Joe Mixon video might be made public

[Smart]

A deferred sentence is 100% in line with what the average citizen would get.

No other incidents and the video has been sealed. And yes, a first time offender would very likely get a deferred sentence. Second, it's not domestic violence there, mr. Attorney.

Oh please. This is complete bullshit. I wouldn't give out a deferred sentence on a push with no injury.

If you punch a woman in the face and break four bones, you aren't "very likely" getting a deferred. That's a felony to the rest of us. Maybe the prosecutor offers to reduce it to a misdemeanor with 2 years probation and a 1 year backup. For the rest of us, that would be a bargain.

This isn't close to the ordinary range of punishment for an assault where bones were broken. To suggest otherwise is the the functional equivalent of saying five years is typical for murder.

 

[B_dub]

Oh please. This is complete bullshit. I wouldn't give out a deferred sentence on a push with no injury.

If you punch a woman in the face and break four bones, you aren't "very likely" getting a deferred. That's a felony to the rest of us. Maybe the prosecutor offers to reduce it to a misdemeanor with 2 years probation and a 1 year backup. For the rest of us, that would be a bargain.

This isn't close to the ordinary range of punishment for an assault where bones were broken. To suggest otherwise is the the functional equivalent of saying five years is typical for murder.

Judge Judy, is that you??

 

[romeo212000]

Oh please. This is complete bullshit. I wouldn't give out a deferred sentence on a push with no injury.

If you punch a woman in the face and break four bones, you aren't "very likely" getting a deferred. That's a felony to the rest of us. Maybe the prosecutor offers to reduce it to a misdemeanor with 2 years probation and a 1 year backup. For the rest of us, that would be a bargain.

This isn't close to the ordinary range of punishment for an assault where bones were broken. To suggest otherwise is the the functional equivalent of saying five years is typical for murder.

Like any of us give a shit what you think.

 

[Smart]

Judge Judy, is that you??

Not sure what this means. No, I am more qualified to talk about assault/domestic assault punishments that Judge Judy considering I make offers on multiple such cases per day, spend 2+ hours prepping such cases, and have brought four of them to trial in the past month (all four guilties, none of which had video). Not once have I offered, plead, or argued for a deferred sentence.

To be fair, though, I have never had a bench trial assigned to me on an assault caught on camera where a guy broke multiple bones of someone else. That case would be a felony, so it would go to a more senior APA.

I've also gone to multiple prosecutor conventions and a domestic violence convention. So yeah, I'm pretty sure I know where my offers stand regionally.

At the end of the day, we have a bunch of people telling outright lies in a topic they obviously have no idea about in order to protect a poor, disenfranchised football player who had a felony turned into a deferred sentence. It's pitiful. I love my team to death, but dear God, if people like Montee Ball or Dominic Cizauskas got off without punishment, I wouldn't tell lies to protect them. That's a pretty good moment to look yourself in the eyes and remember that football is a game and some things are bigger than it.

 

[4down20]

Oh please. This is complete bullshit. I wouldn't give out a deferred sentence on a push with no injury.

If you punch a woman in the face and break four bones, you aren't "very likely" getting a deferred. That's a felony to the rest of us. Maybe the prosecutor offers to reduce it to a misdemeanor with 2 years probation and a 1 year backup. For the rest of us, that would be a bargain.

This isn't close to the ordinary range of punishment for an assault where bones were broken. To suggest otherwise is the the functional equivalent of saying five years is typical for murder.

It's a case where rehabilitation/counseling would be considered the ideal response as it's a first offense. Additionally, the circumstances revolving around the incident are likely to be considered.

 

[4down20]

Not sure what this means. No, I am more qualified to talk about assault/domestic assault punishments that Judge Judy considering I make offers on multiple such cases per day, spend 2+ hours prepping such cases, and have brought four of them to trial in the past month (all four guilties, none of which had video). Not once have I offered, plead, or argued for a deferred sentence.

To be fair, though, I have never had a bench trial assigned to me on an assault caught on camera where a guy broke multiple bones of someone else. That case would be a felony, so it would go to a more senior APA.

I've also gone to multiple prosecutor conventions and a domestic violence convention. So yeah, I'm pretty sure I know where my offers stand regionally.

At the end of the day, we have a bunch of people telling outright lies in a topic they obviously have no idea about in order to protect a poor, disenfranchised football player who had a felony turned into a deferred sentence. It's pitiful. I love my team to death, but dear God, if people like Montee Ball or Dominic Cizauskas got off without punishment, I wouldn't tell lies to protect them. That's a pretty good moment to look yourself in the eyes and remember that football is a game and some things are bigger than it.

^funny because a family member of mine is in the process of getting a diversion for 2 assault charges.

 

[fordman84]

^funny because a family member of mine is in the process of getting a diversion for 2 assault charges.

with 4 broken face bones?

 

[Smart]

^funny because a family member of mine is in the process of getting a diversion for 2 assault charges.

