http://www.tallahassee.com/story/sp...24/cook-juror-says-shame-went-trial/32304589/
Interesting how the jurors were thinking.
Interesting how the jurors were thinking.
Didn't see this posted: Juror Robert Kuhn speaks
- Thread starter rdbarks10
- Start date
I was surprised that she stuck to the story that she was hit multiple times by Cook. That made it very, very hard to buy the story. The physical evidence is hard to match up to that story and the idea that Cook went from peacemaker to violent psycho because she said "Anyone can be on Google" just does not make any sense, especially when she said he did not react violently to her calling Phillips mother a wh***.
I really expected her to say that he was getting increasingly less peaceful and responded to a comment with a quick pop and then backed off. It would be a lot easier to believe that. But the Jekyll/Hyde thing with a violent attack is just crazy.
---------------------------------
I said that from day one & got burnt up for it. Be careful lol
Hopefully you gentle readers understand that the only factor which prevented this case from being a perfect 100% slam dunk was the inherent unpredictable craziness of juries. Unfortunately, few seem to focus upon the additional safeguards of (a) the trial judge's duty to overrule manifestly erroneous jury verdicts, and (b) the virtual certainty of appellate reversal.
The paranoia of the tensile hat theorists is obviously attributable to the undeniable national mistreatment.
The paranoia of the tensile hat theorists is obviously attributable to the undeniable national mistreatment.
Whomever it was at the Tallahassee Democrat that captioned the photos in that article spelled prosecutor as "persecutor." Freudian slip? LOL I laughed when I saw it. I don't have much respect for people that work for that paper, not because of political reasons, but mostly because, by and large, they just aren't very bright. But that was ironic on quite another level.
First, Meggs should never go on record on credibility like that. I have never, ever defended that.
Second, I never decided anything on credibility. You don't decide credibility before trial; that's the jury's job. I prosecutor declining to charge in light of an alleged victim being adamant about the crime and defendant is not something that happens a lot. It happened with Jamies because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that the victim was not credible enough to support a BRD finding. That was unusual.
Here all I said was that there was not enough stuff against her to say the case should not be charged. I would have been fine with it not charged, too, but I did not see any kind of misconduct in charging. It looked like a lot of misdemeanor charges. The reality is most crimes occur with people who tend to be not great witnesses. I only had the PC affidavit to work from and assumed that she was backtracking on the multiple hits claim. I also saw that players gave inconsistent statements. It all supported charging.
That said, if while getting ready for trial the accuser was saying Dalvin hit her multiple times I think they should have reconsidered. I suspect they thought about it, but in today's climate would rather lose the trial than drop the case. If you step back, you can't really blame them. The fact is this was a better outcome for Cook and FSU than dropping the charges would have been. At least now people can look to the fact (if they care) and see what BS this is.
I have always said the trial evidence is a whole new ballgame. I did think it could go a different way, but with the way it went I think it was a no brainer verdict. I just don't know how people can dictate what a verdict is or should be before a trial when they don't even know the actual evidence. That was one of my main points.
My last comment is on the defense witness. You can't get on the state for charging Cook based on that guy. He was not there when the cop arrived and the law did not know about him until recently. I get the points about them having good reason to track him down before trial, but it also would have been nice if he had just told them up front as soon as he realized he had witnessed things. Maybe this would have been dropped. And maybe it would not have. I don't know. But I think if the state has this guy's statement before trial, it should have dropped the case.
Second, I never decided anything on credibility. You don't decide credibility before trial; that's the jury's job. I prosecutor declining to charge in light of an alleged victim being adamant about the crime and defendant is not something that happens a lot. It happened with Jamies because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence that the victim was not credible enough to support a BRD finding. That was unusual.
Here all I said was that there was not enough stuff against her to say the case should not be charged. I would have been fine with it not charged, too, but I did not see any kind of misconduct in charging. It looked like a lot of misdemeanor charges. The reality is most crimes occur with people who tend to be not great witnesses. I only had the PC affidavit to work from and assumed that she was backtracking on the multiple hits claim. I also saw that players gave inconsistent statements. It all supported charging.
That said, if while getting ready for trial the accuser was saying Dalvin hit her multiple times I think they should have reconsidered. I suspect they thought about it, but in today's climate would rather lose the trial than drop the case. If you step back, you can't really blame them. The fact is this was a better outcome for Cook and FSU than dropping the charges would have been. At least now people can look to the fact (if they care) and see what BS this is.
I have always said the trial evidence is a whole new ballgame. I did think it could go a different way, but with the way it went I think it was a no brainer verdict. I just don't know how people can dictate what a verdict is or should be before a trial when they don't even know the actual evidence. That was one of my main points.
My last comment is on the defense witness. You can't get on the state for charging Cook based on that guy. He was not there when the cop arrived and the law did not know about him until recently. I get the points about them having good reason to track him down before trial, but it also would have been nice if he had just told them up front as soon as he realized he had witnessed things. Maybe this would have been dropped. And maybe it would not have. I don't know. But I think if the state has this guy's statement before trial, it should have dropped the case.
Well at least I know that I'm not the only one who struggled to interpret the point he was attempting to make.I'll be glad when you go back to talking English.
2 more things . The state witness recanted Nd the girl also wanted to drop the charges.
It is scary and I keep going back to this but you said it best.
"I think they should have reconsidered. I suspect they thought about it, but in today's climate would rather lose the trial than drop the case. "
This thought process could have jailed an innocent man
Climate and saving face because of media should never inflict upon equal protection
Rossi was state witness and then recanted so they couldn't use him .
