,
26 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Yesterday I did a live tweet of the preliminary hearing in Tyreek Hill’s 2014 domestic assault case. That ended up as a 161 tweet monster. This morning, I’m going to try and give a tl;dr and offer my legal opinions about the hearing
First, let’s make one thing clear: Tyreek Hill was not going to *win* the preliminary hearing. I discussed this early yesterday, but prelim is designed to be easy for the State to win - the burden is probable cause, which is equivalent to ~51% proof according to legal scholars
Prosecutors have an ethical standard to not file cases that aren’t supported by probable cause, so basically, if the State can’t win a prelim, they probably shouldn’t have filed the case in the first place. Just having your witnesses show up is usually enough. It was here
But the defense can lose a battle and still win the war, and this is often the case with preliminary hearings. The State’s burden at this stage is minimal, but it still has to put witnesses under oath, and that can be trouble down the road. It was here
Let’s talk briefly about the strengths and weaknesses of the State’s case. First, the strengths: 1) Espinal showed up (no small thing in a DV case) and was willing to testify, 2) she didn’t have a criminal record, 3) she was largely consistent in her testimony
4) there were photos of her injuries (including ~23 that were not published yesterday), 5) there was no actual hard evidence that she was involved in cutting or self-mutilation or seeing a psychologist for such, 6) there was a cop, who found a shirt
That’s certainly enough to get the State past 51%, but at trial, with the burden being proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the challenge is far greater. BARD is usually considered to be equivalent to ~95% proof
The weaknesses in the State’s case: 1) law enforcement did very little: they didn’t extensively interview Hill, if at all; they didn’t check either party’s phones; they didn’t find any forensic evidence at the crime scene; they don’t appear to have interviewed many witnesses
2) Espinal’s credibility: I don’t want to go too far here, because again, no hard evidence was presented at prelim (not that it would be) to show she cut, or was seeing a psychologist, or had Munchausen Syndrome, or any of that. But I do think the defense could’ve attacked
2 (cont) the discrepancy between what Espinal says happened and the physical evidence, or lack thereof. These allegations were *brutal.* The photos you saw were not (though again, we don’t have them all). Hill’s room was not.
3) defense evidence. The defense doesn’t have to put on evidence because they don’t have the burden of proof, so they don’t show their hand at prelim. We don’t know what Ramsey (Hill’s lawyer) had up her sleeve. But even if all of her seeds planted at prelim did not bear fruit
3 (cont) the defense definitely laid the foundation to present its own evidence at trial. For instance, remember how Ramsey crossed Espinal about whether Eric, the roommate, let her back into the apartment that night? Whether she even saw him that day? Espinal said no.
3 (cont) that line of questioning (usually) is setting up Eric to testify at trial and say he *did* see Espinal that day, let her back into the apartment, what have you, which would impact Espinal’s credibility since she’s already denied that under oath
We all know Hill plead guilty, and that’s naturally a sticking point for a lot of people: why would he plead guilty if he didn’t do it? Simple: risk mitigation. A trial is always a risk, especially for people of color. If you lose, you likely go to prison. Convicted felon. No NFL
If you take the deal - and this was a GREAT deal - you’re guaranteed to avoid incarceration, you can actually have the conviction *completely expunged* after three years, and you give yourself a small chance to get drafted and prove you have the talent to play in the league
Why WAS that plea deal so good? Typically, the following two factors are key to a prosecutor in making a plea deal: 1) how bad is the crime? and 2) how good is your case?
The crime alleged here is BAD. You know it’s bad because *everyone* who follows the NFL knows about it
The crime alleged here is BAD. You know it’s bad because *everyone* who follows the NFL knows about it
Hill punched and strangled a woman pregnant with his child. That’s awful. So why did Hill get such an unbelievable plea offer?
Some prosecutors simply don’t take DV seriously, so that’s one possibility. Another is that Hill was a local sports star. But I don’t think that’s it
Some prosecutors simply don’t take DV seriously, so that’s one possibility. Another is that Hill was a local sports star. But I don’t think that’s it
I think the plea deal says a lot about how the State viewed the strength of its case. The allegations were heinous. The State offered slap on wrist. That doesn’t really add up, unless...the State saw that this case was a disaster in the making at trial & was desperate for a deal
We don’t know when the plea offer was made - if we knew it was made *after* the prelim, it would essentially confirm this theory. But regardless, the circumstantial evidence of what motivated the light plea deal is strong.
So let’s talk for a moment about Hill’s representation
So let’s talk for a moment about Hill’s representation
No lawyer is perfect, but Cheryl Ramsey did an excellent job representing Hill at the prelim. She was prepared, asked smart questions, made good objections, and clearly had a plan for how she would try the case down the road. Unfortunately, Hill ran out of money to pay her
But I don’t want people to think Hill took a plea deal simply because he got bad advice from his public defender. First of all, most experienced public defenders are *excellent* criminal defense attorneys (albeit overworked)
Secondly, *almost any defense attorney in this case would’ve advised Hill to take the deal.* It’s SUCH a good deal. So the public defender gave Hill *good* advice, and he took it
I want to throw in this point made by a former MO public defender, because this should be said: jurisdiction also matters when making a plea deal. It’s possible that Stillwater had a policy of light DV offers
If anyone practices in Oklahoma, I’d be curious to get some feedback on this point. In my experience, larger jurisdictions tend to be less “tough on crime”; you’ll get a better plea deal in Kansas City or St. Louis than you will in Platte City. But I am speculating here
I’ll close with this (and then take questions if y’all have ‘em): I believe Hill got competent legal representation and made an informed, strategic decision to plead guilty in the 2014 case. If he had been my client, knowing only what I know, I would’ve advised he do the same
I also believe that Hill would’ve had a chance of acquittal had he taken the case to trial. But under the circumstances, again, I think he was smart to take the deal.
Questions?
Questions?
