I'm not saying it's right, but it's an outcome that should be expected. You avoid it by not being a disrespectful prick...don't be an ahole, then some things won't happen in response. Not saying the injuring party was right...I'm saying the victim isn't 100% blameless. That's the gray area of this non black/white incident.
I owe you an apology man, I went and re read your posts and it was clear you were not trolling. It was not fair to call you that. It became more clear that I had treated you unfairly and made you feel un welcome, and that is not our style here at Saints Report.
I know the DA doesn't have to consider any opinions from the victim. it is really out of the victims hands on the criminal side, but is it in the victims best interest they give AK a plea deal that doesn't include jail time, considering the civil lawsuit? if AK gets jail time, loses his career, the money well is much smaller and could deeply impact the victims settlement.
Well said. Informative post.Of course. But that goes for every criminal case. DA's, judges, juries, the political environment, etc. are going to be different in every jurisdiction. Add to that, we don't even have a clear picture of all the facts in this case, so yeah, it's difficult to predict what will happen with a high degree of accuracy.
That doesn't mean, however, that we can't discuss the case, and there are general precepts of law and procedure that we can apply to most cases in evaluating this one as it develops. There are entire TV channels devoted to such things.
Well sure. The thing that motivates most defendants to plea out is the promise of a lighter sentence. But "sentence bargaining" as you describe it, and plea bargaining are often tied together. Especially when you take into account mandatory minimums.
It's well known that defendants who are convicted at trial will get on average 3x the sentence they'd get pleading guilty to the same charge. So yes, if for example Battery resulting in great bodily harm carries a 1-5 year mandatory min, a defendant might hope to plea for something closer to one year, whereas he might get something closer to five if he goes to trial. So the sentence is changing, but the crime he's convicted with stays the same in either case.
But if a defendant so charged wants to avoid prison altogether, with that mandatory minimum there's no choice but to get the charge reduced, or counts dropped, to ones that don't carry a minimum prison term. Mandatory mins aren't like sentencing guidelines, and DA's & judges typically don't have a lot of room in sentencing to deviate down from them.
Based on the law as written, if Kamara pleads guilty to the battery count as charged, or convicted at trial, he's going inside. The law requires that. A plea to lesser battery charge, and he might avoid it. That's what plea bargaining is all about.
I have a question. How does the other 3 other co defendants effect Kamara's plea deal? How cumbersome would it be to give all 4 defendants the same plea deal? Rather than just Kamara alone. I am just of the thinking that they put that 1yr min sentence there for a reason, and in a high profile case as this, it will be very hard to get a deal for a couple of football players and thier entourage.Of course. But that goes for every criminal case. DA's, judges, juries, the political environment, etc. are going to be different in every jurisdiction. Add to that, we don't even have a clear picture of all the facts in this case, so yeah, it's difficult to predict what will happen with a high degree of accuracy.
That doesn't mean, however, that we can't discuss the case, and there are general precepts of law and procedure that we can apply to most cases in evaluating this one as it develops. There are entire TV channels devoted to such things.
Well sure. The thing that motivates most defendants to plea out is the promise of a lighter sentence. But "sentence bargaining" as you describe it, and plea bargaining are often tied together. Especially when you take into account mandatory minimums.
It's well known that defendants who are convicted at trial will get on average 3x the sentence they'd get pleading guilty to the same charge. So yes, if for example Battery resulting in great bodily harm carries a 1-5 year mandatory min, a defendant might hope to plea for something closer to one year, whereas he might get something closer to five if he goes to trial. So the sentence is changing, but the crime he's convicted with stays the same in either case.
But if a defendant so charged wants to avoid prison altogether, with that mandatory minimum there's no choice but to get the charge reduced, or counts dropped, to ones that don't carry a minimum prison term. Mandatory mins aren't like sentencing guidelines, and DA's & judges typically don't have a lot of room in sentencing to deviate down from them.
Based on the law as written, if Kamara pleads guilty to the battery count as charged, or convicted at trial, he's going inside. The law requires that. A plea to lesser battery charge, and he might avoid it. That's what plea bargaining is all about.
I don't really know, but without question, the guy doing the stomping really complicates things for AK because I'm not sure the prosecution is going to be willing to agree to AK pleading down to a misdemeanor charge and avoid jail for something that serious. Even if conspiracy charge were dropped, AK is still on the hook for the actions of the guys with him. It might be possibly to argue that AK instigated the confrontation, and if that can be proven, I don't see him avoiding serious consequences.
I totally agree with you ! i just think that he's the one with the big checkbook so let's go after him!
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account on our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
No worries, we're good.