AB accused for 3 instances of sexual assualt & rape against 1 woman. Lawsuit filed against him

[Rob's House]

12 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

An ethical prosecutor would not bring charges against someone he presumed to be innocent.  Evidence maybe what created his presumption. But prior to a conviction, it is simply the prosecutors presumption that the person his guilty.  I don't know why you are offended by the idea that the legal presumption of innocence is only a requirement of the juror and judge. 

It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion.

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, Rob's House said:

It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion.

 

Do you always presume the accuser is lying? 

[GoBills808]

Just now, whatdrought said:

 

Right, but that bar is still based on evidence, not on probable cause. I think it's probably a line that gets blurred far too often and violates peoples rights, but non-the-less, the system is built to protect the individuals rights and their expectation to be treated as innocent- I know that reality looks much different though. 

Yep the last part is 100% correct and if everyone understood their rights better I think the legal system would be far better off. The first sentence though assumes a meaningful difference between evidence and PC when in reality (and legally) they are very much the same concept.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

Do you always presume the accuser is lying? 

Shouldn't the first response always be 'Why do you say that?'

 

I.e. provide proof please

[starrymessenger]

7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

There is enough.  Her testimony alone would be legally sufficient to support conviction of a crime/crimes.  Whether Brown should be charged, and whether a jury should convict on that testimony, are different questions.  But there is enough to convict  — it’s called “legally sufficient evidence” — even in the absence of a corroborating witness. 

 

**This point, of course, assumes that her version of events is credible and that she can testify credibly as to those events. 

 

Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.

[Cripple Creek]

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

[PlayoffsPlease]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Shouldn't the first response always be 'Why do you say that?'

 

I.e. provide proof please

 

Depends on the circumstance.   If you are the police and someone calls and says "there is a guy pounding on my door screaming he is going to kill me" I would expect the police to respond without asking for proof. 

[Rob's House]

5 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

Do you always presume the accuser is lying? 

Presuming the innocence of the accused =\= presuming the accuser is lying. I try not to presume anything. The presumption basically means you don't take adverse action against someone without strong factual support for the allegation.

 

The accuser is not in a similar position as the accuser is not typically one who is subject to sanctions.

[mead107]

BRADY didn’t deflate his balls 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

I don't know about you but I assemble a makeshift grand jury in my house and if they decide I have enough information to form an opinion I go with it. But not before.

[PlayoffsPlease]

2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

You are. If you asked to be on the jury you have to set aside that opinion or tell the judge you can''t be fair. 

[Rob's House]

2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

That's taking the principle to an extreme. I would say it's irresponsible to publicly declare someone guilty of an accusation without strong evidence to support your position.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

Nah, the whole presumption of innocence thing only meaningfully applies to parties involved in legal proceedings. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

11 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

Depends on the circumstance.   If you are the police and someone calls and says "there is a guy pounding on my door screaming he is going to kill me" I would expect the police to respond without asking for proof. 

That's a false equivalence. The police will certainly come out, because that is their job, but they aren't going to immediately put someone in cuffs unless they're presented with evidence of a crime. 

 

Basically they don't show up because they presume guilt, they show up to gather evidence and react accordingly. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by BuffaloHokie13

[whatdrought]

9 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yep the last part is 100% correct and if everyone understood their rights better I think the legal system would be far better off. The first sentence though assumes a meaningful difference between evidence and PC when in reality (and legally) they are very much the same concept.

 

Thats the part I’m unsure of. I have a limited (super limited) law background and in all of expierience I have only ever seen PC used and explained as a tool on the front end to allow the gathering of evidence. Do you have an example of PC being used to arrest/take someone to trial/indict someone, without there being evidence present?

[PlayoffsPlease]

5 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, let me get this straight, I am unable to form and express an opinion on an individual prior to she/he going to trial and being found guilty or innocent?

