League files motion for Hardy's evidence

[MadHatter]

And the league might find like most people who actually read followed and read the testimony in this case that it was a judgment call by the 1st judge... Not really a fact base conviction. . The league might make a different judgment call based on the evidence. . That again wasn't good enough for the prosecutor to go thru with the jury trial. ..

That is exactly why the league is asking for the transcripts of the first trial.....so they can review it. They are not going to go by the interpretation of the evidence by the media.

After the fiascos that the league has dealt with, they are smart to want to review all evidence and testimony us this case.

Try and keep up

[MadHatter]

The first court appearance was a hearing not a judgement. This is why Hardy was allowed to have a jury trial. If it were a real judgment Hardy could have requested a jury trial from the start. So that logic is flawed. Its like saying "well he was arrested so he must be guilty".

No, it was NOT a hearing. It was a trial by judge. They are not the same thing.

The reason he gets a trial by jury is due to the NC legal statutes.

[the butch]

Guys, guys, guys....

 

1.  The CONVICTION was a TRIAL by JUDGE in DISTRICT court

2.  The appeal was an appeal de novo to SUPERIOR court--meaning the conviction is WIPED OFF the books [backspace backspace backspace] and the computer system quite literally read, "JUDGMENT PENDING."

3.  State decided not to go forward with prosecution, DROPPING THE CRIMINAL SUIT against Hardy, i.e., there was no second trial, and since it was a trial de novo, there is no prior conviction to fall back on.  Result: Hardy is innocent, and can no longer be tried for domestic violence or communicating threats stemming from this incident.

4. The NFL is an UNINTERESTED PARTY.  They essentially have the same rights to the transcripts as you and I do.

 

CONCLUSION

 

NFL ain't gettin' the damn transcripts from Hardy's lawyer.

[MadHatter]

Guys, guys, guys....

1. The CONVICTION was a TRIAL by JUDGE in DISTRICT court

2. The appeal was an appeal de novo to SUPERIOR court--meaning the conviction is WIPED OFF the books [backspace backspace backspace] and the computer system quite literally read, "JUDGMENT PENDING."

3. State decided not to go forward with prosecution, DROPPING THE CRIMINAL SUIT against Hardy, i.e., there was no second trial, and since it was a trial de novo, there is no prior conviction to fall back on. Result: Hardy is innocent, and can no longer be tried for domestic violence or communicating threats stemming from this incident.

4. The NFL is an UNINTERESTED PARTY. They essentially have the same rights to the transcripts as you and I do.

CONCLUSION

NFL ain't gettin' the damn transcripts from Hardy's lawyer.

And if they don't , I will bet you Hardy absolutely gets a 6 game suspension

[Snake]

No, it was NOT a hearing. It was a trial by judge. They are not the same thing.

The reason he gets a trial by jury is due to the NC legal statutes.

It was a hearing but due to NC law they make you go though a judge to get to a jury trial. Its your constitutional right to have a jury trial before you can be convicted so thus its a hearing. Hardy was never found guilty by a jury so he was never guilty

[Red Zone]

anyone who thinks we can just offer the vet min and Hardy will be like..."Great! I'm all yours'" are smoking something.

dude is top-5, if not top-3 DE.

 

THIS

 

I would love for Greg to be on the field for the Panthers in 2015. I'm all for players being held accountable/responsible for their actions. I personally feel Greg and the Panthers Organization both received raw deals in this situation.

 

Voth outlined steps/actions required for Greg's return, and I felt some were extreme. If GH wants to play for the Panthers again, he certainly must take positive action towards making the situation right with the FO. (Including sincere amends)  

 

I keep reading where people say he could or should play for the vet minimum. I think there is very little chance of that happening. It's a business decision for both parties, and there's a huge difference between signing an incentive laden prove it deal verses vet minimum.

 

Hopefully it can be worked out.