Until found guilty by a jury of your peers.

[BIGH2001]

I kinda forget all the info from when he was in court before but since I'm in Criminal Procedure this semester in law school the first thing we learned about was the general order of events from arrest through trial and I'm pretty sure that this was just a preliminary hearing which is just a screener type of court appearance where the judge makes a decision based on the current evidence whether its worth actually taking the case to trial. Greg could have waived this prelim. hearing and gone straight to the actual trial had he wanted to, Holder could have really screwed Greg by asking for and getting a grand jury review against him (which she didn't and likely couldn't). The standard of review in this prelim. hearing is probable cause which is a really low standard for Holder to have shown in order for the case to move on to the real trial. 

 

This just sounds a lot worse than it actually is. It's more like the ruling was, based on the circumstances, its reasonable that this could have happened.

 

There will be a lot more info in the real trial and if Greg has better proof of his innocence we'll see then.

 

His prior court appearance was not a probable cause hearing.  It was a trial in district court where the state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants charged with misdemeanors in North Carolina will always start off in district court.  While their case is in district court they have the option of pleading guilty or having a formal trial before a judge. Whether the judge actually held the state to their burden of proof in Hardy's trial is debatable based on the evidence that I heard. However, it is not uncommon for district court judges in North Carolina to be more likely to hand out convictions than a jury.  The "safe" thing to do, especially in a high-profile case, is to find the Defendant guilty.  District court judges don't like being in the newspaper for the wrong reasons.  "Soft on crime" is a bad thing for these elected officials.  If a Defendant is found guilty in district court they can appeal to superior court.

 

Now that he has appealed to superior court he will have a second trial, this time with a jury deciding the facts and handing down a verdict.  The standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remains the same.  In my experience as an attorney, he has a much better chance of winning his case in front of a jury than the judge especially given the flakiness of his accuser.  

[ed bell]

Good post BIGH2001

[Kevin Greene]

Domestic violence is a major focus of the PR cognizant NFL right now.

Hardy could not have picked a worse time to be hooked up with his GF no matter what you might think of her.

Use Hardy for all he is worth, come post court time his NFL career is in serious jeopardy.

[Vagrant]

Stop being so defensive. What do you not understand about his guilty verdict? Sure, he has the right to appeal just like anyone else and especially anyone else in his situation with money.... but if he were Greg Hardy to the foreman at the box factory you wouldn't give two damns about his perceived innocence or guilt. That's what makes this whole thing nauseously hypocritical. Just because the guy goes out on the field wearing the same color laundry you do, you want to act like he's some sort of untouchable demigod who is above off the field discretion and knowing how to treat people.

 

Yes, he had a right to trial by a jury of his peers. He declined to take that route in his initial proceedings because he thought he had a better chance of beating the charge behind closed doors. Now, in his appeal, he wants to get a jury trial which is his right as well. But don't make it sound like Hardy hasn't been found guilty. He has been. There's not a single element of "guilty until proven innocent" in this case. We've got a verdict. Guilty. That's what you make your judgement on. That's the legal interpretation of what happened that night until further notice. There are tons of killers sitting in prison right now waiting on appeals to come through when God and everybody knows they did it. Sometimes even at their own admission. But we live in a society where protocol is just as important as innocence or guilt and Hardy will be given every opportunity to prove that the initial verdict reached was an incorrect one. And with enough money, he just might make that case.

 

I am a fan of the Carolina Panthers. I cheer for Greg Hardy when he makes a play that helps the Carolina Panthers. I will remain a fan of Greg Hardy's success so long as it coincides with the success of the Carolina Panthers, but not an ounce further than that and if the opportunity arises for us to part ways with him in a way that benefits the Carolina Panthers I will rejoice for the loss of conflict in my heart watching him out there making plays for us. It's funny who gets demonized on these boards. Julius Peppers is a pariah for doing literally nothing else than leaving as a free agent which is neither unethical nor inappropriate. Steve Smith gets trashed in retrospect for being fiery and "a problem" when his entire career was predicated on those very attributes. Yet here we have a case in Greg Hardy where it would make all the sense in the world to hate him from his careless attitude about the law, his many documented maturity issues, and one night in particular where he struck and communicated threats to a woman and for whatever reason a bulk of these boards are down with standing behind him? Nonsense.

