen. Who better than a kicker to kick some serious ###?

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Now that someone other than Vick is playing QB, it very well might be.

 

[redman]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Now that someone other than Vick is playing QB, it very well might be.

. . . Except for the fact that that someone-other-than-Vick is now catching passes from Joey Harrington.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Just for consideration...Which current Falcons would be considered "Prominent"? I'll exclude anyone who was not on the team last year (Harrington, Horn, rookies, etc)

John Abraham

Keith Brooking

Alge Crumpler

Warrick Dunn

DeAngelo Hall

Lawyer Milloy

Borderline: Rod Coleman, Wayne Gandy, Grady Jackson, Michael Jenkins, Jerious Norwood.

I'm sure I missed someone, but that's a start.

DeAngelo obviously has the Va Tech and Virginia Tidewater connections.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

$10 says Dunn did most of the executions.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

$10 says Dunn did most of the executions.

No way. He got everything set up, poured out the water, hooked up the electrocution clips, tied down the dog, and then handed it over to Mike Alstott who got to flip the switch.Damned vulture. No wonder he's retiring.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

No, Dunn built the kennels and then donated them to the dogs.

 

[redman]

No, Dunn built the kennels and then donated them to the dogs.

 

[smcindoe]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Maybe he's trying to get all the charges dropped.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Maybe he's trying to get all the charges dropped.

Well played.

 

[JaxBill]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

Was thinking the same thing. Could these other players get in trouble with the NFL?

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

<I've watched too much Law & Order> Lawyer types: Wouldn't this be heresay?

</I've watched too much Law & Order>

Also...PFT is now reporting that the player they hear rumored to be called to testify is DeAngelo Hall. No surprise, just thought I'd share.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

<I've watched too much Law & Order> Lawyer types: Wouldn't this be heresay?

</I've watched too much Law & Order>

Also...PFT is now reporting that the player they hear rumored to be called to testify is DeAngelo Hall. No surprise, just thought I'd share.

If you're talking about hearsay, no. The statement was supposedly made by Vick, meaning it's exempt from the hearsay rule because it's a statement made by a party to the proceedings. Hearsay rules exist because there's no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the party who supposedly said it. Vick will be in the courtroom. If this is some reference to Vick being God, I'm afraid I don't agree.

ETA: Think of it this way - if he'd been telling everyone in the world that he was planning on killing his wife by throwing her off a cliff after stabbing her in the heart, and then she showed up at the bottom of a cliff with a knife in her heart, wouldn't you expect those statements to be admissible? No different here.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

If you're talking about hearsay, no.

Yes, That's what I meant. Nead tu werk on mi speling

 

[TheFanatic]

The blogger has an article that the NFL and the gubment are now looking into the gambling aspects of this which could bring more charges from the feds and an extremely long suspension from the NFL as gambling of this form is STRICTLY prohibited....Good thing I traded for this schmuck in the offseason!?!?!?

 

[Heinz 57]

Can never get enough Vick gossip eh?

 

[BigJim®]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

<I've watched too much Law & Order> Lawyer types: Wouldn't this be heresay?

</I've watched too much Law & Order>

Also...PFT is now reporting that the player they hear rumored to be called to testify is DeAngelo Hall. No surprise, just thought I'd share.

If you're talking about hearsay, no. The statement was supposedly made by Vick, meaning it's exempt from the hearsay rule because it's a statement made by a party to the proceedings. Hearsay rules exist because there's no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the party who supposedly said it. Vick will be in the courtroom. If this is some reference to Vick being God, I'm afraid I don't agree.

ETA: Think of it this way - if he'd been telling everyone in the world that he was planning on killing his wife by throwing her off a cliff after stabbing her in the heart, and then she showed up at the bottom of a cliff with a knife in her heart, wouldn't you expect those statements to be admissible? No different here.

Is this right? I guess I did not understand that statements made by a defendant were generally exempt from heresay rules. Even though a defendant has the right to take the stand to rebut that testimony in his own words, forcing him to do that seems to deprive a defendant of the right not to testify. I would have imagined it is a far more narrow exception... such as an admission of guilt to the charged crime. I seem to recall this is an exception where the actual declarant is unavailable to testify, but it may be that unavailability is implied in recognition that he's not obligated to take the stand. I'd assume the other examples you mentioned would be state of mind exceptions offered as circumstantial evidence (i.e. anger toward the victim, premeditation) as opposed to being offered as actual proof of commission of murder.

 

[IndyHavoc]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Maybe he's trying to get all the charges dropped.

Instant Classic!

