|
|
 Expert
Posts: 4121
 
Location: SE Louisiana | NJJ - 2014-11-19 8:28 PM
komet. - 2014-11-19 8:22 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 8:14 PM komet. - 2014-11-19 7:50 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 7:34 PM   I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck! Â
 I disagree.. If he takes a guilty plea, no matter what they say, it will be on his record forever... If she walked in there and told a stack of lies like he says, the chances are some of those lies will be there to support others. Any competent lawyer only needs to pick one of those lies apart to make the rest of them crumble and there she will be sitting with egg all over her face. As to a jury stacked with women, that might work FOR him. Women understand each other and will be more likely to spot lies other women tell and understand what she is doing. 'Diversion' is just a sound bite... Any agreement that forces him to do anything is a guilty plea and a diversion is nothing more than a plea deal. Anyone on the jury might overlook one little lie, but the lawyers and the judge will not. Not in a court of law.
Wait.. You're a woman?? I thought Norma was short for Norman... |
|
| |
|
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
  
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | Thank you ladies, please keep it coming. I need to make a big decision. |
|
| |
|
 Forever Young
Posts: 6768
Location: relocated to Texas | NJJ - 2014-11-20 6:34 PM I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck!
Agree with this. Douglas, your ego is not going to serve you well in court. I understand if you feel wronged that you want to expose her lies. But, I am sure your attorney told you that a jury is unpredictable. You come off in these posts as arrogant and wanting to get even. Again, not saying you don't have a right to feel that way, but your attitude is not going to go over well with females on the jury. Take option 3. |
|
| |
|
Forever Young
Posts: 6768
Location: relocated to Texas | komet. - 2014-11-20 6:50 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 7:34 PM I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck!
I disagree.. If he takes a guilty plea, no matter what they say, it will be on his record forever... If she walked in there and told a stack of lies like he says, the chances are some of those lies will be there to support others. Any competent lawyer only needs to pick one of those lies apart to make the rest of them crumble and there she will be sitting with egg all over her face. As to a jury stacked with women, that might work FOR him. Women understand each other and will be more likely to spot lies other women tell and understand what she is doing.
Edited by Hollywood's Fan 2014-11-19 9:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Hollywood's Fan - 2014-11-19 9:00 PM
komet. - 2014-11-20 6:50 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 7:34 PM   I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck! Â
 I disagree.. If he takes a guilty plea, no matter what they say, it will be on his record forever... If she walked in there and told a stack of lies like he says, the chances are some of those lies will be there to support others. Any competent lawyer only needs to pick one of those lies apart to make the rest of them crumble and there she will be sitting with egg all over her face. As to a jury stacked with women, that might work FOR him. Women understand each other and will be more likely to spot lies other women tell and understand what she is doing.
I understand the truth is not always enough. I doubt DJG is stupid enough to post lies on a website she knows he frequents.
As far as the OJ trial goes, I believed he was guilty right up until the prosecutor had him try to put the "bloody glove" on his hand and there was no way it was ever large enough to fit. Her whole case was based on that glove being found in close proximity to his home.
I believe in the axiom 'The Truth Will Always Out' as it did in the OJ trial when the cop Fuhrman was proven to be a lair and a racist and was convicted of felony perjuring himself in that trial. |
|
| |
|
 Dancing in my Mind
Posts: 3062
Location: Eastern OH but my heart is in WV | Option 3 and good luck! |
|
| |
|
 Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | is this the screenplay from that new jim carrey movie???? |
|
| |
|
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Question #1...is the 'psychological exam' even admissible? I highly doubt it. I say...go with the truth. You know, the ultimate conspiracy is between a judge & 2 lawyers...usually behind closed doors, deciding 'feasability'. Sharks don't eat sharks.
'Everything you say can and WILL be held against you'. Shut the heck up!
The burden of proof is on her...be aware, however, that innocence is not a defense. And if your lawyer is not going to defend you then dismiss him/her.
These are serious charges!
It could mean that you can no longer hunt or even own a gun. Maintain your innocence. Don't offer explanations or emotions. Just yes or no.
Good luck...the courts, lawyers...they all have a need to justify their existence, demand a jury of your 'peers', people who know you & know your 'intent'. THAT is what that means.
Truth & integrity. I abhor the entire 'plea bargain' bs. So wrong.
|
|
| |
|
Forever Young
Posts: 6768
Location: relocated to Texas | komet. - 2014-11-20 8:23 PM Hollywood's Fan - 2014-11-19 9:00 PM komet. - 2014-11-20 6:50 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 7:34 PM I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck!
I disagree.. If he takes a guilty plea, no matter what they say, it will be on his record forever... If she walked in there and told a stack of lies like he says, the chances are some of those lies will be there to support others. Any competent lawyer only needs to pick one of those lies apart to make the rest of them crumble and there she will be sitting with egg all over her face. As to a jury stacked with women, that might work FOR him. Women understand each other and will be more likely to spot lies other women tell and understand what she is doing. I understand the truth is not always enough. I doubt DJG is stupid enough to post lies on a website she knows he frequents. As far as the OJ trial goes, I believed he was guilty right up until the prosecutor had him try to put the "bloody glove" on his hand and there was no way it was ever large enough to fit. Her whole case was based on that glove being found in close proximity to his home. I believe in the axiom 'The Truth Will Always Out' as it did in the OJ trial when the cop Fuhrman was proven to be a lair and a racist and was convicted of felony perjuring himself in that trial.
