ADVERTISEMENT

Lloyd Tubman

OK some reality checks on this story.

First, unless you live in a cave you will have noticed that the subject of domestic assault and sexual assault are kind of a big deal these days. So forget Stoops, UK is not gonna allow to live or attend classes a male who has been accused of rape by a female student until resolved. Simple enough answer, Lloyd can live at him but take UK classes online.

Second, being declared innocent might not be enough. If these charges are still in deliberation, it can only mean the accuser still says he raped he, and is willing to say so in court. And I'm sorry guys, if this goes to trial and a girl gets up on the witness stand and points her finger at Lloyd saying he raped me, his days of wearing UK blue are dun no matter what the 12 jurors decide.

Lloyd's only chance of playing for UK is if the GJ does not return an indictment. Simple but brutal reality of the present times.
 
stenchmyhouse and jauk: The terms of his bail as such that he must remain on house arrest. I assume he could enroll in online classes tho.
 
Even if the grand jury doesn't return an indictment he and UK could decide it's best for both parties to go in separate directions.
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
stenchmyhouse and jauk: The terms of his bail as such that he must remain on house arrest. I assume he could enroll in online classes tho.
I understand that...

I'm just saying that if someone hasn't been indicted, I personally think that they should be able to live their life until they have been indicted.

Just my opinion.
 
Originally posted by jpbky2:
Sounds like the justice system is running its course. I have been told that even if his name was cleared and he could go back to school, he was not going to come back to Kentucky.
Great. So we can expect to play against Lloyd each year against the University of Louisville??? That's basically what that ^^^ says to me.

Let him come back to UK. Our sports admin should put out some pro-PR on his behalf if this is cleared. If anything to keep him off UL's roster. His HS coach is a former UL player, for those who didn't know.
 
Originally posted by jpbky2:
Sounds like the justice system is running its course. I have been told that even if his name was cleared and he could go back to school, he was not going to come back to Kentucky.
UofL paranoia. UK's coaches have stood behind him and he wouldn't have the attorney that he has unless UK felt there is merit to his case. If he is cleared, he is cleared. I bet there are a larger number of students that have been accused and cleared of felonies at UK than you would think. When we were submitting our "fitness" requirements to take the bar exam there were a very large number of students having private meetings with the deans...
 
Stenchmyhouse: If you understand, then you would know that per the terms of his bail he is on house arrest. Which is way better than jail. It will stay that way unless or until he is found guilty of a crime (then likely jail) or if it is somehow dismissed. Remember, he is still charged with Rape.....a very serious crime. He is very lucky just to be on house arrest.

Until this is resolved, one way or the other, his life is on hold. Dont let the fact that he was on UK football team corrupt your judgment on the situation.



This post was edited on 1/16 12:22 PM by TNTUK

This post was edited on 1/16 12:23 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by Boyz_N_Blue:

Originally posted by jpbky2:
Sounds like the justice system is running its course. I have been told that even if his name was cleared and he could go back to school, he was not going to come back to Kentucky.
Great. So we can expect to play against Lloyd each year against the University of Louisville??? That's basically what that ^^^ says to me.

Let him come back to UK. Our sports admin should put out some pro-PR on his behalf if this is cleared. If anything to keep him off UL's roster. His HS coach is a former UL player, for those who didn't know.
If LT is cleared in this case I fear that this will come to pass...If LT is allowed to come back to UK(which I been told that the coaches want him back) then the local media will vilify the coaching staff and the administration at UK whereas if he ends up at epu then the reverse reaction will take place in the media...
smokin.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by SmackDaddy38:
If they can't get a GJ to indict on a rape case there must be ZERO evidence.I just read the arrest warrant and there is evidence, as there were bite marks by him and the girl, which is his ex-girlfriend, and the other physical evidence collected.

If I were UK, I would stay away from this one, which is why he was suspended immediately after the arrest.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2014/10/08/document-lloyd-tubman-arrest-warrant/16920617/

This post was edited on 1/16 12:25 PM by Hacksaw Cat
 
Yeah, I bite/have been bit during sex too. Had an ex-gf who loved it, doesnt really prove anything in this case.
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
Stenchmyhouse: If you understand, then you would know that per the terms of his bail he is on house arrest. Which is way better than jail. It will stay that way unless or until he is found guilty of a crime (then likely jail) or if it is somehow dismissed. Remember, he is still charged with Rape.....a very serious crime. He is very lucky just to be on house arrest.