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

<I've watched too much Law & Order> Lawyer types: Wouldn't this be heresay?

</I've watched too much Law & Order>

Also...PFT is now reporting that the player they hear rumored to be called to testify is DeAngelo Hall. No surprise, just thought I'd share.

If you're talking about hearsay, no. The statement was supposedly made by Vick, meaning it's exempt from the hearsay rule because it's a statement made by a party to the proceedings. Hearsay rules exist because there's no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the party who supposedly said it. Vick will be in the courtroom. If this is some reference to Vick being God, I'm afraid I don't agree.

ETA: Think of it this way - if he'd been telling everyone in the world that he was planning on killing his wife by throwing her off a cliff after stabbing her in the heart, and then she showed up at the bottom of a cliff with a knife in her heart, wouldn't you expect those statements to be admissible? No different here.

I seem to recall this is an exception where the actual declarant is unavailable to testify, but it may be that unavailability is implied in recognition that he's not obligated to take the stand. I'd assume the other examples you mentioned would be state of mind exceptions offered as circumstantial evidence (i.e. anger toward the victim, premeditation) as opposed to being offered as actual proof of commission of murder.

It's not state of mind. If you walk up to your best friend and say "I just shot my wife with a bazooka" and then they find your wife dead by bazooka, you're going to jail based on the circumstantial evidence. It's not state of mind evidence.If you're under the impression that it's just an unavailability issue, you've been reading too much wikipedia. If you're testifying as to what the Defendant actually said to you, you're generally in the clear. Testify away.

 

[BigJim®]

It's not state of mind. If you walk up to your best friend and say "I just shot my wife with a bazooka" and then they find your wife dead by bazooka, you're going to jail based on the circumstantial evidence. It's not state of mind evidence.

Your prior example was not an after the fact admission, it was a proclamation in advance of a desire to commit a crime [i.e. telling everyone in the world one is planning to throw his wife over a cliff is different from saying "I just shot my wife" after she's been shot, which is your new example debating my state-of-mind comment]. I fully agree that saying "I shot my wife" is not state of mind.

 

[Pygmy Marmoset]

It's not state of mind. If you walk up to your best friend and say "I just shot my wife with a bazooka" and then they find your wife dead by bazooka, you're going to jail based on the circumstantial evidence. It's not state of mind evidence.

Your prior example was not an after the fact admission, it was a proclamation in advance of a desire to commit a crime [i.e. telling everyone in the world one is planning to throw his wife over a cliff is different from saying "I just shot my wife" after she's been shot, which is your new example debating my state-of-mind comment]. I fully agree that saying "I shot my wife" is not state of mind.

You referenced "examples." Since the only examples I gave were "I'm going to kill my wife" and the Vick examples, I assumed you were also talking about them. And they're after the fact.

 

[Billy1x]

Well, if it's a prominant teammate, we know it can't be one of his receivers.

Crumpler is his best friend

 

[GregR_2]

The big question is who is calling the teammate to testify? Is it a character witness for the defense? Is it somebody else who MIGHT have also been present that the prosecution is calling?

The prosecution will call them to testify that Vick has been talking about his dog operation in the locker room for years, and that he was aware of everything that was going on at the property.

<I've watched too much Law & Order> Lawyer types: Wouldn't this be heresay?

</I've watched too much Law & Order>

Also...PFT is now reporting that the player they hear rumored to be called to testify is DeAngelo Hall. No surprise, just thought I'd share.

If you're talking about hearsay, no. The statement was supposedly made by Vick, meaning it's exempt from the hearsay rule because it's a statement made by a party to the proceedings. Hearsay rules exist because there's no opportunity to examine or cross-examine the party who supposedly said it. Vick will be in the courtroom. If this is some reference to Vick being God, I'm afraid I don't agree.

ETA: Think of it this way - if he'd been telling everyone in the world that he was planning on killing his wife by throwing her off a cliff after stabbing her in the heart, and then she showed up at the bottom of a cliff with a knife in her heart, wouldn't you expect those statements to be admissible? No different here.

IANAL. But to put it another way... the person who has to testify is the person who heard Vick utter the statement they want entered into testimony. Not someone who was told Vick uttered it but didn't hear it themself.If he tells Deangelo he's running a dog fighting ring, then Deangelo could testify to that effect. If Deangelo later told Warrick Dunn that Vick said it, but Dunn himself never heard it straight from Vick, then it's hearsay for Dunn to testify he said it. If the lawyers want the statement entered as evidence, they need to produce the guy who actually heard Vick say it.