So you believe that OJ was innocent? Uh, OK. I rest my case about who might be on a jury, Douglas. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 4121
Location: SE Louisiana | Hollywood's Fan - 2014-11-19 9:57 PM
komet. - 2014-11-20 8:23 PM Hollywood's Fan - 2014-11-19 9:00 PM komet. - 2014-11-20 6:50 PM NJJ - 2014-11-19 7:34 PM   I think as a man you have the mindset that you are right and want to PROVE that….but let’s be real……Women are going to look at a “stalking” charge very seriously. I will preface this by saying that without all of the facts, etc, this opinion is based on your posts..........I have read most of your posts (and I don’t mean this hatefully) but you do come off as a little obsessive with a tad bit of arrogance…..and women HATE arrogant men. Unfortunately, your chance with a jury could very well be tainted by just ONE strong woman who could sway a vote. I would go with #3 and do the community service or whatever and get IT OVER…..whatever you decide....Good Luck! Â
 I disagree.. If he takes a guilty plea, no matter what they say, it will be on his record forever... If she walked in there and told a stack of lies like he says, the chances are some of those lies will be there to support others. Any competent lawyer only needs to pick one of those lies apart to make the rest of them crumble and there she will be sitting with egg all over her face. As to a jury stacked with women, that might work FOR him. Women understand each other and will be more likely to spot lies other women tell and understand what she is doing. I understand the truth is not always enough. I doubt DJG is stupid enough to post lies on a website she knows he frequents. As far as the OJ trial goes, I believed he was guilty right up until the prosecutor had him try to put the "bloody glove" on his hand and there was no way it was ever large enough to fit. Her whole case was based on that glove being found in close proximity to his home. I believe in the axiom 'The Truth Will Always Out' as it did in the OJ trial when the cop Fuhrman was proven to be a lair and a racist and was convicted of felony perjuring himself in that trial.
I believe the prosecutor failed to prove he was guilty... Not the same thing. |
|
| |
|
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| Just be aware and talk to your attorney but I believe a "diversion" will still appear on your criminal records. Not necessarily for the public but for gun permits or law enforcement/county/state employment. I run crim histories daily and "dismissed, conditions met" appear on many many many histories. Just speak to your attorney before making a decision... nothing in a plea bargain ever gets completely erased... its can be tracked and seen by others to a certain extent.
With that said, I've worked with the public defenders officer and work in law enforcement... going to trial is tricky and no matter if you win or lose, you wont have her exposed like you want. Your attorney is right that jurys are unpredictable and there is some evidence he cannot use. That may benefit you or that may not. You may have all these facts and proof but make sure that its evidence that can be used in court. (ive seen many court cases won/lost due to evidence not being allowed).
No one can make this decision for you as your attorney knows what kind of case you have... and you know what you're willing to accept as a result.
If you lose, can you stomach having a criminal record and conviction? You may win but you have to be okay with losing because you cant go backwards.
And as others have said... your personality and appearance can sway a jury... it is suppose to be a group of your peers but everyone has baggage that fogs their judgement and creates biases. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 448
Location: lone star state | Having worked for 10 years in the criminal justice system if you are truely innocent then ask for a jury trial. The truth will set you free. The law is designed to protect innocent people. Your attorney can weed thru potential jurors with voir dire questions to determine if women who may be selected are men haters or unable to listen to ALL the evidence and make a just decision.
If you feel that in any way you agged the situation on or are not 100 percent beyond a reasonable doubt innocent then take the deffered probation. Understand that in most states you can file a motion for non disclosure after a no contest plea or defferred finding of guilt plea but because you pled your record may not be expunged. Make sure your attorney explains that part to you according to your state laws.
Another tactic if you feel you may be the slightest bit guilty is to wait until jury selection.Often times prosecutors who feel they can't win will sweeten the deal by offering something better to settle the case and get something as opposed to a not guilty. |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| Another thing to consider... you have been ordered something by the court already correct? No contact order? HRO? (I thought I remember reading a post about this?)
If so, consider that a judge has already essentially sides with her facts. They don't just give those out to everyone... and I am not saying that judges don't commonly dismiss them because they do... however, just something to keep in mind. |
|
| |
|
 Don't Wanna Make This Awkward
Posts: 3106
Location: Texas | #3... Typically always the best option IMO. |
|
| |
|
 Porta Potty Pants
Posts: 2600
| stayceem - 2014-11-19 10:27 PM Another thing to consider... you have been ordered something by the court already correct? No contact order? HRO? (I thought I remember reading a post about this?) If so, consider that a judge has already essentially sides with her facts. They don't just give those out to everyone... and I am not saying that judges don't commonly dismiss them because they do... however, just something to keep in mind.