 

If your opinion is based on only what is published in the media, and not on personal knowledge, however it is probably not an opinion you should expect others to respect. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, whatdrought said:

 

Thats the part I’m unsure of. I have a limited (super limited) law background and in all of expierience I have only ever seen PC used and explained as a tool on the front end to allow the gathering of evidence. Do you have an example of PC being used to arrest/take someone to trial/indict someone, without there being evidence present?

 

Can't cite particular case law offhand but I am like 99% sure probable cause is the standard by which an indictment by grand jury is issued. Same for arrest/search warrants

[plenzmd1]

So looks like she is going to talk with the NFL next week..as she is gettimg married....... this wee   and this is the week you decide to file this lawsuit??

 

My guess is he is inactive on Sunday, but not on exempt list, and after meeting next week NFL will decide which direction to head

 

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/09/11/antonio-browns-accuser-plans-to-meet-with-the-nfl-next-week/

[whatdrought]

4 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

Can't cite particular case law offhand but I am like 99% sure probable cause is the standard by which an indictment by grand jury is issued. Same for arrest/search warrants

 

I’d have to look into it more... probable cause for search warrants make sense, even for arrest to some extent because arrest’s have like a 3 day shelf life before they have to present evidence to the GJ, I just don’t see how PC can be used to indict as it’s not evidence. 

 

Swerving while driving is probably cause to pull someone over, but it isn’t proof they were drinking and driving. 

 

The smell of marijuana is probably cause to search an apartment, but it isn’t evidence that there’s illegal possession.

 

A bomb dog alerting to a persons backpack is probably cause to search the backpack, but short of finding anything in the bag, what charge is there?

 

EDIT: Probable*

Edited September 11, 2019 by whatdrought

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, Cmdjr85 said:

This woman is a fraud. Most rape victims don't report it because they dont wanna have to relive the experience and face the accused in a trial. 

 Why not press criminal charges? Probablu advised that lying to law enforcement can lead to heavy sanctions. Nothing to worry about when going for money either your believed and you as plaintiff win. Or not believed and you lose.

 

 

 

You can't possibly know that as a fact.  None of us bystanders know for sure.  Let the thing work thru the system.

I'm sure being a Pats* fan sways your opinion.

[Reed83HOF]

Welp:
 

 

[unbillievable]

I don't believe that Antonio Brown would contact someone 4 years later. He is famous and has money, what would prompt him to remember her? It makes more sense that she would contact him. So if she's lying about that...

 

Given the two stories, Brown's version of invents sounds a lot more credible. The only reason her story can be considered reasonable, is only because of Brown's recent antics. 

 

I am absolutely positive that she only came forward now, because everyone was treating Brown like a crazy person, so her story would sound more believable. (this fact would not preclude innocence or guilt, only that it was good timing.)

 

In my opinion, this may be an instance of regret after the fact, especially with her upcoming marriage. She may have found a man that finally treats her right, and realized that the behavior of previous boyfriend's (Brown) was actually assault.

 

 

 

 

[Cripple Creek]

7 minutes ago, PlayoffsPlease said:

 

If your opinion is based on only what is published in the media, and not on personal knowledge, however it is probably not an opinion you should expect others to respect. 

WTF do you think that this place, and life is full of? Drop the piety act and join the real world.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I’d have to look into it more... probable cause for search warrants make sense, even for arrest to some extent because arrest’s have like a 3 day shelf life before they have to present evidence to the GJ, I just don’t see how PC can be used to indict as it’s not evidence. 

 

Swerving while driving is probably cause to pull someone over, but it isn’t proof they were drinking and driving. 

 

The smell of marijuana is probably cause to search an apartment, but it isn’t evidence that there’s illegal possession.

 

A bomb dog alerting to a persons backpack is probably cause to search the backpack, but short of finding anything in the bag, what charge is there?

 

In the instances you gave I believe the standard you're referring to is a 'reasonable suspicion', which is a lower standard of proof than probable cause. 

[Cripple Creek]

11 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Nah, the whole presumption of innocence thing only meaningfully applies to parties involved in legal proceedings. 

