Vick is done

[BlueDiablo]

While I think this guy flipping on Vick is the more likely scenario, is there any chance he's going to say the following?

"It was my operation, I let Ookie down. We used Mike's name and money and lied to him. Ookie's only crime is trusting his family members. I apologize to him and his mother for getting him involved in this. I don't know what these other witnesses have been saying to the Feds because Mike was never there, and I intend to testify to that in court to help clear poor Ookie's name."

He goes on to cop to a number of the things they say Vick did, and he takes the years with Vick returning to play for the Redskins next year.

I would say very little chance. More likely, the whole reason that this guy is pleading guilty is that the federal prosecutor took a deal that specifically requires Taylor to testify against Vick. Probably they already have a signed proffer outlining his testimony. The prosecutor has been indicating that the indictment will be amended, and that's probably because they knew that they could get this guy to turn. Now that Taylor has plead guilty, he can't invoke his fifth amendment right not to testify, and he must tell all he knows, including everything that implicates Vick. If he tries to back out of the deal and change his story, the federal prosecutor can also get him for perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is very bad news for Michael Vick.

[DevilAlumna]

If you were Mike, wouldn't you tell these guys "someone has to take the fall for me. Whoever does it will get a million dollars."

Umm, isn't that illegal as well?

[A-Tex Devil]

Jason,

I was actually thinking about that too. "Hey, one guy takes the fall, you'll be compensated when you get out. All will be fine."

Then I got to thinking. The Feds have so much stuff on Vick already. Seems to me like the Feds know what they're doing with this co-defendent, and that they wouldn't even be bothering with him if it wasn't a "help US (Feds) out or else" deal.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if this guy were to say something like mentioned above, to take the fall for Vick, I just don't think it would be that simple. The Feds know what they're doing here, and I think they know this guy is going to nail him.

What a mess.

-EarlJam

This being Federal and not State, I do think that the authorities have some things on Vick that would prevent this guy from eviscerating the government's case with a single statement. But to the extent it is not physical evidence, if guys like Taylor and others get up and counter what the Federal witnesses say, that raises a lot of reasonable doubt with the jury, and it will be a battle of the most convincing witness between a bunch of dog-fight attendees.

My theory aside, I'm not sure this thing is "mobby" enough where these guys are willing to take the fall for each other. Still, in almost every type of organized crime I've read about or Bill Curtis has told me about, the reason gangs can thrive is because the lower level guys are willing to do the years. They get protection and other benefits in jail from the higher up guys that they keep out of jail.

As to the other point as to why people are more up in arms than say a sexual assualt case, I think the organized nature of these crimes are what make it different. The purported crime wasn't random, it's more than just he said/she said, and it is not an isolated incident. Hell -- there is dude on the Falcons right now who is awaiting trial on killing his girlfriend's puppy and he's in camp.

[greybeard]

If the feds had this guy flipped for a while, and the million dollar payment scenario outline above proves correct, there might even have been a wire.

On the other hand, I have seen good defense lawyers do some pretty amazing things even with video tapes, so I wouldn't be penciling Vick in for a prison term just yet. On the other hand, if he was surprised by the flip, yeesh!

The one with a videotape was tried for the defense by Maurie Povish's brother, who was then a young partner in Williams and Connelly. He defended an AUSA that they videod agreeing to pitch a case. He was hooked by a hooker, whom the prosecutors set up in a sting to catch one of their own. I didn't actually see the trial, only was at a W-C party when the verdict came down and Povich held court. Convinced the jury that the AUSA was out-of-hismind in love with the hooker who cut him off until he agreed to get her brother out of a jam.

Saw a similar defense work for a guard at Lorton caught on tape supplying an inmate, hooker, with drugs. Part of a big sting. The guard was a borderline mental deficient and testified that the inmate gave him oral sex which his wife never would. His wife, a complete bomb, got on the stand and corroborated half the tale--said she was a g-d fearing woman and refused to perform such an abomination. The defense lawyer argued jury nulification basically; said that the government set up the sting to catch some real drug dealing and the fish it hooked was too small to keep. Hung jury twice! (you should have seen the prosecutor try to cross examine the babe of a wife; some things are priceless).

