Jump to content

Texans' Deshaun Watson accused of indecent conduct in civil lawsuit; QB denies wrongdoing


HOUSE
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I’m no legal expert but the fact that two of the 10 bringing criminal cases did not file civil cases is a bad sign for him. And isnt a jury purposely selected to contain people who are not previously aware of the case? Not sure there is a “guarantee” it would be polluted. I randomly asked my cousin a couple weeks who lives in LA if she knew who he was as the situation had come up in conversation. and she said no. I’m sure they can get a clean jury together. Ultimately whether he’s charged and convicted is not part and parcel to his football future. If he’s considered good enough he will likely come back and play even if he goes to jail.  Only thing is Andy Reid already has a QB.

 

I am most curious right now as to what Roger does with the exempt list. They can’t really roll him out there representing the shield with 20+ Cases filed against him?

First the case would be in Houston where everyone knows who he is even non football fans.  (My wife hates football still knows who Cam Newton is. )  Second the press and social media down there be 10X worse and the chances of getting 12 people who truly didn’t know anything about it is slimmer than winning the lotto.

 

second as I said the reason. I charges are filed because there is no evidence he did anything. Unlike civil cases to get a conviction or heck even an a grand jury to endite you need SOME proof. Right now it’s all “he made me do this” with hi. Saying he didn’t. 
 

As for football they are tough when the player is either at the end of his career or sucks.. even then they usually get it wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PatsFanNH said:

First the case would be in Houston where everyone knows who he is even non football fans.  (My wife hates football still knows who Cam Newton is. )  Second the press and social media down there be 10X worse and the chances of getting 12 people who truly didn’t know anything about it is slimmer than winning the lotto.

 

second as I said the reason. I charges are filed because there is no evidence he did anything. Unlike civil cases to get a conviction or heck even an a grand jury to endite you need SOME proof. Right now it’s all “he made me do this” with hi. Saying he didn’t. 
 

As for football they are tough when the player is either at the end of his career or sucks.. even then they usually get it wrong. 


wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that many accusers, convicted or not, there is no way he’s not getting suspended for a good period of time.  If I am the Texans, I hold onto him until the legal stuff/suspension is done and then look to trade him and get the maximum value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:


wow all that legal lecturing and then you throw an “endite” in there 🤡.

Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PatsFanNH said:

Lmao hey I watch enough cop shows!! Lol seriously though I’ve seen it before.. there is zero chance to get an unpolluted jury. :)

 

No?

 

Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson?

 

Bill Cosby?

 

You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Beast said:

 

No?

 

Did nobody hear of OJ Simpson?

 

Bill Cosby?

 

You can hear about things all you want before jury selection. One of the questions jurors get asked is can they come to a just and fair decision regardless of who it is on trial.

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

Not everybody cares about football.

  • Shocked 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 


It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial.

 

End of story.

Edited by Beast
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

If you believe those jurors NEVER heard of those cases I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell to you cheap. Lol Also that question is stupid as anyone can lie one way or the other. (For defense or prosecution) 

 

They must not ask that question on the cop shows.

 

That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial?  

 

Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Beast said:


It doesn’t matter if they’ve heard of the case or they haven’t. What matters is can they be fair and impartial.

 

End of story.

Well if they/jury  already lied  not hearing about the case  (then ? ) 

Edited by Putin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

Agreed.  Jury selection almost becomes the most important event of any trial.  If, for instance, there is a high-profile case with a polarizing nature to it, whichever lawyer is able to be more effective with the jury selection begins the trial with a huge advantage.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

We kind of think the same about the way you "choose" your king/queen.

JK.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

They must not ask that question on the cop shows.

 

That’s his point - it’s not important whether the juror have heard of the case or not, the question is, can they be fair and impartial?  

 

Whether or not you think it’s stupid is irrelevant.

I believe the question is stupid because everyone comes partial one way or the other in those cases. For example up here the Boston Marathon bomber there is zero chance anyone answered that question honestly. Because everyone wanted blood after it happened and we ALL saw the victims faces. Also the OJ Case was perfect too for the other side, he was found not guilty because those jurors feared for their Lives and everyone else’s lives in LA if they convicted.  All I am saying is just because you have a question doesn’t mean people will be honest, there is a very good chance in high profile cases they will lie for one way or the other. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Putin said:

Well if they/jury  already lied  not hearing about the case  (then ? ) 


I don’t even know what you are talking about here.

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 


It’s not crazy at all. If people bring a prejudice into the jury box the whole case can be decided on that.

 

But we do have what you prefer but it’s called our Grand Jury process to see if there is sufficient cause to proceed with a case. To get back to your point, we’ve had absolute slam dunks of a cases presented before Grand Jury’s where, during the month they sit, there is one person that votes to no-bill all those cases. If that person sits on an actual trial jury, it will result in a hung jury. 
 

The process we have isn’t perfect but I have yet to hear of a better one.

Edited by Beast
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

Agreed on this. I got cross examined for jury duty twice (both civil cases). The first time I  thought it would be nice to sit on a jury for a week instead of going to work (I got paid either way) so I answered all of the questions in a way that neither the defense nor the prosecution would have a reason to disqualify me and I got selected. When the trial started I realized what a dumb-ass I was for wanting to be on the jury but fortunately the case settled that morning and I went back to work the next day.  The second time I made it clear that I couldn't be partial and I got thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The way you guys do jury selection is slightly crazy totally cray-cray to my mind. Allowing attorneys to essentially cross examine potential jurors to select a panel that they consider favourable to their case to me is completely contrary to the purpose of juries. In the UK the jury is selected at random from the population and someone is only removed from a jury if there are truly exceptional circumstances that render them incapable of remaining unbiased. 

 

FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem.  At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was.  

 

But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

FIFY. Though the cross-examination is probably less extensive and less dramatic than Bull and other TV shows make it seem.  At least when I’ve been selected for a jury pool it was.  

 

But I think you guys do civil cases completely differently - no jury?

 

Yep, most civil trials are judge alone in the UK. There remain a very small number of civil matters - false imprisonment, fraud and defamation - where there is a possibility of jury trial in theory but it almost never occurs in practice. Defamation was the last civil matter to have a presumption for jury trial (although again in practice it was a presumption that was always rebutted) but I worked on reforms under the coalition Government in 2012/13 to abolish that presumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...