Until this is resolved, one way or the other, his life is on hold. Dont let the fact that he was on UK football team corrupt your judgment on the situation.



This post was edited on 1/16 12:22 PM by TNTUK

This post was edited on 1/16 12:23 PM by TNTUK
This gets to the very heart of question. He should be under house arrest until it is resolved, but there should be a very strict time limit on how long you can keep someone under arrest, house or otherwise, without an indictment. Surely there is a drop dead date by which there has to be an indictment or he is no longer under house arrest. If there is not, then your rights can easily be stripped away for very long periods of time based solely on an accusation. I have no idea whether he is innocent or not, but I believe that all people should be quickly processed or set free. Are you saying there is no date certain that he will no longer be under house arrest if they fail to bring the case before the Grand Jury?
 
^So you want accused rapists on the streets until their trial? Generally speaking, the answer to that is no. This situation is no different. And to answer your question. There is no date certain to bring the indictment, unless you are in jail (60 day rule). Certainly his atty can request a bond review hearing and see if the Court would loosen the current restrictions, but not likely to be successful

Further...most people who cant afford bail (indigent) who get public defenders as attorneys (I used to be one) languish in jail until they plea guilty to something and serve out their sentence, or until they go to trial. If found guilty they continue to be in jail until they serve out.

Let's assume Tubman couldnt make bail. A) The GJ would have indicted him by now (60 day rule); B) He would have been arraigned in Circuit Court; and C) His first pretrial conference would likely be in February....looking at a trial date 6-12 months from now. While languishing in jail.

Our criminal justice system just doesnt let those charged with Rape or other violent crimes to just roam the streets. And most would say for good reason.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:21 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by Hacksaw Cat:
Originally posted by SmackDaddy38:
If they can't get a GJ to indict on a rape case there must be ZERO evidence.I just read the arrest warrant and there is evidence, as there were bite marks by him and the girl, which is his ex-girlfriend, and the other physical evidence collected.

If I were UK, I would stay away from this one, which is why he was suspended immediately after the arrest.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sports/college/kentucky/2014/10/08/document-lloyd-tubman-arrest-warrant/16920617/

This post was edited on 1/16 12:25 PM by Hacksaw Cat
This one is a slippery slope. Let me preface this by saying that if he is guilty, I hope that he is punished to the fullest extent of the law, as this kind of behavior should not be welcomed or allowed at the UK campus, or anywhere else for that matter. That said, there is a difference between evidence that a crime was committed, and evidence that the two were simply having sex.
I don't exactly like the fact that the person said to be comforting the alleged victim is labelled as "Witness B", being that you have to physically be there and see something happen to be considered a witness. That's my first problem with the warrant. Secondly, it states that there are visible bite marks on the shoulder blade of the alleged victim, but not on Tubman. I would feel that if she bit him as hard as she could between the thumb and index finger, there would be a bite mark on him as well. I also have to ask myself "If Tubman went there with the intention to rape her if she wouldn't do anything willingly, why would so much obvious physical evidence be left behind"?
No condom used, he used her white towel for himself, and left that there, and I have to feel like if you know that you just committed a heinous crime, why would you leave behind so much obvious evidence?
Then there's the way that the warrant phrases the sentence "Victim A stated that she was able to push herself up and stand away from Mr. Tubman".
A female able to push away a 6'5 ~250 pound collegiate athlete who is imposing his will on her is a tough buy in itself. Pair all of this with the fact that they were previously a couple, she signed for him to be allowed to come into her room, alone, and a warrant that is written that contains some seemingly shaky parts in the story, like casually looking up and just then noticing him not having any clothes on. If she was busy writing a paper for class, why did she invite him into her dorm?