Juries can do some funny things.

[A-Tex Devil]

He's flipped on Vick. Vick was the money, Vick attended at least 7 dog fights. Vick met with him and the other 2 in 2004 to set up Bad Newz Kennels.

His sentencing is after Vick's trial, so I guess they want to make sure he testifies as promised before giving him his deal. He'll be testifying in additional grand jury meetings that could create additional charges against the 3 who pled non guilty.

[greybeard]

He's flipped on Vick. Vick was the money, Vick attended at least 7 dog fights. Vick met with him and the other 2 in 2004 to set up Bad Newz Kennels.

His sentencing is after Vick's trial, so I guess they want to make sure he testifies as promised before giving him his deal. He'll be testifying in additional grand jury meetings that could create additional charges against the 3 who pled non guilty.

Vick's possible answer: My cousin and boyz wanted to go into the dog "breeding" business; I financed them, what are family and friends for. Was I in business with them? No. Didn't ask them to account to me for a nickel, and didn't care how they ran it. It was their thing, not mine.

Might even be able to admit that he knew that they were fighting dogs, but claim that he had nothing to do with staging it.

Now, how is that different than the rich guy who lets his son live in his condo in Aspen; pays for his cell and car and gives him running around money. Learns that the kid is living large and that he is dealing dope from the condo. Does nothing to stop it. Keeps giving the kid dough.

The feds or locals pop the kid. They might try to seize the condo, but do they try to pop Dad? I don't think so. Maybe the criminal lawyers out there can chime in.

But that's why this flipped "witness" better be real convincing. He is going to make Vick complicite in all the criminal goings on. Without that type evidence, I'm not sure that they got a case; if they do, there might be a whole lot of Moms and Dads out there who might need to reevaluate some things. Some of them might even have relatives who will be on the jury. Interesting.

[pfrduke]

Learns that the kid is living large and that he is dealing dope from the condo. Does nothing to stop it. Keeps giving the kid dough.

If a parent knows that the kid is dealing dope from the home, and continues to give the kid money without attempting to intervene, I would say yes, the parent is on the hook for aiding and abetting, at the very least. Not to mention being an incredibly irresponsible parent.

[greybeard]

If a parent knows that the kid is dealing dope from the home, and continues to give the kid money without attempting to intervene, I would say yes, the parent is on the hook for aiding and abetting, at the very least. Not to mention being an incredibly irresponsible parent.

Oops, I better get home. Got some work to do.

Seriously, where then are all the "aiding and abetting" prosecutions? In DC, there was one infamous case where a dealer's mother was prosecuted as part of the criminal enterprise or some such.

I think that they will need to show that Vick was actually a part of what went on. Assuming that he was present during fights, that certainly would be some evidence. But, then again, a whole lot of other spectators were also present. A different crime than running the fights and doing the deed as in brutalizing those animals.

Again, I think that this flipped witness's credibility will be key. As things develop, hopefully during and not before trial, we shall see the degree to which this witness can put Vick in the middle of the criminal stuff. Vick's having set up the corporation cuts both ways, btw; seems that he will argue how stupid do I have to be to set up a corporation I know will be engaging in criminal activity. Prosecutor will say that all criminals make stupid misstakes.

We'll see how this plays out. Right now the feeding frenzy is just that.

BTW, if the owner, gm, and manager of a sports team knows that a player is taking illegal drugs to play, that he will be unable to perform without them, and they pay him money that he uses to buy the drugs that permit him to hit home runs so that they bring fans into the stadium, their stadium, criminal conspiracy? What if they know to a certainty that he lied to the authorities? Interesting.

[tommy]

I would say very little chance. More likely, the whole reason that this guy is pleading guilty is that the federal prosecutor took a deal that specifically requires Taylor to testify against Vick. Probably they already have a signed proffer outlining his testimony. The prosecutor has been indicating that the indictment will be amended, and that's probably because they knew that they could get this guy to turn. Now that Taylor has plead guilty, he can't invoke his fifth amendment right not to testify, and he must tell all he knows, including everything that implicates Vick. If he tries to back out of the deal and change his story, the federal prosecutor can also get him for perjury and obstruction of justice.

