This right here. A lie detector test can't be used in court but the police still believe in them. So if he took it and passed it then the police should have been wholeheartedly behind him just as if he had failed it they would have been all over him.
All 6 Suspended Players Back On Team
- Thread starter Kampus Korner
- Start date
Ownership of a gun isn’t exculpatory evidence in this case. It’s irrelevant. It’s like saying a guy who kills someone by hitting them with a car can have his mom testify at the grand jury her son didn’t own a car. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t own a car. He could have stolen or borrowed the car.
I am assuming that you now agree that the prosecutor may present exculpatory hearsay evidence to the grand jury.
We will have to agree to disagree as to the relevance. Relevance is not dispositive, but is evidence that has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
No actually the prosecutor can not present it if the grand jury doesn’t want to hear it as the rule clearly states. IF grand jury agrees to hear it, of course.
And ownership of the gun isn’t relevant at all and proves absolutely nothing unless he did own a gun. Then that can be damning evidence. Most guns involved in crimes are not legally owned by the defendant.
That is not what the rule says.
We disagree.
I could see a murder trial without the murder weapon where the prosecutor asked the mother of the defendant, “did your son own a nine millimeter hand gun” and before she could say “yes,” defense counsel states, “objection, ownership is not relevant as most guns involved in crimes are not legally owned by the perpetrator.”
The prosecutor can elicit exculpatory evidence from one of their own witnesses. That doesn’t mean the grand jury is required to hear from a defendant or hear evidence desired by a defendant.
I would assume when the case is a true turd the prosecutor will elicit exculpatory evidence from their witness to impress upon the grand jury that they should not indict. Everyone likes to protect their stats.
Y'all are spending too much arguing a bunch of legalistic mumbo-jumbo and not enough time celebrating. Why can't everyone just be happy for the team? I don't think y'all are happy enough!
It is EXACTLY what the rule says. The only possible explanation of you saying it isn’t is your refusal to actually read the rule.That is not what the rule says.
We disagree.
I could see a murder trial without the murder weapon where the prosecutor asked the mother of the defendant, “did your son own a nine millimeter hand gun” and before she could say “yes,” defense counsel states, “objection, ownership is not relevant as most guns involved in crimes are not legally owned by the perpetrator.”
As far as your example, it is lame and completely misses the mark. My example of the car ownership is applicable since it clearly shows lack of ownership, just like the gun, is completely irrelevant. Not owning a gun provides absolutely no proof as to whether he pointed a gun at someone at a party.
I read the rule and the rule is inapplicable to the situation I have repeatedly presented. But, I will quote Bluesnky, as Bluesnky said it more artfully than I evidently did.
It isn’t exculpatory at all that he didn’t own a gun. Just like it isn’t exculpatory that someone doesn’t own the car they drove and killed somebody with.
Bottom line, our Defense just got a lot deeper tonight. Someone needs to investigate the motives of the Dectective who pressed the bogus charges.
Sounds like a bunch of f@&king lawyers to me, Bro . . . .
These guys need to watch law and order. All the answers are there.
as for our players I hope they are in game shape and can play quickly. I’m not at all happy with how the university has handled it and I wouldn’t be surprised if a couple of those guys want to leave UK. Barney IMO has never been the type of guy to go to hell and back for his guys. He should have been fighting like hell for those guys to play once it was evident the arrest was questionable at best and there is little to zero evidence.
I’m not sure what Barnhardt could do . . . curiously, what are you suggesting he could have done?
I've been reading along and I think that Irish is confusing the word irrelevant with inconclusive. If Tisdale does not own a gun, this is inconclusive as to whether he possessed a gun on the day of the fight. Obviously. But it is not irrelevant. Here's why: If Tisdale's mother testified that he DID own a gun, it makes the question of whether he possessed a gun at the time of the fight more plausible. This is the point.
You cannot argue that the ABSENCE of ownership is totally irrelevant if the PRESENCE of ownership makes it relevant.
if I were the judge or jury, I would definitely want to know if Tisdale owned a gun. This question is not exculpatory nor inculpatory on its own, but it certainly pertains to how reasonable the argument for his possessing a gun is.
If Tisdale's mother commented on whether he possessed a gun at a party she did not attend, this is hearsay.
If Tisdale's mother can reasonably comment on whether he owned a gun, this is potentially testimony of interest to a grand jury, regardless if she is a biased witness.
You cannot argue that the ABSENCE of ownership is totally irrelevant if the PRESENCE of ownership makes it relevant.
if I were the judge or jury, I would definitely want to know if Tisdale owned a gun. This question is not exculpatory nor inculpatory on its own, but it certainly pertains to how reasonable the argument for his possessing a gun is.
If Tisdale's mother commented on whether he possessed a gun at a party she did not attend, this is hearsay.
