Crowell to Alabama State

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by Oskie Volum

R fingerprints not taken anymore?? I'm no Horacio Cane but seems like CSi 101 to me. If his fingerprints r on it then no excuse. If not then I can see all the excuses/scenarios being thrown out there until one sticks. Especially when u get "free" services from a high powered local attorney. Not shady at all....

I said they had to find a way to tie it to him. If his prints are on it, then yeah, that would tie it to him. But none of that has come out yet. Attorneys often times give free services oh high-profile cases, if the person can't afford them. Gets their name out there, and then when other people mess up, they'll think "hey, let's get that guy that represented Crowell." It's a marketing thing, mostly.

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by bamawriter

Possession is 9/10 of the law. If that gun was in Crowell's car, and no one else speaks up to claim it, it's his.

It's his by the law, but in a trial it's a different story. Prosecutors don't take cases like that to trial, because they lose 9/10 easy, so it's not worth the hassle. It's plenty to get him arrested, but if they can't tie it to him, e.g. fingerprints, like another poster said, then they're probably not going to take it to trial. Unless the head DA is a Georgia Tech alum.

Above, I said they lose 9/10 easy. It's normally not that high I would say, but I mean in cases like these where the defendant is being represented by a big, hot shot defense attorney. Unless the DA is hard up over this and wants to make a big show, this one will plea out to some type of probation most likely.

[Oskie Volum]

Originally Posted by onefesternation

I said they had to find a way to tie it to him. If his prints are on it, then yeah, that would tie it to him. But none of that has come out yet. Attorneys often times give free services oh high-profile cases, if the person can't afford them. Gets their name out there, and then when other people mess up, they'll think "hey, let's get that guy that represented Crowell." It's a marketing thing, mostly.

I understand the marketing part of it. Still doesn't seem less shady when this kid is getting thousands of dollars of free services just cause he is a cfb player. Kids have lost their eligibility for less. I know people have the right to defend themselves the best they can yada yada yada but what's different then the Tat 5 of tOSU getting tats for "marketing"???

Not looking to argue just wondering that's all...

[bamawriter]

Originally Posted by onefesternation

It's his by the law, but in a trial it's a different story. Prosecutors don't take cases like that to trial, because they lose 9/10 easy, so it's not worth the hassle. It's plenty to get him arrested, but if they can't tie it to him, e.g. fingerprints, like another poster said, then they're probably not going to take it to trial. Unless the head DA is a Georgia Tech alum.

You have it totally backwards. He's not charged with OWNING a scratched weapon, he's charged with POSSESSING a scratched weapon. The DA does not need to prove Crowell bought the gun, or had the gun given to him. The DA simply needs to prove that he had the gun in his possession, and unless someone comes forward and says "That gun is mine, I brought it into his car, and he had no idea" then it's not going to be a tough case for the DA. Crowell clearly had the gun in his possession.

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by Oskie Volum

I understand the marketing part of it. Still doesn't seem less shady when this kid is getting thousands of dollars of free services just cause he is a cfb player. Kids have lost their eligibility for less. I know people have the right to defend themselves the best they can yada yada yada but what's different then the Tat 5 of tOSU getting tats for "marketing"???

Not looking to argue just wondering that's all...

Tat (pun intended) is definitely an interesting concept. What is the difference between a player being given tattoos, clothing, cars, as opposed to free top of the line legal services? Even if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. My guess is the NCAA doesn't want to bark up the tree of players' constitutional rights of getting the best defense they can have in a criminal proceeding. That is definitely interesting though.

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by bamawriter

You have it totally backwards. He's not charged with OWNING a scratched weapon, he's charged with POSSESSING a scratched weapon. The DA does not need to prove Crowell bought the gun, or had the gun given to him. The DA simply needs to prove that he had the gun in his possession, and unless someone comes forward and says "That gun is mine, I brought it into his car, and he had no idea" then it's not going to be a tough case for the DA. Crowell clearly had the gun in his possession.

Bama, I realize it was CLEARLY in his POSSESSION, but there is a difference between how lawyers and judges see the law, and how jurors see it. That's how defense attorneys make it in this business. Sure, the gun was in his car. There's no way to dispute that. If it was that open and shut, why would anyone ever even need to hire a defense attorney?

You hire one, because they'll attack the credibility of the officers who "smelled" marijuana but couldn't find any. They'll ask all of the other players in the car if they knew the gun was in the car, or if they had ever seen Crowell with a gun before. They'll find some things Crowell likely did with the team as a part of some type of community project or maybe even talking to a local group of school kids. And how this young man has had to deal with all of this and has been dismissed from the school of his dreams. Now, he just wants to go play football at a smaller college, so that he can get his education. Then, they'll ask the jury, "Do you want to take that away from this young man?"

Who knows? Maybe the jury will find him guilty, but it usually doesn't happen that way, and the DA's office knows it. Why do you think these things plea out all the time? If it's so open and shut, why doesn't the DA just go to over to the courthouse for a half-hour and send the kid to jail? Because it's not that simple.

[Oskie Volum]

Originally Posted by onefesternation

Tat (pun intended) is definitely an interesting concept. What is the difference between a player being given tattoos, clothing, cars, as opposed to free top of the line legal services? Even if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. My guess is the NCAA doesn't want to bark up the tree of players' constitutional rights of getting the best defense they can have in a criminal proceeding. That is definitely interesting though.

