DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Watson continued (new grand jury)

New grand jury in a different county considering complaint(s) against Watson.

https://fox8.com/news/i-team-another-grand-jury-considering-case-against-deshaun-watson/

j/c...

It would be such a Browns thing if we waited for one grand jury to NOT CHARGE him, then another county does charge him after we give him a blockbuster deal.

Grand jury shopping. If there is no criminal case a civil case is harder.

OIC

Prosecutors pursue criminal charges, not the victims lawyers. So you are accusing prosecutors of "grand jury shopping"?

Sounds like this was not a surprise.

From the article:

The attorney for Watson tells the I-Team the complaint was filed by one of the women involved in the civil lawsuit cases.

“It’s not a new complaint,” said attorney Rusty Hardin.

He said officials waited until the Harris County grand jury finished deliberations before presenting this case.

.......

The Cleveland Browns said Thursday they had been aware of the case.

Link to the full article in the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/...ering-another-charge-against-watson.html

Delete

Trying not to get too descriptive but… for what’s mentioned in the article, for what’s being accused… one doesn’t get to ‘that point’ without some direct interaction prior. So if this person was close enough to the action to get the result of that action, it makes me wonder what part of the action she may have had a part in. Either directly, or by at least watching from a close distance, and staying still, before said result occurred.

Not victim blaming but it does pose that question.

j/c...

can somebody explain to me why its only single complaints?

are issues like these based on location of the alleged victim or location? seems like the GJ shouldnt be wasting time doing 1 singular case at a time. i dont know how it works at all.

Something I wondered when the trade was breaking...in describing the contract being fully guaranteed, I read a report (which I will try to find again) mentioning no contractual conditions linked to EXISTING charges against him (emphasis mine).

Does anyone know whether the Browns wrote in "out clauses" regarding FUTURE charges? Seems like the prudent thing to do, and not a big deal for Watson, assuming he is not a full-on psychopath demanding perpetual immunity.

Originally Posted by Damanshot
Sheesh. Run out of Midol or something? If you think a competent attorney would let their clients be interviewed by someone not involved with a pending trial talk you're nuts. (This excludes prepared Q&A sessions with the media to sway public opinion)

Attorneys judge shop all the time, what makes you think they wouldn't try similar with a grand jury?

I'm just glad that the Browns did all the due diligence…

The report from FOX 8 said the Browns were already aware of this. Nathan Zegura also confirmed just now on CBD that this is not a surprise at all to the Cleveland Browns.

Once again, prosecutors are the one's who conduct a grand jury, not the lawyers.

A Crash Course in the American Grand Jury System

https://www.pooleshaffery.com/news/2014/december/a-crash-course-in-the-american-grand-jury-system/

Do yourself a favor and find out how it works.

The biggest problem Watson may have going forward is his defenses in civil cases can sink him into trouble in a criminal court. If he responds to something which opens up new approaches he can be liable because double jeopardy kicks in only at trial.

Actually their attorney stated that the Browns did not approach him and that any of his clients who would have wanted to talk to the Browns he would have had no problem with them doing so.

The complaint started with one of the accusers. Not the prosecutor just pulling it out of thin air. Do you think, that maybe, the accusors attorney might have thought he could get another go at a criminal trial against Watson? he is shopping around looking to get a grand jury to bite. That's likely part of his job.

Why do you need to ne a snarky little brat? Are you in middle school? Have you ever actually had a conversation or discussion where at the end of it someone didn't have to scrap you off their shoe?

He isn't shopping Grand Jurys. If you look back thru the endless discussion where everyone was pointing out that the Grand Jury refused to indict him I mentioned that the GJ only heard evidence from one of the women. 22 women filed a civil case, but not all of those women have had their evidence before the GJ yet.

j/c...

ahhh ok, thank you.

Mike Florio article

The complaint originally was one of 10 filed with the Houston Police Department. However, it was determined that the alleged misconduct occurred beyond the jurisdiction of the Harris County district attorney.

The complainant in the pending criminal case is one of the 22 women who have filed civil lawsuits against Watson.


Worryingly...

As explained within the context of the prior grand jury, the outcome often hinges on the degree to which the prosecutor does, or doesn’t, want to secure an indictment. It’s a one-sided presentation, with the defendant not represented. If the prosecutor wants an indictment, the prosecutor can usually get one.

Edit: Listen to the video on this one...

