Jump to content

No criminal charges for Deshaun Watson; civil deposition 3/15


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

You don’t think he plays this year?

 

I think there is still a civil case live and likely an adverse finding that results in an NFL suspension. Whether that is a full year or part of the year hard to say. 

5 minutes ago, Big Turk said:

 

Doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.

 

Correct, it doesn't. And the legal position is that Watson is innocent. 

 

But I was making the point before people jump in saying "what so 10 women are all lying?"

Edited by GunnerBill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My impression is that the plaintiffs were looking to score a neat civil suit "pay it to go away" day from Watsin, and once other interested parties got involved with their own selfish reasons, it spiraled out of their control. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think there is still a civil case live and likely an adverse finding that results in an NFL suspension. Whether that is a full year or part of the year hard to say. 

 

Correct, it doesn't. And the legal position is that Watson is innocent. 

 

But I was making the point before people jump in saying "what so 10 women are all lying?"

Exactly 22 women have accused him. Kinda doubt all of them are lying. And I'm sure there will be a civil case along with whatever the NFL does? He's not out of the woods yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Exactly 22 women have accused him. Kinda doubt all of them are lying. And I'm sure there will be a civil case along with whatever the NFL does? He's not out of the woods yet.

 

No, he’s certainly not out of the woods. But he’s passed an important hurdle. 

 

The funny thing is, something creepy happened, of that I’m sure. What it was exactly, I really don’t think I want to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, thenorthremembers said:

So now this goes away quickly when he threatens to counter sue the accusers for defamation?   Looks like he will be back. 

 

He can do that, if he wants to.  It's a fairly standard tactic.  But it's a double-edged sword.  It would probably be better to settle with a non-disclosure agreement and no acknowledgement of guilt.

 

43 minutes ago, msw2112 said:

On the criminal side, there is no financial gain for anyone.  And while criminal cases are much harder to prove at trial (higher standard of proof), the standard of proof to get a grand jury indictment isn't that high.  Thus, if there is no indictment, it makes me think that maybe there's not as much to this as I originally thought.

 

The saying is "a good district attorney could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".  But if a district attorney/prosecutor does not exercise that power of persuasion, I don't think it follows that "no indictment = nothing to the case".  There could be a plethora of reasons, including influence, political, evidentiary, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The saying is "a good district attorney could persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich".  But if a district attorney/prosecutor does not exercise that power of persuasion, I don't think it follows that "no indictment = nothing to the case".  There could be a plethora of reasons, including influence, political, evidentiary, etc.

 

I agree with this, but it still makes me think that this case isn't the slam dunk it originally appeared to be.  I do believe that Watson acted in an untoward way to some women, but I now don't think it's as egregious or widespread as I originally did.  Plaintiffs attorneys taking advantage of the potential for great financial gain against a defendant with deep pockets is not a new thing.  I say all of this with a giant disclaimer - this is only my opinion. 

 

I don't know what Watson did, what he didn't do, and if he did something, how egregious it was.  The lack of a criminal indictment makes me think that the fact pattern isn't as damning to Watson as I previously believed.  If the facts were extremely strong, even a poor prosecutor would have gotten a criminal indictment.  To add to the comment about influence/political reasons, prosecutors and police are less inclined to stick their necks out against a high profile defendant (with a high profile lawyer) if the facts aren't air tight.  Nobody likes to lose or look like they are incompetent.  On the other hand, if the facts ARE air tight, prosecutors love the limelight provided by winning a high profile case.  Legal careers are often made on high profile cases, and beyond legal careers there are book deals, movies, etc.  That isn't going to happen here.

Edited by msw2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Exactly 22 women have accused him. Kinda doubt all of them are lying. And I'm sure there will be a civil case along with whatever the NFL does? He's not out of the woods yet.

 

He is out of the woods in the sense that he will now get to continue his career. But there is still a civil case and a suspension. But the "he will never play again" is now for the birds. It might take another year but he will play football again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is OLD. A NEW topic should be started unless there is a very specific reason to revive this one.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...