Exactly. Glad you understood my whole "yada yada yada" part. NCAA doesn't want to mess with that part but would be nice if they would figure out a way to say if u get free services from a top dollar attorney instead of a regular "court appointed" one. Maybe things could be different. We complain about these kids haven't a sense of entitlement and doing what they want, but we give them free passes.

Just dont like the hipocrisy when we say "we want these kids to succeed in life without football" when they r treated with kid gloves.

[terrypedigo]

He wont do time. Book it.

[bamawriter]

Originally Posted by onefesternation

Who knows? Maybe the jury will find him guilty, but it usually doesn't happen that way, and the DA's office knows it. Why do you think these things plea out all the time? If it's so open and shut, why doesn't the DA just go to over to the courthouse for a half-hour and send the kid to jail? Because it's not that simple.

DA's comes to plea agreements for a multitude of reasons, not just because a case might be tough to get past a jury. This case probably will get plead out, but I doubt it's because the DA is worried about acquittal.

As for your theory of the defense: your logic is way off. Crowell has had legal issues before, so the "this is a good kid in a bad situation" argument will have holes in it. And they had been at a party, so it was totally possible for the car to stink of weed without there being any weed. The credibility of the cops wouldn't be damaged by that fact. Plus they did the search by the book, since Crowell gave them permission. As for whether or not any of his friends had ever seen him with a gun: it may help the defense a little. But the DA wouldn't need to prove a prior occurrence in order to prove the current one. He either possessed it or he didn't.

Again, it will probably by plead down, and Crowell will probably just get probation. But either way, he'll have a guilty verdict on his record.

[Oskie Volum]

Originally Posted by terrypedigo

He wont do time. Book it.

I agree as long as his fingerprints arent on the gun, and his lawyers don't figure a way to get that evidence thrown out. The kicker is the altered serial#. If it weren't for that then we may have never heard of this issue, and he would still be on the team.

He also better hope they don't CSI the gun to attach it to any crimes cause then he is in a pickle that's for sure....

[YorkVol]

Bama State instead of Georgia State, or Leavenworth, I guess.

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by bamawriter

DA's comes to plea agreements for a multitude of reasons, not just because a case might be tough to get past a jury. This case probably will get plead out, but I doubt it's because the DA is worried about acquittal.

As for your theory of the defense: your logic is way off. Crowell has had legal issues before, so the "this is a good kid in a bad situation" argument will have holes in it. And they had been at a party, so it was totally possible for the car to stink of weed without there being any weed. The credibility of the cops wouldn't be damaged by that fact. Plus they did the search by the book, since Crowell gave them permission. As for whether or not any of his friends had ever seen him with a gun: it may help the defense a little. But the DA wouldn't need to prove a prior occurrence in order to prove the current one. He either possessed it or he didn't.

Again, it will probably by plead down, and Crowell will probably just get probation. But either way, he'll have a guilty verdict on his record.

The prior incidents I know of are the two suspensions he had in the 2011 season. Are these the only two you know of? The 1st quarter of the Vandy game, IIRC, was because of a "coach's decision." I don't remember anything coming out concerning legal issues about that suspension. The other suspension was for one of their creampuff games, and it was because of a failed drug test administered by the University, which most likely would me inadmissible, because 1. it was conducted by the university, and 2. it's irrelevant to the charges.

Now, you say they did the search "by the book." How in the world do you know that? I haven't seen anything out that details the entire search of the car. The only people that know how the car was searched are the people that were there, i.e. those cops and Crowell and the other players. I haven't even seen if they called a drug dog in. It was at a road block on campus. One would think that a drug dog would be readily available at that time of night. But who knows?

DA's plead out a lot of cases, due to a high volume. That's the number one reason. There is a long list of secondary reasons, and some of them are involved in this case. That's why I think this one goes nowhere.

And Bama, I ain't mad at ya. Just trying to get my point across. I mean, what are we gonna do about it anyway? Virtually beat the crap out of each other? Seriously though, I enjoy MOST of what you bring here. Just be on the lookout for a big upset in Knoxville this year

[tim]

Onefesternation. I believe they could use the prior failed drug tests against him if he testified in his own defense that he had never used drugs for impeachment purposes. I doubt his atty would allow him to testify though. In trial I could see his attorney offering alternative ways the gun ended up under his seat. In the end this case will be pled out with some kind of post conviction relief like expungement.

[bamawriter]

Originally Posted by onefesternation

And Bama, I ain't mad at ya. Just trying to get my point across. I mean, what are we gonna do about it anyway? Virtually beat the crap out of each other? Seriously though, I enjoy MOST of what you bring here.

Cheers

Just be on the lookout for a big upset in Knoxville this year

This is pretty low on my list of concerns.

[onefesternation]

Originally Posted by tim

Onefesternation. I believe they could use the prior failed drug tests against him if he testified in his own defense that he had never used drugs for impeachment purposes. I doubt his atty would allow him to testify though. In trial I could see his attorney offering alternative ways the gun ended up under his seat. In the end this case will be pled out with some kind of post conviction relief like expungement.

I think most of us are in agreement that it won't go to trial. If it did go to trial, I'm not sure if he testifies or not. Doesn't seem to be the brightest of kids, but he may have us all fooled. His attorney would have to be an idiot to bring up anything about drugs with him on the stand. The DA wouldn't be able to ask anything about it, unless the defense "opened the door." At trial, it likely wouldn't be brought up at all, and then in closing arguments, the defense attorney would likely say all the stuff about, "we have a good kid here that has never...and he's always... and blah blah blah."