This is very bad news for Michael Vick.

There's no "probably" about it. I can tell you from many years of experience that that is how the US Atty's Office (as well as any competent prosecutor from any local jurisdiction) does things. They locked this guy Taylor into a sworn statement, or "proffer," which was given prior to the negotiation of any plea agreement for him. Once the AUSA heard the statement, believed it, and knew he could corroborate it, he offered whatever deal he did to Taylor. Not before.

The way it works is that Taylor would sit down and prior to making the proffer would be told that there is no deal presently on the table. If his statement is believable and can be corroborated by independent evidence, he will be offered a plea agreement of some sort, which he can accept or reject. If either his proffer is not believable or if he doesn't like the plea deal which is offered, he just continues on the case as a defendant and the agreement is that the prosecution cannot use the proffer against him in trial. Hence these proffers are sometimes dubbed "queen for a day" statements.

If Taylor takes the deal, but by the time of trial has had a change of heart, or has been greased sufficiently such that he changes his statement and testifies that Vick had nothing to do with it, no knowledge, or whatever, then the proffer statement will absolutely be used to impeach him in front of the jury. His own sentence would certainly be affected by it. (Making the whole deal a real double-edged sword for the prosecutor) And he theoretically could later be charged with perjury.

[greybeard]

There's no "probably" about it. I can tell you from many years of experience that that is how the US Atty's Office (as well as any competent prosecutor from any local jurisdiction) does things. They locked this guy Taylor into a sworn statement, or "proffer," which was given prior to the negotiation of any plea agreement for him. Once the AUSA heard the statement, believed it, and knew he could corroborate it, he offered whatever deal he did to Taylor. Not before.

The way it works is that Taylor would sit down and prior to making the proffer would be told that there is no deal presently on the table. If his statement is believable and can be corroborated by independent evidence, he will be offered a plea agreement of some sort, which he can accept or reject. If either his proffer is not believable or if he doesn't like the plea deal which is offered, he just continues on the case as a defendant and the agreement is that the prosecution cannot use the proffer against him in trial. Hence these proffers are sometimes dubbed "queen for a day" statements.

If Taylor takes the deal, but by the time of trial has had a change of heart, or has been greased sufficiently such that he changes his statement and testifies that Vick had nothing to do with it, no knowledge, or whatever, then the proffer statement will absolutely be used to impeach him in front of the jury. His own sentence would certainly be affected by it. (Making the whole deal a real double-edged sword for the prosecutor) And he theoretically could later be charged with perjury.

The eastern district of virginia, where this case resides, thought they had the goods on Congressman Flood (I think that was name) after his chief aide was convicted in California for taking payoffs. The guy "flipped" and the eastern district jumped on his "word," only the jury didn't think so. Very big case. See NY Times magazine cover story. I could tell you more but I would have to kill you. Things are never as simple as they might seem.

[tommy]

The eastern district of virginia, where this case resides, thought they had the goods on Congressman Flood (I think that was name) after his chief aide was convicted in California for taking payoffs. The guy "flipped" and the eastern district jumped on his "word," only the jury didn't think so. Very big case. See NY Times magazine cover story. I could tell you more but I would have to kill you. Things are never as simple as they might seem.

No guarantees in this business, no matter how solid a case seems. See Simpson, Orenthal; Blake, Robert; and lots of others against well-known defendants.

If the prosecutor in the case you cite relied solely on the "word" of a flipping criminal defendant, that prosecutor was foolish. Juries don't like that at all. That's why I indicated that in the Vick case, the AUSA should have, and almost certainly did, make sure that he or she could corroborate the statement of the flipping co-defendant before offering a plea deal. That way it wouldn't depend just on the word of the flipper, but that word would be supported by other, independent evidence. If it was just his word, the case becomes problematic in the extreme, especially against a celebrity defendant.

