Ray McDonald (49ers) domestic violence

[Mike]

Well, in the NFL's case, they have a rather massive and substantial "Code of Conduct" set of precedents that essentially is a separate legal system based on not much more than "Protecting the Shield".

Now, one can argue if that's right or wrong (I think that's what you're arguing if I read you correctly), but the players can't argue that they aren't fully aware of this entering the league.

Part of the reason why the league does this is because a) players can manipulate the legal system. Ask Floyd Mayweather how easy it is to simply pay women he's battered to take money to not press charges. The NFL can't and won't tolerate that or other abuses of the legal system that tarnish its business. And b) the legal system can take a long time and if a player extends the process out just enough, his effective punishment is drastically reduced if he has to do 3 week stint in prison in March versus December. Justice delayed is justice denied. Not that the NFL really cares about JUSTICE, but you get what I mean...as it pertains to their business.

Lastly, has the NFL ever suspended anyone and later found out it was all a lie? I hear the concerns and that would be terrible to compound the trauma of a false accusation (which never really goes away) with losing some of the very few opportunities to play in the NFL via suspension. Has it ever actually happened or is this a concern that it shouldn't happen?

Ask Floyd Mayweather how easy it is to simply pay women he's battered to take money to not press charges.

In California the D.A. doesn't need victim cooperation to press charges in domestic violence cases. Even more so if there are visible injuries. With visible injuries pictures are taken as evidence.

Medical records also come into play if the victim is taken to the hospital for her/his injuries. Without injuries it can become he said/she said unless there are independent/reliable witnesses or video tape of the incident.

 

[12intheBox]

Ask Floyd Mayweather how easy it is to simply pay women he's battered to take money to not press charges.

In California the D.A. doesn't need victim cooperation to press charges in domestic violence cases. Even more so if there are visible injuries.

You gotta have evidence to prosecute in any state.

 

[Mike]

You gotta have evidence to prosecute in any state.

If the victim has visible injuries that is without a doubt evidence.

 

[12intheBox]

If the victim has visible injuries that is without a doubt evidence.

They have to prove how those injuries got there.

 

[Mackeyser]

No, Les. In almost every case, the NFL waits for the legal system to run its course, thus the worries about punishments bases solely on accusations aren't well founded. I honestly don't think there's ever been a case in NFL history where the NFL has punished someone based solely on accusation. I asked if anyone could recall an instance and I used the google machine and both returned no results. That's no definitive, but not a good sign for making that case.

There have been times when the Commish will rule before the legal process is complete, but in those cases, he has enough information to make a determination. Now, what he does with that information is up for debate and you know how much I disdain Goodell in most matters and in general. On disciplinary matters, he's generally at least been transparent, even if getting it wrong as in the Ray Rice case. Rest assured, Goodell won't stop being the attorney he is as this continues to be among the highest profile things he's ever had to deal with.

After writing that letter, if he doesn't deal with this swiftly and appropriately, the owners will want a meeting with him.

 

[Mike]

Yes they do. Victim demeanor also comes into play. If she is calm and cool instead of visibly shaken then that would color her accusations as doubtful. Much of it comes down to how well it's investigated if the victim is uncooperative. Basically if the D.A. thinks they can get a conviction without victim cooperation they will try it. DV is a hot button in America as is shown by the NFL's reaction to the Ray Rice case. D.V is considered a crime against Society as well as the victim.

 

[Mackeyser]

Ask Floyd Mayweather how easy it is to simply pay women he's battered to take money to not press charges.

In California the D.A. doesn't need victim cooperation to press charges in domestic violence cases. Even more so if there are visible injuries. With visible injuries pictures are taken as evidence.

Medical records also come into play if the victim is taken to the hospital for her/his injuries. Without injuries it can become he said/she said unless there are independent/reliable witnesses or video tape of the incident.

Yet another reason Mayweather won't leave Las Vegas...

Sorry, didn't mean to put in that tangent about Mayweather...

 

[12intheBox]

Yes they do. Victim demeanor also comes into play. If she is calm and cool instead of visibly shaken then that would color her accusations as doubtful. Much of it comes down to how well it's investigated if the victim is uncooperative. Basically if the D.A. thinks they can get a conviction without victim cooperation they will try it. DV is a hot button in America as is shown by the NFL's reaction to the Ray Rice case. D.V is considered a crime against Society as well as the victim.

Absent an admission by the defendant or another outside witness, it cannot be tried without the victim's testimony - it wouldn't make it to the jury.

I suppose there are instances where the victim may have made a statement to the police which would be admissible at trial as non testimonial evidence that meets a hearsay exception - but extremely rare - and with the kind of defense that McDonald can afford - basically an impossibility.

 

[Mike]

Yet another reason Mayweather won't leave Las Vegas...

Sorry, didn't mean to put in that tangent about Mayweather...

Not a problem.

 

[Mike]

Absent an admission by the defendant or another outside witness, it cannot be tried without the victim's testimony - it wouldn't make it to the jury.

I suppose there are instances where the victim may have made a statement to the police which would be admissible at trial as non testimonial evidence that meets a hearsay exception - but extremely rare - and with the kind of defense that McDonald can afford - basically an impossibility.

If you'll read my previous post I mentioned the outside/independent/reliable/ witness already. I know about this stuff trust me. And not as a suspect. The accused does have the right to confront his accuser you are correct there.