 

But I bet you this. I bet you this down to the last dollar I have in my pocket. The day that Greg Hardy leaves the Carolina Panthers regardless of whose decision it is, some of these same cats are going to come in the threads that are defending him right now and talk about how they're glad that woman beater is gone.

 

And why the change of heart? Because dude will be wearing a different color shirt. Now which one of you basic bitches wants to debate that point?

[Vagrant]

I kinda forget all the info from when he was in court before but since I'm in Criminal Procedure this semester in law school the first thing we learned about was the general order of events from arrest through trial and I'm pretty sure that this was just a preliminary hearing which is just a screener type of court appearance where the judge makes a decision based on the current evidence whether its worth actually taking the case to trial. Greg could have waived this prelim. hearing and gone straight to the actual trial had he wanted to, Holder could have really screwed Greg by asking for and getting a grand jury review against him (which she didn't and likely couldn't). The standard of review in this prelim. hearing is probable cause which is a really low standard for Holder to have shown in order for the case to move on to the real trial. 

 

This just sounds a lot worse than it actually is. It's more like the ruling was, based on the circumstances, its reasonable that this could have happened.

 

There will be a lot more info in the real trial and if Greg has better proof of his innocence we'll see then.

 

This is incorrect. This was not a hearing to determine the validity of the charges. Greg went through the entire legal process, was found guilty, sentenced, and is now working on his appeal. The "real trial" has already happened. Greg is no longer known as "the defendant" in this case. He is known as "the appellant" because his guilt is now presumed until proven otherwise. The success rate of appeals in criminal proceedings is generally considered to be very, very, low and in the event that they are successful they are usually on account of egregiously poor handling of evidence. I would wager that North Carolina has an appeal rating of above 80% of verdicts being confirmed by the superior court. Greg has already gone through the preliminary hearing, pretrial motions, and his actual trial. Those events are over.

In legal terms, this is the 4th quarter Hail Mary with :10 left on the clock from midfield.

 

[Frizzy350]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Source: 6th Amendment of the united states constitution

[Vagrant]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Source: 6th Amendment of the united states constitution

 

Yes. And all those conditions were met. Jury Trial is abnormal in misdemeanor domestic violence cases and a Bench verdict was issued finding Hardy guilty of the crimes in which he was accused. In legal terms, Hardy is no longer a defendant. He is guilty in the eyes of the law and will remain so until such a time as his appeal is heard. He is on probation and has a suspended jail sentence.

 

With that said, since his lawyers filed an instant appeal after his conviction he is eligible for an appeal in which his case will be heard in front of a jury. The sixth amendment was upheld in this decision and I'm not quite sure of your reasoning behind quoting it here.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

Yes. And all those conditions were met. Jury Trial is abnormal in misdemeanor domestic violence cases and a Bench verdict was issued finding Hardy guilty of the crimes in which he was accused. In legal terms, Hardy is no longer a defendant. He is guilty in the eyes of the law and will remain so until such a time as his appeal is heard. He is on probation and has a suspended jail sentence.

With that said, since his lawyers filed an instant appeal after his conviction he is eligible for an appeal in which his case will be heard in front of a jury. The sixth amendment was upheld in this decision and I'm not quite sure of your reasoning behind quoting it here.

I think the quote means that the "conviction" is technically unconstitutional and did not provide Hardy with all of his legal rights as a citizen of the United States.

Broad brushing it by saying all conditions were met (except the tiny part about having the right to a jury trial by your peers) basically poos on the Constitution.

[Vagrant]

I think the quote means that the "conviction" is technically unconstitutional and did not provide Hardy with all of his legal rights as a citizen of the United States.

Broad brushing it by saying all conditions were met (except the tiny part about having the right to a jury trial by your peers) basically poos on the Constitution.

