ESPN's Howard Bryant (allegedly) pulls a Jay Mariotti

It will be interesting to see if that happens. ESPN may advise him to just let it go away.

 

Pre-trial probation.

Different thing entirely - the probation isn't the result of sentencing or any finding of wrongdoing.

http://verbplow.blogspot.com/2011/05/justice.html

 

This. I'm often annoyed by pronouncements that someone was "declared innocent" when a prosecutor merely declines to go forward on available evidence. Usually a mistake made by folks with no clue how the criminal justice system works. I'd think a journalist, current or former, would know better.

 

On the other hand, many states (including Massachusetts, I believe) require officers by law to make an arrest when they are called to a home on a domestic violence case. I don't know if this law applies when the scene isn't the home. The officers, though, might have either been required by law or felt required by precedent to arrest first and ask questions later.

 

That ESPN article is a complete load of shit. Par for the course.

 

In regard to Howard Bryant, because many of the reports subsequently sent out confuse the agreement with a plea and/or a sentence, and fail to define "pretrial probation," the statement released and signed by both Bryant’s attorney and Jeremy C. Bucci, Chief Trial Counsel of the Northwestern District Attorney’s Office in Greenfield, Massachusetts, reads in part:

“A careful review of all of the statements of percipient witnesses that have been collected do not support allegations that Mr. Bryant struck, choked, pinned against a car or committed any other act of violence against Mrs. Bryant,” a statement that repudiates the State's own witnesses and the police reports of the incident.

Bryant accepted pretrial probation, an administrative, negotiated agreement. It is not a "sentence," does not contain any admission of guilt and the defendant does not give up either his right to a trial or a presumption of innocence. It is also not a “plea bargain,” since there is no plea or admission of guilt, or acceptance of any kind of “lesser” charge. In essence, the court offers to make a procedural finding that, after a period of six months, will result in the case being dismissed and disappearing entirely unless the defendant violates terms of probation, which in this case means he is charged with a subsequent crime - he cannot be charged on the original complaint. Such agreements are usually offered by the prosecution when the facts and evidence do not merit a trial, i.e. the State determines it has no credible case. Such agreements are generally accepted by defendants because, unlike some other procedural outcomes, such as a continuance without a finding (CWOL), which is sometimes offered in weak or inconsequential cases that the State does not wish to bring to trial, by accepting pretrial probation the defendant never pleads guilty or admits to anything about the charges. With a continuance without a finding (CWOL) the defendant still must admit to something on the record.

Bryant, by agreeing to pretrial probation, does not. In six months all records of the the case, including his record of pretrial probation, disappears entirely, as if he were never charged or arrested.

Simply put, at the end of the day the State concluded that there was no evidence that a crime was committed, and therefore no crime to prosecute.

 

If, as the statement proclaims, "the State determines it has no credible case. " ,then Bryant should not have agreed to this and either demanded a dismissal or he should have went to trial and been acquitted.
If there's no evidence, at any point during the day, then Bryant should have absolutely no conditions placed upon him.

Bryant must have some fear of conviction to take any kind of deal.

 

Completely disagree. Only a fool would not have taken the deal Bryant was offered.

 

Only a fool that has something to lose wouldn't have taken the deal. If the statement issued is correct and the State has no evidence and no case, why take the deal?

 

Why take the risk? Why put himself or his family through a trial? What if they decided to make an example of him?