Girl called state and did not want to charge him per her testimony
Leads one to believe her claims were bogus and the two women were too drunk to remember what happened. Many on WC saw it that way from the beginning.
AllNoles, may I ask a question:
There appears to be a consensus forming - and probably rightly - that the State Attorney's Office filed charges, and pursued the case, largely out of a fear of being seen as soft on athletes. The not-guilty verdict provides Cook with absolute closure, and it gives prosecutors some cover, as well.
Here's the question. Could prosecutors have achieved the same objective by bringing the case to a grand jury? It seems likely a grand jury would, as likely as not, have returned a no-bill, thus protecting prosecutors from a charge of favoritism. Can you take a misdemeanor to a grand jury? I would imagine that, if so, it is done only rarely.
Of course, given what we know of the influence prosecutors hold over grand juries, the SAO still would have been vulnerable to accusations of exerting influence to obtain the result it wanted.
There appears to be a consensus forming - and probably rightly - that the State Attorney's Office filed charges, and pursued the case, largely out of a fear of being seen as soft on athletes. The not-guilty verdict provides Cook with absolute closure, and it gives prosecutors some cover, as well.
Here's the question. Could prosecutors have achieved the same objective by bringing the case to a grand jury? It seems likely a grand jury would, as likely as not, have returned a no-bill, thus protecting prosecutors from a charge of favoritism. Can you take a misdemeanor to a grand jury? I would imagine that, if so, it is done only rarely.
Of course, given what we know of the influence prosecutors hold over grand juries, the SAO still would have been vulnerable to accusations of exerting influence to obtain the result it wanted.
SeanyMag said it best: "Dalvin doesn't have it in him to hit a woman." That pretty much did for me.
I missed exactly what Rossi was about, but he was never a useful witness. If he was going to say she was hit it could have helped, but I don't think much if he could not even see who did it.
I have not said this was all about the current climate. I think Meggs pushes these cases to trial all the time if a victim says they are positive about the crime and defendant. I have talked to a few prosecutors who say this is not at all an unusual type case to try. However, I still think it's hard to really know unless you know exactly what they knew at the time and I think a lot of folks here don't realize how much an impact it would have on the state if Dalvin gave a statement was seemed evasive and was contradicted by his own friends. I think if the guys all said what they said at trial when they were interviewed, this may have been different. But a state attorney likely looks at it and says "Well, they are not being truthful Why would that be." It's the nature of prosecutors.
That aside, I have no idea of the grand jury procedure. I don't know if that's available for misdemeanors. I suspect it is not.
Well, as much as I love FSU and wanted Cook to be innocent, I do not want prosecutors making decisions whether to charge based on what a friend of the accused says about him.
The first case I tried to verdict, I got poured out so fast. I think the jury took the time to read the charge and eat lunch then find against my client in time to get home by 1:00 p.m. When questioned after the verdict, they relied on some seemingly innocuous testimony as the main piece of evidence that they looked at. Both the defense lawyer and I were flabbergasted. I can't recall specifically what it was, but neither one of us paid it much mind and definitely never hammered it during closing. The stuff I thought looked great for us, they dismissed as not really important.
Moral of the story, you never know what 12 people are going to do behind closed doors.
Moral of the story, you never know what 12 people are going to do behind closed doors.
Well, I decided to use my professional researcher skills. The answer to the grand jury question is this, from a prosecutor source:
"Anything can go before a grand jury. In Florida the only thing that MUST go before a grand jury is first-degree murder. Everything else is filed via information, but there is no prohibition from seeking an indictment instead."
For those non-lawyers among us, an "information" is a formal charging document.
"Anything can go before a grand jury. In Florida the only thing that MUST go before a grand jury is first-degree murder. Everything else is filed via information, but there is no prohibition from seeking an indictment instead."
For those non-lawyers among us, an "information" is a formal charging document.
I was juror number 3. Kuhn was Jurror number 1 and he's right. If a vote were taken as soon as the jury door closed it would probably have been an immediate 5-1 vote. All we did was sit down and look at the evidence. We did not see evidence of a 215 pound man hitting a woman. Everyone's stories were all over the place from the time of talking to investigator's to the time they were on the stand.
It's clear there was an argument. It's clear the alleged victim fell down. It's clear that Dalvin was painted, by everyone, as the peace maker. There was nothing to suggest he hit her and thus the not guilty vote.
It's clear there was an argument. It's clear the alleged victim fell down. It's clear that Dalvin was painted, by everyone, as the peace maker. There was nothing to suggest he hit her and thus the not guilty vote.
We did not. We all agreed the case was a joke and all felt it was a waste of time. Even the person who was mildly unsure only felt that something occurred just wasn't definite on what truly occurred.
The person asked if no punch was thrown then when was the exact moment and the exact reason for everything to get as far as it did.
The person asked if no punch was thrown then when was the exact moment and the exact reason for everything to get as far as it did.
I was surprised the prosecution didn't get her to show what she meant by hit or if she said punch. If she showed a simple open hand push/mush to her face rather than a closed fist jab or hook, then that damage may have been matched the damage. Which we may think is silly to prosecute for, but I guess technically it would be a crime.
She said Dalvin punched her and that he hit her hard enough for her and her witness to fall into the side of a truck.
Latest posts
-
-
Softball FSU honors seniors, sweeps UNC, picks up 14th straight win- Latest: Bob Ferrante
-