1. Was the Victim cooperative?

2. If no, could they have proceeded evidence-based (ie did they have a video or a confession from the Defendant)?

(This would probably be the main reason to offer a deferred...ie if the option was a deferred prosecution or nothing)

3. Did they punch the person or do something else?

4. Did they cause injury?

5. How severe was the injury?

Again, Mixon committed a pretty obvious felony on video. I'm not saying he would get prison time or death or anything. But deferred prosecution? No fucking way. You don't make a felony with a Victim just magically go away without a conviction.

I would love anybody to show me another case, celebrity or otherwise, where broken bones led to a decision not to prosecute in a case where prosecutors can make the case. It is a certifiably insane result.

 

[4down20]

with 4 broken face bones?

No, in fact said person is somewhat pissed about it because they say they are innocent.

But the charge is the same either way, and it's a common resolution for a 1st time offender.

In my experience, it seems like the worse the crime(to a degree) the more likely they are to get lighter sentencing.

 

[4down20]

1. Was the Victim cooperative?

2. If no, could they have proceeded evidence-based (ie did they have a video or a confession from the Defendant)?

(This would probably be the main reason to offer a deferred...ie if the option was a deferred prosecution or nothing)

3. Did they punch the person or do something else?

4. Did they cause injury?

5. How severe was the injury?

Again, Mixon committed a pretty obvious felony on video. I'm not saying he would get prison time or death or anything. But deferred prosecution? No fucking way. You don't make a felony with a Victim just magically go away without a conviction.

I would love anybody to show me another case, celebrity or otherwise, where broken bones led to a decision not to prosecute in a case where prosecutors can make the case. It is a certifiably insane result.

I've been charged with a felony and had to take a lesser charge just because it wasn't the risk of having a felony on my record.

It was total bullshit, so you aren't going to get sympathy for me with the type of tactics people like you use because they can't do their job properly.

 

[B_dub]

Not sure what this means. No, I am more qualified to talk about assault/domestic assault punishments that Judge Judy considering I make offers on multiple such cases per day, spend 2+ hours prepping such cases, and have brought four of them to trial in the past month (all four guilties, none of which had video). Not once have I offered, plead, or argued for a deferred sentence.

To be fair, though, I have never had a bench trial assigned to me on an assault caught on camera where a guy broke multiple bones of someone else. That case would be a felony, so it would go to a more senior APA.

I've also gone to multiple prosecutor conventions and a domestic violence convention. So yeah, I'm pretty sure I know where my offers stand regionally.

At the end of the day, we have a bunch of people telling outright lies in a topic they obviously have no idea about in order to protect a poor, disenfranchised football player who had a felony turned into a deferred sentence. It's pitiful. I love my team to death, but dear God, if people like Montee Ball or Dominic Cizauskas got off without punishment, I wouldn't tell lies to protect them. That's a pretty good moment to look yourself in the eyes and remember that football is a game and some things are bigger than it.

 

[Smart]

I've been charged with a felony and had to take a lesser charge just because it wasn't the risk of having a felony on my record.

It was total bullshit, so you aren't going to get sympathy for me with the type of tactics people like you use because they can't do their job properly.

I'd never plead a guy who I felt was not guilty (or even short of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). I usually have the other problem, where people want to take my offers but say they are not guilty. They keep trying to get me to take the deal and I tell them I won't.

The State may well have the edge in most cases and have the power to force unfairly pro-defense deals. I would like to think it doesn't happen (that is an ethical violation), but I know I could if I wanted to. Assaults are a completely different animal. The defense has all the power because most victims don't cooperate.

But none of that applies here. There was a video. That takes pretty much any risk of losing the case away. That's why the result here is so laughable. I'd be ashamed if my office did this. It's not even a slap in the wrist. There's no conviction and it can't even be counted as a prior, so there is no slap at all.

 

[Smart]

Oh look, now I am getting bullshits from people based on posting what happens in my job. What part of that post do you object to, exactly?

 

[4down20]

I'd never plead a guy who I felt was not guilty (or even short of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). I usually have the other problem, where people want to take my offers but say they are not guilty. They keep trying to get me to take the deal and I tell them I won't.

The State may well have the edge in most cases and have the power to force unfairly pro-defense deals. I would like to think it doesn't happen (that is an ethical violation), but I know I could if I wanted to. Assaults are a completely different animal. The defense has all the power because most victims don't cooperate.

But none of that applies here. There was a video. That takes pretty much any risk of losing the case away. That's why the result here is so laughable. I'd be ashamed if my office did this. It's not even a slap in the wrist. There's no conviction and it can't even be counted as a prior, so there is no slap at all.

How the fuck do you know if a guy is guilty or not? That's the entire reason they have a court system and a judge to decide, not you. It's my understanding that most of the time it's not a matter of if you think someone is guilty or not, it's about the evidence you have because you think everyone is guilty.

"may well have the edge"? You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Let's see - you can take it to trial and maybe you'll be able to prove your innocence, or you can just plea guilty to the lesser charge and get on with your life.

You think that "may well" be an edge? It's what you all do, you trump up the charges to be as big as possible to try and get them to plea guilty to the lesser charge. What happened with me wasn't an exception, it was the rule.