Like I said, if he is guilty, I wish nothing more than for him to be punished appropriately, and receive everything that he deserves for what he has done.
But if he's not, he shouldn't be punished. If it was casual, which is common between exes these days, and she accused him out of spite, then he should not be punished. Those of you who are reading the warrant alone and saying "yep, he did it, just look at the warrant", need to keep a clear head and not be overwhelmed by the thought that the accused committed a heinous crime. A warrant is, was, and always will be a very one sided interpretation of what supposedly occurred. It lacks very key things to a case, such as the defendant's own testimony as to what happened.
It is very difficult to prosecute a rape case, especially one where there are no witnesses, the two involved in the case were in a previous relationship, and the alleged victim invited the accused into her dorm. There are so many blind spots to this case, It's understandable why it would take the grand jury a long period of time to decide whether or not this should go to court. My only hope is that the grand jury gets it right. If he is innocent though, he shouldn't have his life ruined. That is my view on the whole situation.
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
Stenchmyhouse: If you understand, then you would know that per the terms of his bail he is on house arrest. Which is way better than jail. It will stay that way unless or until he is found guilty of a crime (then likely jail) or if it is somehow dismissed. Remember, he is still charged with Rape.....a very serious crime. He is very lucky just to be on house arrest.

Until this is resolved, one way or the other, his life is on hold. Dont let the fact that he was on UK football team corrupt your judgment on the situation.

This post was edited on 1/16 12:22 PM by TNTUK

This post was edited on 1/16 12:23 PM by TNTUK
Right, he is under house arrest-----and his life put on hold, his reputation destroyed, and probably unable to continue his education at UK whether he is guilty or not, before he is found guilty of anything. It doesn't matter to me whether he can play football or not, I just find that not entirely proper, there does seem to be some pretty good evidence that he isn't guilty.

I still think that a GREAT injustice was done in the OJ case, and it doesn't matter one bit if he were guilty or not, still a glaring miscarriage of justice. If he was guilty (and I THINK he probably was) then he got away with a BRUTAL double murder, but if he wasn't he was locked up in jail for a long time and had to spend most of his money defending himself (and the jury did find him not guilty), in EITHER case a terrible failure of the justice system. And a big problem is that if OJ was just some Joe off the street he probably wouldn't have very much of a legal representative either, the Public Defenders are usually new lawyers, the ones that reach the DA level promoted to that level. OJ would have never been out of jail if he hadn't had money, and he wouldn't have had the book thrown at him in his present imprisonment if not for the prejudice from the murders.

If you like horror stories, read Adams vs Texas, and the condensed books do make you miss a lot of the prose but you still get the story in a lot less time. I got a free subscription to the Reader's Digest for a year long ago for being Valedictorian of my small high school class, it was a nice gift.
 
Jauk: He is currently charged with Rape. Sorry bud, you dont get much freedom until you are absolved of the crime, or you are found guilty and serve out your time. Thats how it works....and rightfully so.

Btw...house arrest is considered "freedom" as compared to the alternative of jail. Tubman is lucky. The vast majority charged with Rape arent so lucky.
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
^So you want accused rapists on the streets until their trial? Generally speaking, the answer to that is no. This situation is no different. And to answer your question. There is no date certain to bring the indictment, unless you are in jail (60 day rule). Certainly his atty can request a bond review hearing and see if the Court would loosen the current restrictions, but not likely to be successful

Further...most people who cant afford bail (indigent) who get public defenders as attorneys (I used to be one) languish in jail until they plea guilty to something and serve out their sentence, or until they go to trial. If found guilty they continue to be in jail until they serve out.

Let's assume Tubman couldnt make bail. A) The GJ would have indicted him by now (60 day rule); B) He would have been arraigned in Circuit Court; and C) His first pretrial conference would likely be in February....looking at a trial date 6-12 months from now. While languishing in jail.

Our criminal justice system just doesnt let those charged with Rape or other violent crimes to just roam the streets. And most would say for good reason.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:21 PM by TNTUK
I think you missed my point. I said nothing about putting accused rapists on the street while waiting for trial. What I said is that there should be a reasonable amount of time by which they have to bring a case against him or he can no longer be under arrest, house or jail. Trying to protect the public interest is not a good reason to strip someone of their rights. If I am reading what you wrote correctly, a person can be accused of something and put under house arrest indefinitely, without a case ever being brought against him. So they could conceivably wait 5 years, 10 years, without bringing the case to the Grand Jury and he would stay under house arrest the whole time. If that is accurate, then it needs to change. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you can be under house arrest indefinitely without anyone having to prove that you are guilty in court, then we have no rights, and the system is broken. If I am not reading your response correctly, then at what point in time can they no longer keep him under arrest without bringing a case against him?