[greybeard]

No guarantees in this business, no matter how solid a case seems. See Simpson, Orenthal; Blake, Robert; and lots of others against well-known defendants.

If the prosecutor in the case you cite relied solely on the "word" of a flipping criminal defendant, that prosecutor was foolish. Juries don't like that at all. That's why I indicated that in the Vick case, the AUSA should have, and almost certainly did, make sure that he or she could corroborate the statement of the flipping co-defendant before offering a plea deal. That way it wouldn't depend just on the word of the flipper, but that word would be supported by other, independent evidence. If it was just his word, the case becomes problematic in the extreme, especially against a celebrity defendant.

Please, the trial lasted about a month, most on the affirmative case. The prosecution was improvident, but Flood was an extremely powerful Congressman and a big fish to catch. So is Vick. Let's let this thing play out.

And what's this about an AUSA's making the decisions. In high profile cases, it is "the suits" (the US Attorney or the Chief of the Criminal Div) who make such decisions, sometimes on the recommendation of the AUSA and sometimes not (sometimes even against the recommendation of the AUSA). In fact, in high profile cases they sometimes actually drive the bus. Ain't that why 8 US Attorney's got fired?

[tommy]

Please, the trial lasted about a month, most on the affirmative case. The prosecution was improvident, but Flood was an extremely powerful Congressman and a big fish to catch. So is Vick. Let's let this thing play out.

That the trial was a month doesn't really add anything to the understanding of what went on. A trial can go a month and still be essentially a one witness case. Lots of time can be filled up with minor, relatively unimportant witnesses, peripheral issues, background stuff, uncontested issues, delays, and other things. It really doesn't sound like we're in disagreement, as all I said in my earlier posts was that they're sure to have more on Vick than just this one flipping co-defendant's word. Especially because Vick is a big fish, and the jury will likely want more.

[greybeard]

That the trial was a month doesn't really add anything to the understanding of what went on. A trial can go a month and still be essentially a one witness case. Lots of time can be filled up with minor, relatively unimportant witnesses, peripheral issues, background stuff, uncontested issues, delays, and other things. It really doesn't sound like we're in disagreement, as all I said in my earlier posts was that they're sure to have more on Vick than just this one flipping co-defendant's word. Especially because Vick is a big fish, and the jury will likely want more.

Look, you are going to have to trust me on this old trial. I know what I am talking about relative to it.

You apparently have a lot more confidence in high profile prosecutions in general than I think is warranted. Many are brought to catch the limelight or for other political purposes. Unless you got some inside information you're not sharing, we have no idea whether this is one of them or not. You cannot even say that the AUSA who "ran" this case doesn't have strong reservations about indicting Vick, can you?

[tommy]

Look, you are going to have to trust me on this old trial. I know what I am talking about relative to it.

You apparently have a lot more confidence in high profile prosecutions in general than I think is warranted. Many are brought to catch the limelight or for other political purposes. Unless you got some inside information you're not sharing, we have no idea whether this is one of them or not. You cannot even say that the AUSA who "ran" this case doesn't have strong reservations about indicting Vick, can you?

I have absolutely no reason to distrust you on that old trial. So I don't!

As a matter of fact, I'm agreeing with you that prosecuting high profile defendants is very difficult -- I'm under absolutely no illusions as to that. And hopefully, and almost certainly, the US Atty's Office in Virginia is under no such illusions either. That is the reason for my strong belief that they made sure to marshal the necessary evidence to corroborate this flipping defendant ("cooperator") prior to offering him any plea deal. And of course in a high profile case the Chief of the Criminal Division (and perhaps the US Atty himself, though who knows for sure?) are involved in these strategic and tactical decisions.

So no, I can't say what reservations the AUSA presently handling the case has or doesn't have about the strength of the case. All I can say is that I'm sure the office chose an experienced and skilled prosecutor to handle a case which is getting nationwide and perhaps worldwide attention, and it is highly likely that prosecutor, in collaboration with his superiors, will handle the case in the prudent manner that I described in earlier posts.