It's rarely worth the risk, unless you pay for a big time lawyer - in which case you can damn near get away with most anything.

 

[Smart]

How the fuck do you know if a guy is guilty or not? That's the entire reason they have a court system and a judge to decide, not you. It's my understanding that most of the time it's not a matter of if you think someone is guilty or not, it's about the evidence you have because you think everyone is guilty.

"may well have the edge"? You are so full of shit it's not even funny. Let's see - you can take it to trial and maybe you'll be able to prove your innocence, or you can just plea guilty to the lesser charge and get on with your life.

You think that "may well" be an edge? It's what you all do, you trump up the charges to be as big as possible to try and get them to plea guilty to the lesser charge. What happened with me wasn't an exception, it was the rule.

It's rarely worth the risk, unless you pay for a big time lawyer - in which case you can damn near get away with most anything.

Of course I think everyone I charge is guilty. It is literally my ethical requirement that I think that. You do realize that I have the right to reject charges, right? I decline at least 25% of my non-traffic cases because I don't think I can prove the case or I think the person is factually innocent. If I charged someone I didn't think was guilty, I would be committing malpractice. I have no idea how you can be angry about that.

I don't dislike trials at all, and I'm not worried about the Defense proving their innocence. Again, I wouldn't charge a case that I expected to lose. That would be an ethics violation. My cases plead because both the defense and I think the offer is fair based on the facts and circumstances of the case. It isn't worth it for the defense to make a client pay $1,000+ to contest a charge they won't win and wind up with a punishment which is as bad or worse than my offer.

And no, I would never charge a crime not supported by evidence. I practice in a jurisdiction with seven judges. If I did that, someone would take the case to trial. I would lose. My credibility would be shot with the judges and shot with the defense attorneys. Even if you think I act completely in self-interest (which I don't), that would not make any sense for me to do.

 

[4down20]

Of course I think everyone I charge is guilty. It is literally my ethical requirement that I think that. You do realize that I have the right to reject charges, right? I decline at least 25% of my non-traffic cases because I don't think I can prove the case or I think the person is factually innocent. If I charged someone I didn't think was guilty, I would be committing malpractice. I have no idea how you can be angry about that.

I don't dislike trials at all, and I'm not worried about the Defense proving their innocence. Again, I wouldn't charge a case that I expected to lose. That would be an ethics violation. My cases plead because both the defense and I think the offer is fair based on the facts and circumstances of the case. It isn't worth it for the defense to make a client pay $1,000+ to contest a charge they won't win and wind up with a punishment which is as bad or worse than my offer.

And no, I would never charge a crime not supported by evidence. I practice in a jurisdiction with seven judges. If I did that, someone would take the case to trial. I would lose. My credibility would be shot with the judges and shot with the defense attorneys. Even if you think I act completely in self-interest (which I don't), that would not make any sense for me to do.

Save the bullshit for someone who doesn't know the reality of things ok?

Hell I've had them drop charges on me for pleading guilty to a lesser charge when I was actually guilty and it wasn't a trumped up charge. I know how this stuff works.

 

[fordman84]

Save the bullshit for someone who doesn't know the reality of things ok?

Hell I've had them drop charges on me for pleading guilty to a lesser charge when I was actually guilty and it wasn't a trumped up charge. I know how this stuff works.

Dude, there is video of him hitting a chick in the face.

Any video of her making racist remarks? No? Open case, close case.

 

[Smart]

Save the bullshit for someone who doesn't know the reality of things ok?

Hell I've had them drop charges on me for pleading guilty to a lesser charge when I was actually guilty. I know how this stuff works.

Okay, you can keep thinking that you "know" how the system works or how I operate based on one case. I gave you a very logical reason why I wouldn't do what you said I do.

Also, if your system were the case and the prosecution always overcharged, we would be losing trial after trial. And that's objectively not the case.

I make an offer in the case. The vast majority of time people plead to the offer because my offer is fair based on the facts of the case. A significant minority of the time, I am forced to dismiss based on witness issues. A pretty small percentage of the time, a case goes to trial. An even smaller percentage of time, I amend my offer based on new facts- whether it be facts not included in a police report, me hearing what my Victim says happened, a Victim's desire to wrap up the case quickly, me hearing about the Deft's life circumstances, or me losing an important but non-essential witnesses.

You can think what you want to think, but that's what my caseload is like. And that's true for my co-workers and the offices I student practiced at as well.

 

[romeo212000]

Dude, there is video of him hitting a chick in the face.

Any video of her making racist remarks? No? Open case, close case.

Not exactly. The video also shows her physically assaulting him first.

 

[4down20]

Dude, there is video of him hitting a chick in the face.

Any video of her making racist remarks? No? Open case, close case.

As far as that goes, diversions for 1st time offenses are pretty common. You complete requirements and such, and then it gets taken off your record.

Even without the diversion/delayed sentence he was at best looking at the same exact punishment. Probation, probably have to take some classes, do some community service and the difference being it stayed on his record.