This post was edited on 1/16 1:44 PM by cat_in_the_hat
 
I would imagine it will be brought before the GJ in due time. It wont be indefinite thats for sure. Probably sooner rather than later.



This post was edited on 1/16 1:49 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:
Originally posted by TNTUK:
^So you want accused rapists on the streets until their trial? Generally speaking, the answer to that is no. This situation is no different. And to answer your question. There is no date certain to bring the indictment, unless you are in jail (60 day rule). Certainly his atty can request a bond review hearing and see if the Court would loosen the current restrictions, but not likely to be successful

Further...most people who cant afford bail (indigent) who get public defenders as attorneys (I used to be one) languish in jail until they plea guilty to something and serve out their sentence, or until they go to trial. If found guilty they continue to be in jail until they serve out.

Let's assume Tubman couldnt make bail. A) The GJ would have indicted him by now (60 day rule); B) He would have been arraigned in Circuit Court; and C) His first pretrial conference would likely be in February....looking at a trial date 6-12 months from now. While languishing in jail.

Our criminal justice system just doesnt let those charged with Rape or other violent crimes to just roam the streets. And most would say for good reason.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:21 PM by TNTUK
I think you missed my point. I said nothing about putting accused rapists on the street while waiting for trial. What I said is that there should be a reasonable amount of time by which they have to bring a case against him or he can no longer be under arrest, house or jail. Trying to protect the public interest is not a good reason to strip someone of their rights. If I am reading what you wrote correctly, a person can be accused of something and put under house arrest indefinitely, without a case ever being brought against him. So they could conceivably wait 5 years, 10 years, without bringing the case to the Grand Jury and he would stay under house arrest the whole time. If that is accurate, then it needs to change. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you can be under house arrest indefinitely without having to prove that someone is guilty in court, then we have no rights, and the system is broken. If I am not reading your response correctly, then at what point in time can they no longer keep him under arrest without bringing a case against him?
The grand jury has 60 days to decide whether or not criminal charges should be brought. If he is indicted by the grand jury, he will be formally charged and will have to wait for his trial date. If not, and the 60 days rings out, it will become a no true bill and all charges will be dropped.
 
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
I would imagine it will be brought before the GJ in due time. It wont be indefinite thats for sure.

But as I pointed out....those not able to make bond, or get a deal like Tubman are actually behind bars the whole time. Before they are eventually convicted. Sometimes up to 6-12 months or more.
I understand he is getting better treatment than someone who can't post bail. I'm just shocked that a person can theoretically be held under house arrest indefinitely without a case being brought against them to a Grand Jury. I'm not talking about what normally happens, I'm talking about what is theoretically possible under the law. Surely the system cannot be manipulated like this. That means a person could technically serve a sentence while waiting to be indicted. Where is the check against this kind of abuse? I just assumed there would be checks a balances on both sides than ensure a speedy resolution of the indictment process. I'm not saying it happens a lot, but if it is possible to do this, someone has used it somewhere vindictively against another person.
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
So let me get this straight...I've been trying to follow, but want to be sure. The GJ has 60 days after arraignment to bring the case to trial if he is sitting in jail. But since he is on house arrest they have an infinite amount of time? Or did I miss the day deadline for that?
 
Maybe that could be a possible issue in the court system in Kentucky, I don't actually know the answer to that. I can't fathom the idea that a person could be held in house arrest for years for a crime that the grand jury hasn't even had enough evidence to indict him on.
I feel like he could probably make a motion for dismissal or something, if the 60 day rule doesn't apply to him.
 
One of the big problems is that to the lawyers whether the person is guilty or innocent is secondary to them winning the case, and unless the accused has money or some other support then he probably isn't going to have the best lawyer. Read the book, you won't regret it, the DA for Dallas had never lost a case, and he wasn't about to lose one as long as he could frame a suspect.

And, as I said, at the end of it the clan of lawyers said he did nothing improper, although an innocent man spent about seven years on death row and another five on a chain gang while the guilty man was a lifetime criminal that ended up killing a man trying to defend his girl friend from rape by the guilty party, the only way the truth ever did come out.

But the sickening part of the whole story was the tightly knit clan of lawyers saying the DA did nothing improper.
 