Injunctions against harrassment/orders of protection/temporary restraining orders have a very low standard to meet to get one issued, so this comment isn't necessarily true. How the TRO might come into effect in this case is if there are concerns that DG has violated the terms of the TRO.
As for the original question: (1) juries can be unpredicatable. (2) judges are people too. As for the diversion offers, it would depend on what the terms or requirements would be required. Finally, if your state has victim's rights (which I believe all states do), she may have a say in the terms. I think I would want something that makes her stay away from you so as not to try to set you up to fail. |
|
| |
|
Always Off Topic
Posts: 6382
Location: ND | firewaterfuelsme - 2014-11-19 10:26 PM Having worked for 10 years in the criminal justice system if you are truely innocent then ask for a jury trial. The truth will set you free. The law is designed to protect innocent people. Your attorney can weed thru potential jurors with voir dire questions to determine if women who may be selected are men haters or unable to listen to ALL the evidence and make a just decision. If you feel that in any way you agged the situation on or are not 100 percent beyond a reasonable doubt innocent then take the deffered probation. Understand that in most states you can file a motion for non disclosure after a no contest plea or defferred finding of guilt plea but because you pled your record may not be expunged. Make sure your attorney explains that part to you according to your state laws. Another tactic if you feel you may be the slightest bit guilty is to wait until jury selection.Often times prosecutors who feel they can't win will sweeten the deal by offering something better to settle the case and get something as opposed to a not guilty.
completely ignore the first paragraph of this...... |
|
| |
|
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | azsun - 2014-11-19 10:39 PM stayceem - 2014-11-19 10:27 PM Another thing to consider... you have been ordered something by the court already correct? No contact order? HRO? (I thought I remember reading a post about this?) If so, consider that a judge has already essentially sides with her facts. They don't just give those out to everyone... and I am not saying that judges don't commonly dismiss them because they do... however, just something to keep in mind. Injunctions against harrassment/orders of protection/temporary restraining orders have a very low standard to meet to get one issued, so this comment isn't necessarily true. How the TRO might come into effect in this case is if there are concerns that DG has violated the terms of the TRO.
As for the original question: (1 ) juries can be unpredicatable. (2 ) judges are people too. As for the diversion offers, it would depend on what the terms or requirements would be required. Finally, if your state has victim's rights (which I believe all states do ), she may have a say in the terms. I think I would want something that makes her stay away from you so as not to try to set you up to fail.
Thank you ladies. I am not commenting much but taking this all in. Thank you! Also keeping her away from me sounds good also! |
|
| |
|
Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| azsun - 2014-11-19 10:39 PM
stayceem - 2014-11-19 10:27 PM Another thing to consider... you have been ordered something by the court already correct? No contact order? HRO? (I thought I remember reading a post about this?) If so, consider that a judge has already essentially sides with her facts. They don't just give those out to everyone... and I am not saying that judges don't commonly dismiss them because they do... however, just something to keep in mind.
Injunctions against harrassment/orders of protection/temporary restraining orders have a very low standard to meet to get one issued, so this comment isn't necessarily true. Â How the TRO might come into effect in this case is if there are concerns that DG has violated the terms of the TRO. Â As for the original question: Â (1 ) juries can be unpredicatable. Â (2 ) judges are people too. Â As for the diversion offers, it would depend on what the terms or requirements would be required. Â Finally, if your state has victim's rights (which I believe all states do ), she may have a say in the terms. Â I think I would want something that makes her stay away from you so as not to try to set you up to fail. Â
I am not saying that his case is already decided but you still have to have facts to get an order granted... I am just saying there was enough facts to get one granted. There is obviously a lot more facts that would be brought out during a trial but obviously a judge has felt there was legitimate enough concerns to grant an order. |
|
| |
|
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | stayceem - 2014-11-19 11:35 PM azsun - 2014-11-19 10:39 PM stayceem - 2014-11-19 10:27 PM Another thing to consider... you have been ordered something by the court already correct? No contact order? HRO? (I thought I remember reading a post about this?) If so, consider that a judge has already essentially sides with her facts. They don't just give those out to everyone... and I am not saying that judges don't commonly dismiss them because they do... however, just something to keep in mind. Injunctions against harrassment/orders of protection/temporary restraining orders have a very low standard to meet to get one issued, so this comment isn't necessarily true. How the TRO might come into effect in this case is if there are concerns that DG has violated the terms of the TRO.
As for the original question: (1 ) juries can be unpredicatable. (2 ) judges are people too. As for the diversion offers, it would depend on what the terms or requirements would be required. Finally, if your state has victim's rights (which I believe all states do ), she may have a say in the terms. I think I would want something that makes her stay away from you so as not to try to set you up to fail. I am not saying that his case is already decided but you still have to have facts to get an order granted... I am just saying there was enough facts to get one granted. There is obviously a lot more facts that would be brought out during a trial but obviously a judge has felt there was legitimate enough concerns to grant an order.
The attorneys agreed to have her testify 2 weeks ago under oath to lock in her testimony. She lied like a SOB. From the result of her testimony, the Judge bound me over for trial. He did mention that this case was very thin. |
|
| |
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| A little free physiological work might not be a bad idea. |
|
| |
Folks on-line