If Tisdale's mother can reasonably comment on whether he owned a gun, this is potentially testimony of interest to a grand jury, regardless if she is a biased witness.
Last edited:
Yeah, there seemed to be something odd about the dynamics between the University and the Lexington Police on this. Generally, they share information pretty freely and that didn’t appear to be the case this time.
I also found it very interesting that UK decided to release the report from their initial investigation in response to the open records request. Usually, schools are going to hide behind FERPA on these types of things, so that was an unusual move on UK’s part.
Just speculation here, but it almost seemed like there was a bit of a coordinated effort on UK’s part to ramp up public pressure on this.
I think they should get a room.
Quite a few were saying that. Do you think anything comes of it, knowing this is most likely the motivation?
(Of course, families of the frat members may have pushed/pressured it to court)
I don't believe the system works anymore - to much injustice. " We the people" are being played by a corrupt system.
Our defense look great last week.
getting Vito back only helps that cause
getting Vito back only helps that cause
It will be interesting to see which of these six make it first onto the field for meaningful game minutes. We heard some praise of Tisdale, Williams and McCLain in the preseason and some talk that Phillips was doing good things, as well. Stoops, however, in one presser, seemed to be concerned that Tisdale was not disciplined and was just as likely to make a spectacular play as be coaxed out of position to give up a big play. This defense is doing well at not giving up big plays. I think Vito will need to be good at playing his assignment before he gets on the field. This is not Jordan Jones frosh or soph year when we needed athletes on the field. The safety room is stocked. Vito will need to show assignment control, I believe, before he gets real game minutes on defense.
Caveman Cat are you a lawyer?? Just curious. Irish is a lawyer or judge and knows his shit. So just saying, if your career isn't in law, you may wanna cease the argument. If not, you 2 have fun arguing semantics while we celebrate.
Yes sir 6 more to help us go New Years bowling!!
#BBN
Yes sir 6 more to help us go New Years bowling!!
#BBN
I'd love to know exactly what policy was applied. If it is some zero tolerance policy, it needs to change. Everyone on the planet could see these charges wouldn't hold up so why punish the players more harshly and worse, a second time. Its absurd. Stoops should be pointing fingers at the aholes who allowed this to happen. Make it public, we'd all LOVE to know.
Safe bet these days. Where can I get odds on that? Got some stray cash & could use some easy money
Blame them both. Someone's parents pushed this and found a willing partner in one lpd officer.
Blame barny because all the kids were already cleared during the school's hearings and this was all obviously trumped up to defend themselves against their admitted racial slurs
Lmao!! No... (of course, no offense meant to you, stuway.)
Caveman caftan... He's like a dog obsessively playing with a stinky tennis shoe when there's a steak in his food bowl. Probably keep posting for days
Last edited:
Considering 2020 didn’t count, maybe preserving a redshirt year in 2021 isn’t as big a deal as it would normally be.
If any of the guys still have a redshirt year and cannot be significant contributors quickly, I would guess the coaches may limit them to 4 games to preserve the redshirt. Otherwise, I think they’ll play ASAP.
LOL
I too assume Irish is a lawyer and I have attempted to show him/her the respect lawyers should show one another, even though I believe Irish is wrong.
Who cares about the minutiae of the case, all that matters now is they are back, and can at least take a few snaps if need be due to injury or whatever and provide much needed depth. Especially in our secondary.
Glad the guys are able to come back. Lot of interesting thoughts on here. Perhaps the reminder that CMS was concerned over Tisdales 'discipline' on the field is a heads up.
Whatever Watkins did must've been pretty far out there for Coach to remark he 'may' see the field again....pre season his name was thrown around a lot as a contributor.
Using Coach Stoops math, 18 weeks between march and now (total) away from participating in football activities is quite a stretch. HOPEful some of these guys will be able to contribute.
As for Mitch Barnharts part....end of the day he is a University executive AND employee subject to the advice and direction of his superiors and University legal branches.
And yeah....I would expect a couple of these guys in the transfer portal looking for a fresh start.
Glad this part is over.
Whatever Watkins did must've been pretty far out there for Coach to remark he 'may' see the field again....pre season his name was thrown around a lot as a contributor.
Using Coach Stoops math, 18 weeks between march and now (total) away from participating in football activities is quite a stretch. HOPEful some of these guys will be able to contribute.
As for Mitch Barnharts part....end of the day he is a University executive AND employee subject to the advice and direction of his superiors and University legal branches.
And yeah....I would expect a couple of these guys in the transfer portal looking for a fresh start.
Glad this part is over.
Matt Jones just said that he was told that several of the players practiced all last week
Likely means their was only a question about 1 or 2 guys. And they must have been cleared also. Good news!