Originally posted by jauk11:
One of the big problems is that to the lawyers whether the person is guilty or innocent is secondary to them winning the case, and unless the accused has money or some other support then he probably isn't going to have the best lawyer. Read the book, you won't regret it, the DA for Dallas had never lost a case, and he wasn't about to lose one as long as he could frame a suspect.

And, as I said, at the end of it the clan of lawyers said he did nothing improper, although an innocent man spent about seven years on death row and another five on a chain gang while the guilty man was a lifetime criminal that ended up killing a man trying to defend his girl friend from rape by the guilty party, the only way the truth ever did come out.

But the sickening part of the whole story was the tightly knit clan of lawyers saying the DA did nothing improper.
Well that is not the problem here, UK has hired a fine criminal defense attorney for Tubman.
 
Is UK really supplying attorneys for him? This seems odd but I don't know how this all works.

I could see UK supplying a lawyer if an athlete had an issue with the NCAA but not when it is a criminal case. Can someone clear this up please
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.

This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
 
Originally posted by cat_in_the_hat:

Originally posted by TNTUK:
I would imagine it will be brought before the GJ in due time. It wont be indefinite thats for sure.

But as I pointed out....those not able to make bond, or get a deal like Tubman are actually behind bars the whole time. Before they are eventually convicted. Sometimes up to 6-12 months or more.
I understand he is getting better treatment than someone who can't post bail. I'm just shocked that a person can theoretically be held under house arrest indefinitely without a case being brought against them to a Grand Jury. I'm not talking about what normally happens, I'm talking about what is theoretically possible under the law. Surely the system cannot be manipulated like this. That means a person could technically serve a sentence while waiting to be indicted. Where is the check against this kind of abuse? I just assumed there would be checks a balances on both sides than ensure a speedy resolution of the indictment process. I'm not saying it happens a lot, but if it is possible to do this, someone has used it somewhere vindictively against another person.
As I previously mentioned....it won't be indefinite. Further, the longer it goes, the attorney representing Tubman (a good one btw) would eventually motion the Court to review the bond conditions currently in place to a possible lower restriction - such as ankle monitoring, etc.
 
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:


Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.



This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.





This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:


Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.



This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.





This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
That's exactly what WITHOUT PREJUDICE means. The current case would be dismissed. Any bond conditions removed. But the case could proceed through direct submission to the grand jury.

You were a public defender but didn't understand a basic concept of criminal procedure?
 
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:




Originally posted by TNTUK:



Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:





Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.






This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.








This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
That's exactly what WITHOUT PREJUDICE means. The current case would be dismissed. Any bond conditions removed. But the case could proceed through direct submission to the grand jury.

You were a public defender but didn't understand a basic concept of criminal procedure?
So you are going the jerk route. Are you an attorney?

The prosecutor is not going to dismiss the case without the consent of the alleged victim. I had one no true bill issued in my time as a PD.....guess what, the charges were never "dismissed" and in fact were brought back up in front of the grand jury about a year down the road. That does not constitute a "dismissal without prejudice" - there would have to be an official Court Order to dismiss a case.

In the case of a no true bill, there is not official Court Order dismissing (b/c neither the District or Circuit Courts claim to have jurisdiction over a case that is in "limbo"......District says it's not theirs b/c the Prelim Hearing was waived onto Circuit; and Circuit says it's not ours until an indictment occurs and the defendant is arraigned in Circuit.








This post was edited on 1/16 2:04 PM by TNTUK

This post was edited on 1/16 2:15 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:


Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.



This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.





This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
In the state of Kentucky, house arrest, probation, or jail time does not count along with the time a person has to serve in prison if convicted. Meaning, if somebody is in jail waiting for trial for 9 months, goes to trial, is convicted, has to go to prison for 5 years, that 9 months does not count towards the 5 years that the person has to serve.

It is dismissed, but not in the case of a felony. If it is a misdemeanor crime, then all charges are dropped after 60 days if the grand jury is unable to provide sufficient evidence to charge the accused, and send the case to trial. Felonies in the state of Kentucky do not apply to the statute of limitations. If this goes to grand jury without sufficient evidence to go to trial, then he will be free to go. If more evidence is found (rare in the case of rape, especially in a college dorm), it may go to the grand jury again.