[greybeard]

I have absolutely no reason to distrust you on that old trial. So I don't!

As a matter of fact, I'm agreeing with you that prosecuting high profile defendants is very difficult -- I'm under absolutely no illusions as to that. And hopefully, and almost certainly, the US Atty's Office in Virginia is under no such illusions either. That is the reason for my strong belief that they made sure to marshal the necessary evidence to corroborate this flipping defendant ("cooperator") prior to offering him any plea deal. And of course in a high profile case the Chief of the Criminal Division (and perhaps the US Atty himself, though who knows for sure?) are involved in these strategic and tactical decisions.

So no, I can't say what reservations the AUSA presently handling the case has or doesn't have about the strength of the case. All I can say is that I'm sure the office chose an experienced and skilled prosecutor to handle a case which is getting nationwide and perhaps worldwide attention, and it is highly likely that prosecutor, in collaboration with his superiors, will handle the case in the prudent manner that I described in earlier posts.

Just so we are clear, I am saying that the US Attorney's Office in Va has been under only slightly less scrutiny than the 8 offices where the firings took place and that the "office" might well have indicted Vick based upon mirrors rather than solid evidence. They might well have flipped this witness before the indictment, and are staging theater here. Not saying that they are, but I do not rule out that possibility. The nature of Vick's ties to this thing it seems to me are such that it might be very difficult to make a case of criminality. The powers that be might not care; that they could get a big fish on the hook that will get them lots of good pub and put them on the side of the pooches is enough. In that scenario, winning might be nice but completely unnecessary.

So I disagree completely with your premises. Not saying you are wrong, just saying I have to see this play out.

[tommy]

Just so we are clear, I am saying that the US Attorney's Office in Va has been under only slightly less scrutiny than the 8 offices where the firings took place and that the "office" might well have indicted Vick based upon mirrors rather than solid evidence. They might well have flipped this witness before the indictment, and are staging theater here. Not saying that they are, but I do not rule out that possibility. The nature of Vick's ties to this thing it seems to me are such that it might be very difficult to make a case of criminality. The powers that be might not care; that they could get a big fish on the hook that will get them lots of good pub and put them on the side of the pooches is enough. In that scenario, winning might be nice but completely unnecessary.

So I disagree completely with your premises. Not saying you are wrong, just saying I have to see this play out.

While of course it is possible that they indicted him "based upon mirrors rather than solid evidence," that is highly unlikely. Not impossible, but I'd put my money against it in a big way.

Of course we need to see this play out. But as far as the "nature of Vick's ties to this thing," I don't know what information you're going on, but from news reports that I've read, he owned the property, he owned a lot of dogs, he was present for a lot of dog fights, and he financed the whole enterprise -- intimate involvement in the whole operation. And that there are witnesses prepared to testify to all of that. Can news reports be wrong? Sure. But I doubt it.

The US Atty's Office loses very few cases. Not none, but few. Why? Because they are usually very conservative in their filing/indictment decisions, sometimes to the point of being criticized as not being aggressive enough. The last thing they want is to lose a high profile case.

Of course juries are always unpredictable, and Vick's own statements (and those of his attorneys) make his guilt obvious. Take what is publicly known at this stage, put it all together with these other factors, and I think the smart money is on them having the goods on Vick.

[greybeard]

While of course it is possible that they indicted him "based upon mirrors rather than solid evidence," that is highly unlikely. Not impossible, but I'd put my money against it in a big way.

Of course we need to see this play out. But as far as the "nature of Vick's ties to this thing," I don't know what information you're going on, but from news reports that I've read, he owned the property, he owned a lot of dogs, he was present for a lot of dog fights, and he financed the whole enterprise -- intimate involvement in the whole operation. And that there are witnesses prepared to testify to all of that. Can news reports be wrong? Sure. But I doubt it.

The US Atty's Office loses very few cases. Not none, but few. Why? Because they are usually very conservative in their filing/indictment decisions, sometimes to the point of being criticized as not being aggressive enough. The last thing they want is to lose a high profile case.

