All 6 Suspended Players Back On Team
- Thread starter Kampus Korner
- Start date
Interesting. I figured everyone but Tisdale had a good chance. It tells me the grand jury was provided more exculpatory evidence with regard to him than made public at this point. Just my opinion of course.
Wonder how long it will take them to get “ up to speed “ . I’m thinking they play the Georgia game.
Glad they are back. Get to work men, times a wastn'.
I wonder if there is any thoughts of only playing them in 4 games so as to not lose a year of eligibility?
This tells me there was nothing to it. If charges end up being dropped, the officer that filed charges should be terminated. This nonsense should have been cleared up months ago.
The whole situation just pisses me off. Do you waste a year of their eligibility for 2/3 of a season?
The whole situation just pisses me off. Do you waste a year of their eligibility for 2/3 of a season?
They can play in 4 games and not lose a year if they haven't previously redshirted.
Exactly. F Barney and UK on this. The charges were pathetic to begin with. I'll never forget this.
Tisdale’s mom said he didn’t have a gun. He passed a lie detector test some say it didn’t matter. But if he failed I would bet some folks would think it mattered.
The grand jury wouldn’t know he passed a lie detector test because it isn’t admissible. And his mom’s statement, while it may be true, is self serving and also not admissible. I imagine there is other evidence that was presented that was helpful to Tisdale.
I mentioned this summer someone somewhere was trying to make a name for themselves in law enforcement imo.
Are you saying the grand jury is limited by the rules of evidence?
I thought the largest piece of evidence in regards to the gun was the University interview that was released.
It said that the fraternity member who claimed there was a gun.....
1. Couldn't identify the person with the gun, then later said it was Vito Tisdale after not being able to identify earlier.
2. He said he saw 4 different UK players with guns.
I think the university review board was smart enough to realize this was BS considering nobody else at the party could substantiate 1 gun and this dumbass said he saw 4.
Yes. The Kentucky criminal rules of evidence specifically have sections on grand juries. It is also interesting that the defendant can request to submit evidence to the grand jury but the grand jury is under no duty to hear it if they don’t want to.
I didn’t see this about the guy saying 4 players had guns. Good chance some alcohol was involved. How could you convict anyone with this evidence. But if the DA put forth just the bad side with the players not allowed to speak until it went to trial it could drag on for some time.
This is good news. It appears to me that the system worked. While plenty on here disagree that UK should have held them out, I think that by now reinstating them they have news that the charges are not going to be pursued by the Commonwealth's Attorney's office. Until that point, I thought it was fair to wait and see. Now that they are back, I hope they all make a difference on the field.
It’s not my area, but I think self-serving testimony is usually excluded as hearsay testimony and, I believe, hearsay can be presented to the grand jury. I also think you meant the Kentucky Rules of Criminal Procedure. But, again, not my area.
Aside: the grand jury can reject evidence presented by the defendant, but a prosecutor can present all evidence, especially when he or she does not think they have a case that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
No grand jury in any state is going to hear a defendant’s mother testify he or she didn’t commit a crime if she wasn’t present at the scene of the alleged crime. And yes, it is officially the KRCP.
Actually you are wrong. Read the rule. The grand jury is under no duty to hear it.
Owning a gun has absolutely nothing to do with having a gun at a party. He could have stolen or borrowed the gun. You can’t possibly be that obtuse.
If presented as the defendant’s proffered evidence, the grand jury may hear it. If the prosecutor puts law enforcement on the stand and asks, “Did you interview the mother? What did she say?” “She said her son does not own a handgun.” Are you saying that would not be heard?
I don’t want to be obtuse. But, not owning or possessing a handgun is relevant to whether you had a handgun at a party. It’s not dispositive, but is relevant.
That is not how the grand jury works. Read rule 5.08. It clearly states “the grand jury may hear the evidence for the defendant but are not required to do so”. That’s in black and white and not up for interpretation. You clearly said the grand jury can reject the evidence in your post. You are wrong. They don’t even have to hear it.
You are being obtuse. And you change your argument when proven wrong. First you posted she can testify he didn’t own a gun. Which of course is beyond ridiculous because it isn’t relevant. Now you post “own or possess”. I am assuming his mother didn’t attend the party and so she couldn’t provide any evidence of whether he had a gun at the party or not. This isn’t rocket science.
I am not sure you wrote what you meant, but, the rule says that if the defendant notifies the commonwealth attorney that he or she wishes to present evidence, the grand jury may hear or reject. Agreed. But, I said the PROSECUTOR can present exculpatory hearsay evidence.
Practically speaking, the Commonweallth Attorney can allow evidence to be presented to the Grand Jury, they’ll go along with what the CA tells them. I don’t do much criminal law, but I once asked and was allowed to testify to the Grand Jury and give my client’s side of the story and he was not indicted.
Are you saying there is evidence his mother attended the party? Because if not, she isn’t testifying about anything because she doesn’t know if he possessed a gun or not. That is the bottom line.
If you are now saying you agree the grand jury doesn’t have to hear it, then I agree. That isn’t what you said in the prior post.
Practically speaking, that is true. The grand jury will go along with the Commonwealth Attorney. But the rule clearly states how the grand jury can proceed.
And there is no grand jury that is going to hear a defendant’s mother testify her son didn’t possess a gun at a party when she wasn’t present at the party.
Whew. No, I am not and have not said the mother attended the party. I am saying that whether the kid had a gun is in dispute. Let’s say the kid says he did not have a gun, nor does he own or possess a gun. The prosecutor may ask the investigator if the investigator interviewed any family and friends about owning a gun. The investigator may tell the grand jury he/she did those interviews, including the mother, and everyone said the kid did not own a gun.
LOL! Yes. And the Commonwealth can present exculpatory hearsay evidence. That is what I have been saying.
🤦♂️
Once again, owning a gun is not relevant to whether Tisdale possessed a gun at the party. So having a 1,000 witnesses saying he didn’t own a gun doesn’t shed any light on what happened at the party since ownership is completely irrelevant.