 

No. No it doesn't at all. The conviction is perfectly constitutional. Have you ever been to traffic court? Bench verdicts all day. One presiding judge. It's all within your grasp. If you decide you want a jury trial at any point in the process you can demand one and be granted one. The same applied for Hardy in this case. His lawyers didn't advise him to take this route obviously because a jury trial is an arduous and time consuming process and with the high amount of public interest it would have the potential to become a spectacle. Make no mistake that his lawyers and handlers were well aware of their ability to have it decided by a jury but there was no reason to take that route until appeal in case the judge found the accuser's case so frivolous that it was tossed out immediately. Plus, in a jury trial the really dirty truth starts to emerge. Character witnesses. Lots of personal dirty laundry to air. Far more than you'd see in a traditional misdemeanor filing.

 

Hardy's camp was banking on the fact that she had taken illicit drugs was reason enough to dismiss all charges despite the preponderance of evidence. That they would view her as a money grabbing drug addict and dismiss her case. That gamble didn't work out in Hardy's favor and he got slapped with a guilty verdict. Everything from this point forward is predicated on the fact that he's guilty under the law.

[Pejorative Miscreant]

No. No it doesn't at all. The conviction is perfectly constitutional. Have you ever been to traffic court? Bench verdicts all day. One presiding judge. It's all within your grasp. If you decide you want a jury trial at any point in the process you can demand one and be granted one. The same applied for Hardy in this case. His lawyers didn't advise him to take this route obviously because a jury trial is an arduous and time consuming process and with the high amount of public interest it would have the potential to become a spectacle. Make no mistake that his lawyers and handlers were well aware of their ability to have it decided by a jury but there was no reason to take that route until appeal in case the judge found the accuser's case so frivolous that it was tossed out immediately. Plus, in a jury trial the really dirty truth starts to emerge. Character witnesses. Lots of personal dirty laundry to air. Far more than you'd see in a traditional misdemeanor filing.

Hardy's camp was banking on the fact that she had taken illicit drugs was reason enough to dismiss all charges despite the preponderance of evidence. That they would view her as a money grabbing drug addict and dismiss her case. That gamble didn't work out in Hardy's favor and he got slapped with a guilty verdict. Everything from this point forward is predicated on the fact that he's guilty under the law.

So due process has been served? The answer is no.

Does Hardy have a right to have a trial by jury and has he exercised that right? The answer is yes. Has Hardy been given a trial by jury? No.

Agree that the lawyer team took this route for a reason but the legal process is still ongoing and no punitive measures can be exercised by the State until the process is complete. I know that doesn't mean the league or the Panthers could not take action but if they do and Hardy is found innocent when due process is carried out it could create a quandary for the team and/or NFL.

I do like how you equated this description to getting a speeding ticket. I think that puts this "conviction" in context.

[BIGH2001]

No. No it doesn't at all. The conviction is perfectly constitutional. Have you ever been to traffic court? Bench verdicts all day. One presiding judge. It's all within your grasp. If you decide you want a jury trial at any point in the process you can demand one and be granted one. The same applied for Hardy in this case. His lawyers didn't advise him to take this route obviously because a jury trial is an arduous and time consuming process and with the high amount of public interest it would have the potential to become a spectacle. Make no mistake that his lawyers and handlers were well aware of their ability to have it decided by a jury but there was no reason to take that route until appeal in case the judge found the accuser's case so frivolous that it was tossed out immediately. Plus, in a jury trial the really dirty truth starts to emerge. Character witnesses. Lots of personal dirty laundry to air. Far more than you'd see in a traditional misdemeanor filing.

Hardy's camp was banking on the fact that she had taken illicit drugs was reason enough to dismiss all charges despite the preponderance of evidence. That they would view her as a money grabbing drug addict and dismiss her case. That gamble didn't work out in Hardy's favor and he got slapped with a guilty verdict. Everything from this point forward is predicated on the fact that he's guilty under the law.

Not exactly.

I'm going to assume that his lawyers thought they would win the case the first time around. No one really bypasses the bench trial just to get to the jury trial. They go through the bench trial with the intention of winning the case ( otherwise why would they waste their time trying it?). With two potential chances to win a case why would they not use both? If they don't win the case and think they should have then they will appeal. An appeal to superior court is considered a new case so no he is not presumed guilty. He is still presumed innocent even in the eyes of the law. The jury is not allowed to even hear about the prior trial.

