Deflate-gate investigation complete

[eball]

"More probable than not" is another way of saying, "we're guessing."

 

Not even close. "More probable than not" is the same thing as saying "by a preponderance of the evidence" -- if you get a civil jury to subscribe to that assertion, you win.

 

It could mean 51% chance or 99% chance.

[Go Kiko go]

 

I thought that reasonable doubt doesn't come into play until the actual trial, and that prior to that, as long as a judge concludes that there's a reasonable possibility that a jury could find someone guilty, the case will go to trial?

 

What am I missing?

Nothing, you're correct. The only point to keep in mind is that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard only applies when a person is facing a criminal conviction, which isn't really analogous to these circumstances.

 

As judges tell jurors in civil cases, "You may have heard of the term 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' That is a stricter standard of proof and it applies only to criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. So you should put it out of your mind."

Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[Gugny]

I totally stand corrected. I appreciate the info, guys.

 

EDIT: It's refreshing to be corrected by people who aren't complete a$$holes about it. Thanks.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Gugny

[JohnC]

I agree completely with everything you say. I didn't mean to imply that the cases were comparable; it was more about what could happen if in the off chance this particular case ended up in court as a defamation charge (again, unlikely). Famous athletes often get off, it seems, although recently the Pats have been batting .000 in that regard ...

In general I agree with the tone of your responses. It has been fair, reasonable and proportional. You and I have placed this situation in the same context. Very many responders are very rabid over this matter. I'm much more subdued about it.

 

I see Brady getting suspended for one to two games. That would be a resonable league response. I then see Brady incensed and insanely motivated over the way he is portrayed. The driven qb will then end up with him holding up the SB trophy and symbolicly giving the finger to those he believed unfairly besmirched his reputation.

[Pneumonic]

 

While the report doesn't conclude that Brady directed anyone to do anything, the report does conclude that he was aware that the balls were being deflated below the required PSI values: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls."

 

And, in the end, this is all the league needs to potentially bury the man it seems; a more probable than not verdict culled from a firm that is a significant client of the judge, juror and executioner.

[thebandit27]

I think he's saying that while a grand jury may have enough to indict, a prosecutor won't take the case on because it's so thin and easy to undercut, which I think is true - at least in its current rendering. It would become a different animal if Brady's phone etc. were subpoenaed.

 

Ah...I'd bet that Brady's phone most certainly would be subpoenaed though.

 

Nothing, you're correct. The only point to keep in mind is that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard only applies when a person is facing a criminal conviction, which isn't really analogous to these circumstances.

 

As judges tell jurors in civil cases, "You may have heard of the term 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt.' That is a stricter standard of proof and it applies only to criminal cases. It does not apply in civil cases such as this. So you should put it out of your mind."

 

Reasonable doubt is a whole other issue...judges always have to make that clear to juries as well from what I understand. The word "reasonable" gets horrifically distorted by defense attorneys.

 

And, in the end, this is all the league needs to potentially bury the man it seems; a more probable than not verdict culled from a firm that is a significant client of the judge, juror and executioner.

 

So...in other words...no different than a civil case, which is the exact criterion stated by the league.

[webtoe]

In general I agree with the tone of your responses. It has been fair, reasonable and proportional. You and I have placed this situation in the same context. Very many responders are very rabid over this matter. I'm much more subdued about it.

 

I see Brady getting suspended for one to two games. That would be a resonable league response. I then see Brady incensed and insanely motivated over the way he is portrayed. The driven qb will then end up with him holding up the SB trophy and symbolicly giving the finger to those he believed unfairly besmirched his reputation.

 

I think it may be more like 4-8 games, due to his being uncoopertative during the investigation. The NFL needs to rely on teams and players to cooperate as they do not have subpeona power, therefore, in order to show that nobody is above the league, they will need to set a precedent.

Edited May 7, 2015 by webtoe

[eball]

There is nothing the league would prefer more than to be able to exonerate their golden boy Tom Brady. Anyone who suggests otherwise just doesn't get it. The NFL isn't "happy" about these findings and Wells' firm wasn't tasked with "making Brady pay." That's why Brady's agent's statement is ludicrous.

 

Use whatever language you want -- it's clear to any non-biased, reasonable mind that Brady knew about it and directed it, and then lied about it, and the NFL has no choice but to impose a relatively significant penalty. 2-4 games sounds about right.