The problem with this one is that there is no evidence that differentiates this from anything more than casual sex, and that could be the issue that the grand jury is facing when taking the evidence into account, paired with her story. If you're studying, why invite your ex into your dorm, alone? If he needed to talk and you really didn't want to see him, why not just speak for a moment while you were on the phone instead of going down, signing him in, etc.?
It's just a really slippery slope.
 
I'm not sure if any of our justice system is that good, so, because he is a very good football prospect our state University is allowed to provide him with excellent legal defense while some poor Joe Blow gets a public defender for stealing something to provide some food for his starving family? NO excuse for stealing IMO, they cost ten times what they steal in all the expense and trouble of safeguarding what you have earned, but still----

But then what should we expect when not only our justice system is dominated by lawyers but our legislative system is also dominated by lawyers and our executive system is also dominated by lawyers.

Maybe someday the voters will wake up.

JMO
 
Originally posted by Rhavicc:


Originally posted by TNTUK:


Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:




Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.





This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.







This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
In the state of Kentucky, house arrest, probation, or jail time does not count along with the time a person has to serve in prison if convicted. Meaning, if somebody is in jail waiting for trial for 9 months, goes to trial, is convicted, has to go to prison for 5 years, that 9 months does not count towards the 5 years that the person has to serve.

It is dismissed, but not in the case of a felony. If it is a misdemeanor crime, then all charges are dropped after 60 days if the grand jury is unable to provide sufficient evidence to charge the accused, and send the case to trial. Felonies in the state of Kentucky do not apply to the statute of limitations. If this goes to grand jury without sufficient evidence to go to trial, then he will be free to go. If more evidence is found (rare in the case of rape, especially in a college dorm), it may go to the grand jury again.

The problem with this one is that there is no evidence that differentiates this from anything more than casual sex, and that could be the issue that the grand jury is facing when taking the evidence into account, paired with her story. If you're studying, why invite your ex into your dorm, alone? If he needed to talk and you really didn't want to see him, why not just speak for a moment while you were on the phone instead of going down, signing him in, etc.?
It's just a really slippery slope.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
All I can say is that when I practiced as a PD, ankle monitoring and house incarceration (very rare) counted toward jail credit. There is a push to keep our prisons from getting overpopulated.....this was one way of addressing that issue.

I agree with you that probation doesn't count....and I never said it did in the first place.
This post was edited on 1/16 4:14 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by TNTUK:
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:



Originally posted by TNTUK:


Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:




Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.





This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.







This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
That's exactly what WITHOUT PREJUDICE means. The current case would be dismissed. Any bond conditions removed. But the case could proceed through direct submission to the grand jury.

You were a public defender but didn't understand a basic concept of criminal procedure?
So you are going the jerk route. Are you an attorney?

The prosecutor is not going to dismiss the case without the consent of the alleged victim. I had one no true bill issued in my time as a PD.....guess what, the charges were never "dismissed" and in fact were brought back up in front of the jury about a year down the road. That does not constitute a "dismissal without prejudice" - there would have to be an official Court Order to dismiss a case.

In the case of a no true bill, there is not official Court Order dismissing (b/c neither the District or Circuit Courts claim to have jurisdiction over a case that is in "limbo"......District says it's not theirs b/c the Prelim Hearing was waived onto Circuit; and Circuit says it's not ours until an indictment occurs and the defendant is arraigned in Circuit.







This post was edited on 1/16 2:04 PM by TNTUK
I am.

Neither the prosecutor, the complaining witness, nor the judge have any discretion. It's automatic dismissal without prejudice. It doesn't even require a motion.

Not a jerk at all. You tried to trump my correct information by explaining you used to be a public defender; except you didn't have any grasp on that rule.
 
Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:







Originally posted by TNTUK:






Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:









Originally posted by TNTUK:








Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:










Originally posted by TNTUK:
^Rhaviic: See above on page 1. 60 day rule only applies to those in Jail. Tubman is NOT in jail. Further, a no true bill does not mean dismissal. Not even close.











This post was edited on 1/16 1:52 PM by TNTUK
Review Criminal Rule of Procedure 5.22(3). If the Defendant is incarcerated they are to be released. If they are not incarcerated, their bond is to be returned and any conditions thereof are to be removed.