Right, but DA's do grandstand. I am not taking any position. I am just saying DA is an elected position, so it is a political position to a degree, so having ones name in the news isn't unheard of and sought on many occasions.

Again, I am not saying if it is, isn't, or a little of both.

My biggest concern is that prior to the original GJ wrapping up Watson was pleading the 5th. After the GJ refused to indict he then began to testify. That is where I saw the red flags being raised. It feels to me like he is putting himself at risk for a criminal charge to stick in an effort to get out of the civil claims. Although so far I have been assured that if Watson never sees the field the Browns will only be out of the draft picks, not the money.

Interesting LEX. And how much easier would it be for a prosecutor to get a GJ indictment for a player now no longer the local hero? Now he's another team's asset, so nothing to risk. Cynical, I guess, but that's what I thought when I read your comment.

So, here's where the problem lies - Watson had a Grand Jury hearing on 9 complaints out of the 22 formal civil claims. The Grand Jury did not think there was enough evidence to move forward with a trial. That in no way is any indication of innocence - only that there was not enough evidence to move forward. There are still 13 victims that have not had criminal charges filed on their behalf or not yet pursued. That does not mean that they won't eventually be presented to a Grand Jury - they just have not yet. There's no double jeopardy 1) because it wasn't a trial and 2) each woman has a right to have her claims heard. Technically, at a minimum there could be up to 13 more cases taken to the Grand Jury. The other issue is that supposedly, there were 50 woman involved but only 22 legal claims filed at this point. This technically could drag on for years and years. I'm not making a judgement either way because I don't have the actual evidence but IMHO, we might be reading a lot more about these cases than we do about Watson's play on the field. I don't believe at this point that this going to go away any time soon.

j/c:

I posted an article by Florio with a good video to listen and think about. There is a concern that Watson is going to fight the civil cases and get himself into more trouble. They recommend paying everyone to quiet the issue, but Watson's camp seems determined to fight this. If this next witness has information that get a Bill from the GJ he could be in some real trouble, trying to settle then will be more expensive and may not stop the cascade.

A great point I dont think has been raised. This could be a high profile case that a DA is going to make a name on.

But that's not even close to what you said. Of course the victim makes the complaint. But it's totally in the hands of the prosecutor to look at that complaint, consider all of the evidence and make the decision whether to convene a grand jury based on those factors. Snarky? Well yes. Often times the basis of a totally ridiculous, out of left field comments like trying to claim it's an attorney for the complainant gets to have input on the decision of convening a grand jury doesn't deserve anything more than that.

Hopefully you read the link to better inform yourself. But from reading your last response it seems unlikely.

I mentioned it...and it is pretty common. I called it grandstanding.

But that is precisely the issue of thinking the GJ decision NOT to prosecute means much.

DA and Prosecutors "make the name" by WINNING high profile cases ... not by losing them. With a 0.7% success rate of convicting sexual assault cases ... the this high profile case could easily make the prosecutor and DA look bad, because it's extremely hard to prove.

The notion that this is high profile and would sway a DA to lean one way or the other is a double edged sword.

And I certainly don't disagree with you. It's why I've often objected to them being elected. Sadly it creates a situation where DA's are as much politicians as they are serving the justice system. And I certainly agree they like their name in the headlines.

I think our only real disagreement we may have here is they like their names in the headlines for winning, not losing. They run their campaigns often upon their conviction rates. Convening a grand jury and that grand jury not indicting the suspect isn't something any DA would view as a positive thing.

He would have no problem because it could potentially open up much deeper pockets for him to try to get money out of.

I'm just glad the Browns did their due diligence. Nothing to see here folks. No worries. LOL

The deal IMO is winning may not be what the DA is after. Sure, they want to win, but even if not, they can say they aren't soft on crime, being a high profile figure doesn't impact their decision to prosecute, etc. I am sure we could come up with several other possible benefits.

Being plastered all over the papers, Entertainment Tonight, and whatever else doesn't hurt their image. You never know what political aspirations they may have, be it local, state, or federal.

As to not electing them, I am not sure what other means you might seek? I don't think you want them being appointed by some mayor or some other elected official. It's kind of like a county Sheriff. You don't them to be appointed positions I wouldn't think. I do understand a city for instance hiring a Police Chief.

Whatever keeps Haslam up at night works for me. And you KNOW the media (especially in Cleveland where DRAMA is KING) will have a field day with this as long as it continues. Talk about a dumpster fire. LOL