The evidentiary rules at a superior court trial are the same as in district court so the "dirty truth" doesn't emerge any more than it already has, except maybe hardy will mount an even more vigorous defense with extra time to prepare. If anything, the jury is actually allowed to hear less evidence than a judge because certain types of evidence tend to mislead a juror whereas a judge has a better ability to disregard that evidence and focus only on what is actually relevant. Defense attorneys are well aware of this and will try to exclude anything that is prejudicial to their client in a jury trial. Character witnesses are still not allowable, except in certain limited circumstances.

As I said before I expect hardy to win this trial. His accuser is clearly a little nuts and he has a superior legal team. Those aspects are usually enough to convince a jury to vote not guilty.

[Vagrant]

Not exactly.

I'm going to assume that his lawyers thought they would win the case the first time around. No one really bypasses the bench trial just to get to the jury trial. They go through the bench trial with the intention of winning the case ( otherwise why would they waste their time trying it?). With two potential chances to win a case why would they not use both? If they don't win the case and think they should have then they will appeal. An appeal to superior court is considered a new case so no he is not presumed guilty. He is still presumed innocent even in the eyes of the law. The jury is not allowed to even hear about the prior trial.

The evidentiary rules at a superior court trial are the same as in district court so the "dirty truth" doesn't emerge any more than it already has, except maybe hardy will mount an even more vigorous defense with extra time to prepare. If anything, the jury is actually allowed to hear less evidence than a judge because certain types of evidence tend to mislead a juror whereas a judge has a better ability to disregard that evidence and focus only on what is actually relevant. Defense attorneys are well aware of this and will try to exclude anything that is prejudicial to their client in a jury trial. Character witnesses are still not allowable, except in certain limited circumstances.

As I said before I expect hardy to win this trial. His accuser is clearly a little nuts and he has a superior legal team. Those aspects are usually enough to convince a jury to vote not guilty.

 

You have a few things wrong here:

 

1. I didn't say that Hardy's team wanted to bypass the bench trial as a formality. I clearly stated that they thought they had a chance to get the charges booted on account of the accuser admitting she had used drugs that night. That miscalculation cost them.

 

2. He is not presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. Legally in his new case he will be referenced as the appellant instead of the defendant due to the fact that he has been found guilty on these charges. He is the party that is now pursuing the court to change their judgment. This is a process initiated by Hardy and his team. The legal system has made their judgment on this case and their judgment is a guilty verdict. That much is not subject to debate. Hardy obviously seeks to change that ruling by challenging it in a higher court which is his right. That does not invalidate the first ruling. Only a successful appeal can alter that fact. This isn't some odd grace period where he's in legal limbo. He's a guilty man today. The fact that the jury isn't allowed to hear about his guilt in this crime is only a means of ensuring that no bias is introduced to complicate matters. An appeal of any kind demands fresh eyes on the evidence for the first time. Any presumption of guilt or innocence is detrimental to that purpose. That does not mean that Hardy is not guilty in the eyes of the court.

 

3. What I meant regarding a jury trial being dirtier is that there will be more of an opportunity for both sides to examine the precipitating events in extreme detail and that process will involve yet more witnesses, more digging into personal lives between now and the trial, and a lot more angles being pursued to find a convincing way to present the information by Hardy's team that portrays this woman as unstable and the aggressor and an effort by the victim's team to portray Hardy as a habitual hothead and law breaker. All this time between now and the jury appeal isn't going to be spent watching Panthers highlights. His lawyers and her lawyers alike are crawling around Charlotte right now trying to find the ugliest stories they can on both parties and trying to tie it into the case. Plus, it's incredibly likely that this trial will be longer and as a result more comprehensive. There will be some liberties taken regarding what is relevant to the case if either team is trying to exhibit a pattern of behavior.

 

4. As for his chances in the appeal, I will not speculate but will concede that having lawyers more highly regarded will likely mean that every potential avenue that exists to escape out of the back door will be utilized. I don't really see that as a cause for celebration as much as a highlight of our justice system being inherently flawed in so much as high profile clients being able to push people around with their checkbooks and influence.

 

 

[Davidson Deac II]

Thw one I served on was vocally more concerned with whatever got us out before lunch. In this case it was a guilty verdict seemingly based only on the perception that it would be the quickest decision.