So, it is an ok thing for us to talk about here? I don’t want to break any posting laws and have the thread police come after me.

[Reed83HOF]

 

[PlayoffsPlease]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

WTF do you think that this place, and life is full of? Drop the piety act and join the real world.

with responses like this your random opinion of someones guilty or innocence is sure to be highly respected.  

[Cripple Creek]

14 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I don't know about you but I assemble a makeshift grand jury in my house and if they decide I have enough information to form an opinion I go with it. But not before.

That is a reasonable level of proof to me. I’m going to go with that. (Are pets suitable jurors in this instance?)

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Cripple Creek said:

So, it is an ok thing for us to talk about here? I don’t want to break any posting laws and have the thread police come after me.

 

I'll allow it

[YoloinOhio]

2 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

There is a child endangerment issue too? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

18 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.

 

I think SectionC3 is talking about what is sufficient under the law, not what is likely to be accepted as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the courtroom by a modern jury.

 

[unbillievable]

To everyone complaining that we need to follow some kind of protocol when discussing this, like "innocence" or "reasonable doubt"

 

This thread is literally a court of public opinion...

[SectionC3]

15 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

Testimony alone, or testimony together with circumstantial evidence? I would be surprised if a plaintiff's assertion could by itself suffice under any circumstances, assuming a general denial by the accused, but I don't know about criminal law and stand to be corrected.

 

I think you’re looking for “corroborating” instead of “circumstantial.”  E.g., evidence of physical trauma to the victim would be direct evidence of the rape and corroborate a victim’s testimony as to a rape.  

 

The corroborating evidence rule applies to accomplice testimony and confessions.  Testimony of a victim, standing alone, is legally sufficient to convict in a sexual abuse/sexual assault case.  That said, prosecutors are disinclined to bring a case to a grand jury (other than perhaps a child sexual abuse case) in the absence of corroborating evidence.  

 

So, technically, this case could be brought on the testimony of the victim alone.  But I don’t think that will be an issue because we have the text message exchanges that corroborate at least the contention that sexual intercourse occurred.  How that effects the forcible penetration element of the crime lies in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. 

[unbillievable]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

There is a child endangerment issue too? 

 

Brown has a daughter. I'm guessing they're discussing whether they should remove custody while they investigate.

[Kelly the Dog]

2 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

That is a reasonable level of proof to me. I’m going to go with that. (Are pets suitable jurors in this instance?)

Smart ones, which are the only kind I have. Parrots excel in this role.

[KD in CA]

30 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

It's offensive that such a large segment of society has such little regard for the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Too many people are quick to take punitive action against people before having enough information to form a rational opinion.

 

What if I just think Brown is an a--hole and want to see him suffer?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

33 minutes ago, bills6969 said:

I love how he’s already a distraction to New England.  Too funny

 

From your mouth to God's ears please.  May it be so!

 

 

[dubs]

Just checking in to see if the armchair lawyers and psychics have reported for duty. They have. Carry on. 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think SectionC3 is talking about what is sufficient under the law, not what is likely to be accepted as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" in the courtroom by a modern jury.

 

 

 

They’re related concepts.  A charge can’t proceed to a jury unless there is legally sufficient evidence to support the conviction of that crime, e.g., a certain threshold of evidence that establishes that the jury COULD convict of the charge.  Whether to convict of the crime based on that evidence, namely, whether the burden of proof has been met, is a concept that generally is referred to as the “weight of the evidence.”  “Weight,” in basic terms, speaks to the jury’s evaluation of the evidence and whether the trier of fact SHOULD HAVE convicted based on that proof.   

 

 

Just now, dubs said:

Just checking in to see if the armchair lawyers and psychics have reported for duty. They have. Carry on. 

 

No armchair here. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Just now, KD in CA said:

What if I just think Brown is an a--hole and want to see him suffer?

 

You'd be better off to break into his house and hide raw shrimp in his curtain rods. 

I think Brown likely has a "camp" that exists to insulate him from this kind of thing.