Of course juries are always unpredictable, and Vick's own statements (and those of his attorneys) make his guilt obvious. Take what is publicly known at this stage, put it all together with these other factors, and I think the smart money is on them having the goods on Vick.

Well done Tommy. I am shooting from the hip here; I have not read the indictment and frankly am unconcerned with this as a "Federal' crime other than being upset that it is one. See my previous post on that.

That said, allow me to continue. The things that I understand are uncontrovertable are (1) he owned the joint; (2) he incorporated what he could well have understood was to be a dog breeding operation. Might even have hard evidence that he attended fights. The rest, I would have to guess, is what the "eyewitness" evidence is about, together with the other anechdotal evidence--ie, that he was involved in running and financing a dog fighting operation. I doubt that there are books and records that are going to show that he either owned fighting dogs or financed the entire operation. On the other hand, you might well be right--that independent of the flipped witness, they have enough hard evidence to convict. I really don't know.

You are simply wrong about your perspective on US Attorney's offices only indicting what they know they can convict. In case you have been absent from the planet, the Bush administration has politicized every agency of the government, including the freakin Justice Department and US Attorney's offices. If there was not a war, this US Attorney firing scandal could well be the most serious of my lifetime, including the Nixon impeachment.

[greybeard]

Henry Hudson, the judge in the Vick case, was the US Attorney in the Eastern District of Va beginning in 1986. His claim to fame during the Regan years was being the point man on that extremely dangerous crime known as pornography. He made it to the bench. How come his predecessor in that job had the rug pulled out from under her nomination to a magistrate's job?

[tommy]

Well done Tommy. I am shooting from the hip here; I have not read the indictment and frankly am unconcerned with this as a "Federal' crime other than being upset that it is one. See my previous post on that.

That said, allow me to continue. The things that I understand are uncontrovertable are (1) he owned the joint; (2) he incorporated what he could well have understood was to be a dog breeding operation. Might even have hard evidence that he attended fights. The rest, I would have to guess, is what the "eyewitness" evidence is about, together with the other anechdotal evidence--ie, that he was involved in running and financing a dog fighting operation. I doubt that there are books and records that are going to show that he either owned fighting dogs or financed the entire operation. On the other hand, you might well be right--that independent of the flipped witness, they have enough hard evidence to convict. I really don't know.

You are simply wrong about your perspective on US Attorney's offices only indicting what they know they can convict. In case you have been absent from the planet, the Bush administration has politicized every agency of the government, including the freakin Justice Department and US Attorney's offices. If there was not a war, this US Attorney firing scandal could well be the most serious of my lifetime, including the Nixon impeachment.

I can tell you from spending an entire career in the criminal justice system in Los Angeles that my perspective on the US Attorney's Office is not wrong. It is not something which is even debated among other prosecutorial agencies - DA's, City Attorneys, etc., the criminal defense bar, both state and federal, the bench, and Asst. US Attorneys themselves. Everyone acknowledges that the US Atty's Office is extremely tight with their filing/indicting decisions. Sometimes they are mocked for just this quality -- to the point that people in the system joke that AUSA's don't really have to have a whole lot of trial skills because all their cases have taped confessions or the crime itself is on tape, or else the case wouldn't have been filed in the first place. That of course is an exaggeration, but that's the way it's talked about openly around here. And the same goes in another major office, that in San Diego. So on that issue, my friend, you are wrong.

You are quite correct, on the other hand, that the Bush Administration's politicizing these offices as never before is an absolute outrage. But you're missing the larger issue: the pressure was brought to bear on the US Atty's to file politically-motivated cases that lacked sufficient evidence to convict. It was these US Attys' reluctance or refusal to do so that led directly to their firings. It was just the characteristic that I've been describing -- tight filing standards, making sure they've got very strong evidence before filing to almost ensure convictions -- that p*ssed off Cheney, Gonzalez, Rove, and the rest of those crooks, because it resulted in less of these bogus filings than the Administration wanted.