 

We weren't allowed to talk about the case until it was over, so lunch was usually the topic until the last day.  There was one annoying guy who kept wanting to talk about the case and how he thought the plaintiff had no case, but he wasn't dumb, just annoying.  Once deliberations started, almost everyone was reasonable, each person was allowed to express his or her viewpoints without interruptions.  Of course, it was an open and shut case.  An older lady was suing the local mall because she tripped over a obstruction that was at the bottom of the escalator, and damaged her knee.

 

In some ways, I was impressed with the system, because I though that everyone quickly did the right thing.  In other ways, it was sad that a case that had no merit had been in the system for 3 years. 

[BIGH2001]

You have a few things wrong here:

 

1. I didn't say that Hardy's team wanted to bypass the bench trial as a formality. I clearly stated that they thought they had a chance to get the charges booted on account of the accuser admitting she had used drugs that night. That miscalculation cost them.

 

2. He is not presumed innocent in the eyes of the law. Legally in his new case he will be referenced as the appellant instead of the defendant due to the fact that he has been found guilty on these charges. He is the party that is now pursuing the court to change their judgment. This is a process initiated by Hardy and his team. The legal system has made their judgment on this case and their judgment is a guilty verdict. That much is not subject to debate. Hardy obviously seeks to change that ruling by challenging it in a higher court which is his right. That does not invalidate the first ruling. Only a successful appeal can alter that fact. This isn't some odd grace period where he's in legal limbo. He's a guilty man today. The fact that the jury isn't allowed to hear about his guilt in this crime is only a means of ensuring that no bias is introduced to complicate matters. An appeal of any kind demands fresh eyes on the evidence for the first time. Any presumption of guilt or innocence is detrimental to that purpose. That does not mean that Hardy is not guilty in the eyes of the court.

 

3. What I meant regarding a jury trial being dirtier is that there will be more of an opportunity for both sides to examine the precipitating events in extreme detail and that process will involve yet more witnesses, more digging into personal lives between now and the trial, and a lot more angles being pursued to find a convincing way to present the information by Hardy's team that portrays this woman as unstable and the aggressor and an effort by the victim's team to portray Hardy as a habitual hothead and law breaker. All this time between now and the jury appeal isn't going to be spent watching Panthers highlights. His lawyers and her lawyers alike are crawling around Charlotte right now trying to find the ugliest stories they can on both parties and trying to tie it into the case. Plus, it's incredibly likely that this trial will be longer and as a result more comprehensive. There will be some liberties taken regarding what is relevant to the case if either team is trying to exhibit a pattern of behavior.

 

4. As for his chances in the appeal, I will not speculate but will concede that having lawyers more highly regarded will likely mean that every potential avenue that exists to escape out of the back door will be utilized. I don't really see that as a cause for celebration as much as a highlight of our justice system being inherently flawed in so much as high profile clients being able to push people around with their checkbooks and influence.

 

 

1.  It's not a miscalculation.  Every Defendant charged with a misdemeanor in North Carolina has a trial with a judge first, assuming they don't enter into a plea bargain.  That opportunity was taken and he was found guilty, thus the appeal.  Her drug use is certainly relevant to her memory and her perception of the events that night.  It could have been considered malpractice for his lawyers not to inquire about her recent drug use.  I am sure it will come back up before the jury.

 

2.  He is still referred to as the Defendant.  He is not an "appellant" in Superior Court and would only be referred to as an appellant if he were to lose his jury trial and go to the NC Court of Appeals.  He is also still presumed innocent.  I think you are confusing an appeal to the Court of Appeals or NC Supreme Court with an appeal to Superior Court.  He is innocent until proven guilty and the jury will be instructed as such at his trial.

 

3.  They can do all the digging they want but unless it fits into a category of actual prior convictions for criminal activity or her recent drug use that day it's not coming into evidence.  You have actually made the case for it not to come into evidence.  Hardy cannot be convicted of a crime because he is a "bad person" and goes to nightclubs every weekend, gets drunk, throws money at strippers and stays out until 4 am.  The jury isn't allowed to hear any of that because it is not relevant to the charge of which he is accused.  

 

I have been a practicing criminal defense attorney for 6 years, I think my information on this process is more informed than yours.