 

[Ladoc]

If it's true Goodell is going to throw an entire library at him.

Yes... The presidential library at that lol

 

[12intheBox]

If you'll read my previous post I mentioned the outside/independent/reliable/ witness already. I know about this stuff trust me. And not as a suspect. The accused does have the right to confront his accuser you are correct there.

The right of confrontation can be overcome in very rare situations (like in Crawford) but injuries alone don't get it done - which is what you seemed to suggest. If I misread you, I apologize. I know about this stuff, too - this is kind of my wheelhouse.

 

[Sum1]

The. 49ers. Are. Going. To. Struggle.

 

[Mike]

The right of confrontation can be overcome in very rare situations (like in Crawford) but injuries alone don't get it done - which is what you seemed to suggest. If I misread you, I apologize. I know about this stuff, too - this is kind of my wheelhouse.

It's in my lane as well.

 

[Mike]

The. 49ers. Are. Going. To. Struggle.

Man that really makes me sad.

 

[12intheBox]

It's in my lane as well.

So walk me thru what the trial looks like without the victim testifying.

The police respond to a call for service, they see a woman who is visibly upset with fresh bruising around her neck.

Now what?

 

[RamBall]

if players can be suspended based solely on an accusation I have a real problem with that and frankly the idea that they can be is so freaking stupid I don't even know what to say

I dont think any suspensions are announced until after the courts have ruled.

 

[Mackeyser]

Absent an admission by the defendant or another outside witness, it cannot be tried without the victim's testimony - it wouldn't make it to the jury.

I suppose there are instances where the victim may have made a statement to the police which would be admissible at trial as non testimonial evidence that meets a hearsay exception - but extremely rare - and with the kind of defense that McDonald can afford - basically an impossibility.

That's not correct. In some jurisdictions, DV is technically a "crime against the state" and as such does not require victim testimony. This was done to remove the possibility of victim intimidation and to make it even possible to prosecute with overwhelming physical evidence in the instance where the victim was incapacitated via shock, coma, catatonia or in some other way incapable of communicating testimony either to police or in court.

So, in that respect, it's highly dependent on jurisdiction. In this instance, we're talking about California.

If there's any evidence against him, Ray McDonald has REAL problems and it won't just be missing a few games. He was booked on FELONY assault. Because that's in CA that's a crime against the state, he's definitely looking at jail time and because she was pregnant.

Did a google search and among the wikis and other stuff, I saw a CA law firm that spelled it our rather plainly. This was helpful I thought because it includes the law citation and the judge's options.

http://www.wklaw.com/corporal-injury-spouse-sentencing.html

Corporal Injury on Spouse Sentencing for Felony Charges

If you are found in violation of a felony under CA PC 273.5d, you could be sent to jail for up to four years and face a fine of up to $6,000. If you have been previously convicted for battery, sexual battery or other types of aggravated assault, you will face up to five years in state prison. The prison sentence could be extended if the victim was seriously hurt.


This extended sentence can be handed down if the person hurt is not a spouse, co-parent or cohabitant. For instance, if a person is trying to intervene in a domestic dispute and is seriously injured, you could still be convicted under CA PC 273.5d.


The court has many options. The court can do any of the following:

1. Sentence you to two, three or four years in county jail
2. Place you on probation and sentence you to a period of time in county jail for up to one year.
3. Place you on probation and impose no jail sentence.

So, sure, he could possibly dodge the legal bullet, but maybe not. He's facing up to 4 years in county jail and the prosecution won't have to rely on any testimony. Physical evidence and the testimony of the officers at the scene will be all they need to go straight to trial should they decide to do so. And DAs have gone to trial with less than has already been reportedly released.

 

[Mackeyser]

So walk me thru what the trial looks like without the victim testifying.

The police respond to a call for service, they see a woman who is visibly upset with fresh bruising around her neck.

Now what?

Prosecution brings up the officers who present their reports and introduce the evidence. Likely the 911 call is introduced. If there is any forensic or lab evidence, then experts are brought up to introduce them. Then the case rests unless there is other evidence. It's pretty straight forward, actually.

 

[Alan]

LesBaker with this:
if players can be suspended based solely on an accusation I have a real problem with that

How is being thrown in jail until your trial is over (if you can't meet or they won't set bail) any different? They suspended the policeman who murdered (allegedly) Mike Brown.

Plus these two incidents:

"St. Louis County cop suspended when racist, sexist rant goes viral after patrolling unrest in Ferguson, Mo."

"A suburban St. Louis cop who was suspended for pointing his semi-automatic rifle and threatening protesters in Ferguson, Missouri, has resigned, the police chief told the Associated Press. Lt. Ray Albers, who was put on indefinite leave from the St. Ann Police Department after being caught on a cellphone video that went viral, quit the job he had held since 1994 on Thursday. Albers could not be reached for comment."

Do you also have a problem with that? After all, they haven't been convicted yet (or in some cases never will be) either.

As far as I'm concerned, he can attempt to get redress later but you do know that a spouse/girl friend almost never testify against their attackers right? That's why the law was written in such a way as to discount their attempts to cover up/pretend the crime never happened. Same thing with child abuse.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you there Les.

EDIT: Beat me to much of my rant Mac.