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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That makes me even sicker. Thank goodness we got a reasonable jury pool.http://www.tallahassee.com/story/sp...24/cook-juror-says-shame-went-trial/32304589/
Interesting how the jurors were thinking.
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***.Also doesn't look like the jury didn't found the girls credible.
My dad is Robert Kuhn and so is my son. Complete coincidence but was funny when we saw that.
---------------------------------this was always a loser case
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.
Who are the gentle readers?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.
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.
I'll be glad when you go back to talking English.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.
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.
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.
Not sure what you mean about state witness recanting or the girl wanting to drop the charges?
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 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.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
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.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.
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.SeanyMag said it best: "Dalvin doesn't have it in him to hit a woman." That pretty much did for me.
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.
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.
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.