[shrader]

From a legal standpoint the evidence doesn't meet the standard. It's not solid enough. If this case was examined by a supervising prosocutor who made the determination to formally procede with this case based on the evidence (very much of which is qualified) I'm very confident that it would not go any farther. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is more rigorous than what a reasonable person could conclude.

 

Then again, if this was a legal procedure, they may very well have gotten their hands on Brady's phone records

[DC Bills Fan]

The thing that really sucks is that the Pats will still beat us even with Jimmy G...

 

The league just gave them a reason to go 19-0.

[JohnC]

Again, assuming (in this mythical world where NFL rule violations could go to trial), this would be in the nature of a civil trial, since no one would be threatened with a criminal conviction or jail time. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the standard that would apply in such a proceeding is the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is the standard that the report applied: is it more likely than not that something did or did not occur? To determine whether there would be enough evidence for the case to get to a jury, the court would ask whether a reasonable jury could conclude that it was more likely than not that the rules were violated. Here, it appears that it a reasonable jury could so conclude (as the report so concluded).

You make excellent points. I was referring more to the criminal side of the system. I still believe even in a civil forum that there are too many qualifying descriptions to the evidence that can be reasonably challenged or undercut. We don't know what Brady's side of the story is. You may not give it much credibility but others may after hearing his explanation.

 

Without a doubt the texts were very damning (as I see it). But it has to be acknowledged that much of the language of the report is very qualifying and cautious.

[eball]

 

Then again, if this was a legal procedure, they may very well have gotten their hands on Brady's phone records

 

Of course they would have, and they'd have had probable cause (in a criminal matter) out the yin-yang. In a civil context, even without Brady's cooperation they'd have enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

 

Many of the posters in this thread have no idea how legal standards of proof operate.

[Gugny]

 

And, in the end, this is all the league needs to potentially bury the man it seems; a more probable than not verdict culled from a firm that is a significant client of the judge, juror and executioner. the love you take is equal to the love you make.

I just could not resist.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Not really:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/

nice

 

“More probable than not” equates to a “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard that applies in most civil lawsuits. It means that the evidence makes it more likely than not, in the opinion of the investigator, that “New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules,” and that “Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.”

Edited May 7, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[Pneumonic]

 

Ah...I'd bet that Brady's phone most certainly would be subpoenaed though.

 

 

Reasonable doubt is a whole other issue...judges always have to make that clear to juries as well from what I understand. The word "reasonable" gets horrifically distorted by defense attorneys.

 

So...in other words...no different than a civil case, which is the exact criterion stated by the league.

 

..... except in a civil suit I can draw upon a defense to prove otherwise.

[JohnC]

 

Then again, if this was a legal procedure, they may very well have gotten their hands on Brady's phone record

Yes you are right. But what would be the charge against him that would allow a subpoena of his phone records?

[Pneumonic]

 

Of course they would have, and they'd have had probable cause (in a criminal matter) out the yin-yang. In a civil context, even without Brady's cooperation they'd have enough to withstand a motion for summary judgment.

 

Many of the posters in this thread have no idea how legal standards of proof operate.

 

But if it ended up being like the Odin Lloyd case, the texts might not be admissible.

[thebandit27]

 

..... except in a civil suit I can draw upon a defense to prove otherwise.

 

The Patriots had ample opportunity to prove otherwise.

[The Wiz]

Yes you are right. But what would be the charge against him that would allow a subpoena of his phone records?

Tom-!@#$ery

 

But seriously, based on the evidence from the other two I think would be enough to subpoena him.

Edited May 7, 2015 by The Wiz

[thebandit27]

 

But if it ended up being like the Odin Lloyd case, the texts might not be admissible.

 

The texts weren't admissible because they didn't mention anyone by name. They said "NFL" and "you saw who I was with".

 

The texts in this case specifically mentioned Brady. Also, if Brady's phone were subpoenaed, there'd be zero speculation about whether or not he'd had contact with the two ball handlers (which he claimed he hadn't).

Yes you are right. But what would be the charge against him that would allow a subpoena of his phone records?

 

That strikes to the heart of why this discussion is something of a non-sequitur: this isn't a crime, and thus the courts aren't involved.

 

The guilt or innocence in this instance is determined with regard to the NFL's definition, which is a preponderance of evidence. I don't see how anyone can deny that such a preponderance exists (not saying that you did).

Edited May 7, 2015 by thebandit27