The case is dismissed, without prejudice, if it isn't indicted 60 days after being bound over.
Sorry - it's not dismissed. Read the next rule of criminal procedure 5.22(4) - Failure of the grand jury to return an indictment (ie a no true bill) against a defendant DOES NOT prevent any charge against such defendant from being submitted to another Grand Jury.

In other words, they can submit to a GJ at some point in the future.

I read 5.22(3) and it was amended and the new rule became effective 15 days ago. (Jan 1, 2015). Seems to deal specifically with someone in custody or someone who posted bond with money (to get a refund) - not sure Tubman posted any monies in addition to the condition of home incarceration. However, the rule could possibly be construed as possibly having the effect of changing someone's bond conditions (someone who didn't put up money).....but that doesn't seem likely to me. Doubt that was legislature's intent. Could be wrong I suppose.

If it's the latter, then I'm sure the attorney would file the necessary motion to change the bond. That's for the attorney and Tubman to decide. Remember however, home incarceration gets you jail credit. In the event he is convicted (of any charged related to the alleged crime), he will get day for day credit as if he were in jail.













This post was edited on 1/16 1:06 PM by TNTUK
That's exactly what WITHOUT PREJUDICE means. The current case would be dismissed. Any bond conditions removed. But the case could proceed through direct submission to the grand jury.

You were a public defender but didn't understand a basic concept of criminal procedure?
So you are going the jerk route. Are you an attorney?

The prosecutor is not going to dismiss the case without the consent of the alleged victim. I had one no true bill issued in my time as a PD.....guess what, the charges were never "dismissed" and in fact were brought back up in front of the jury about a year down the road. That does not constitute a "dismissal without prejudice" - there would have to be an official Court Order to dismiss a case.

In the case of a no true bill, there is not official Court Order dismissing (b/c neither the District or Circuit Courts claim to have jurisdiction over a case that is in "limbo"......District says it's not theirs b/c the Prelim Hearing was waived onto Circuit; and Circuit says it's not ours until an indictment occurs and the defendant is arraigned in Circuit.













This post was edited on 1/16 2:04 PM by TNTUK
I am.

Neither the prosecutor, the complaining witness, nor the judge have any discretion. It's automatic dismissal without prejudice. It doesn't even require a motion.

Not a jerk at all. You tried to trump my correct information by explaining you used to be a public defender; except you didn't have any grasp on that rule.
You definitely went the jerk route but it's no worries. I was a PD 10 years ago. Rules change (and memories fade while I focus in other areas of the law)....as an attorney, you should know that. Either way, we've gone off base anyway. Arguing about something that isn't applicable to Tubman as far as I can tell. But, if 5.22(3) applies to Tubman wouldn't we have heard by now that he's a free man? Honest question.







This post was edited on 1/16 4:21 PM by TNTUK




This post was edited on 1/16 4:22 PM by TNTUK



This post was edited on 1/16 4:26 PM by TNTUK


This post was edited on 1/16 2:29 PM by TNTUK

This post was edited on 1/16 4:32 PM by TNTUK
 
Originally posted by dorkmeister:


Is UK really supplying attorneys for him? This seems odd but I don't know how this all works.

I could see UK supplying a lawyer if an athlete had an issue with the NCAA but not when it is a criminal case. Can someone clear this up please
I wondered this myself and think I read in the Winston case as an aside that NCAA allows schools to hire attorneys for their student athletes. I know Jim Lowry represents Tubman, and has represented a ton of UK players over the years, and I have to believe most can not pay his customary rates (mine either for that matter
wink.r191677.gif
)
 
So we have managed to get two lawyers in a pi$$ing contest...so can the two of you give us your opinion how this all goes down and what the results...I have spoken to someone close to the situation(not a lawyer) who says he is innocent and goes free...
smokin.r191677.gif
...And will be reinstated to the team
 
Originally posted by sluggercatfan:

So we have managed to get two lawyers in a pi$$ing contest...so can the two of you give us your opinion how this all goes down and what the results...I have spoken to someone close to the situation(not a lawyer) who says he is innocent and goes free...
smokin.r191677.gif
...And will be reinstated to the team
Lol.....we are way off base anyway. Hopefully for all involved that a serious crime was NOT committed here. I'm gonna leave it at that. haha.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT