Bill Swerski Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Yeah, I read the article, thanks. It didn't say the Feds have offered a year. It said "sources" say the Feds have offered Vick a year. Didn't ESPN "sources" say Vick would not be charged just two days before the Feds brought forth a case against him? What I've heard (from the "legal experts" on TV, whatever that's worth) is that Vick is looking at a minimum of one year and possibly two. With good behavior, that would be 6-12 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 BTW - let's not overlook the fact that he has not been charged in local jurisdiction yet. Poindexter would look like a horse's patoot if Vick were nailed on Federal charges either in court or in a plea agreement and Poindexter sat on his sorry racist arse and did nothing. Local law can still be brought to bear on Vic, and this thing ain't over even if Vick does cop a Federal plea agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 What I've heard (from the "legal experts" on TV, whatever that's worth) is that Vick is looking at a minimum of one year and possibly two. With good behavior, that would be 6-12 months. It is my understanding that people sentenced under Federal jurisdiction have to serve a minimum of 83% of their sentence. Not positive about that, but it seems to me that I heard that is part of Federal sentencing guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 The desperate try to hang on to this for a shread of dignity or deniability, but those who inform themselves of the true nature of such a plea understand it for the meaningless dodge it is. That's an awfully contemptuous statement to make for our legal system and its clients. What kind of law do you practice? You're right that the feds probably won't accept a plea of no contest, but it's not because they refuse to accept a "meaningless dodge." It's because a plea of no contest simply means you do not dispute the facts, you are not going to contest it for a trial, but the court still must make a finding of guilty. The state courts I've worked in will not accept a no contest plea for most felonies, either, for the same reason: A no contest plea allows for a whole lot more room to make an appeal. I've seen it happen: Enter a no contest plea, judge finds you guilty, you appeal on the basis that the judge did not have sufficient facts to make a finding of guilty. The reaons a no contest plea is more acceptable at the misdemeanor level is a matter of economics: No one is gonna clog the courts with stupid appeals based on a no contest or Alford plea when you are facing a max $1,000 fine because the appeal will cost you far more than that. Plus, prosecutors -- you know, like that honorable guy in the Duke case -- who do so cherish their conviction records for purposes of their future political ambitions are sorta in a good position to demand a guilty plea if you want to deal. I've never known a defendant of any kind in that postition to be concerned about hanging on to "a shread of dignity or deniability." They enter such pleas at the advice of counsel, because if your attorney advised you to plead guilty where a court would accept a plea of no contest, you could probably sue him for malpractice. When you are facing felony charges at either the state or federal level, personal dignity is the least of your concerns. I've never heard anyone say, "Yeah, I served three years in prison, but I entered a no contest plea ... So, I got that goin' for me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 (edited) What I've heard (from the "legal experts" on TV, whatever that's worth) is that Vick is looking at a minimum of one year and possibly two. With good behavior, that would be 6-12 months. Good time calculations in the federal system are to reduce by up to, but no more than 15%, time served. Federal time is essentially federal time. Typicaly defendants serve 90% or more. Rare is the individual who gets that down to 85%. Not like state or local jurisdictions where very typically defendants can serve as little as 50 or 60%. Edited August 15, 2007 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 It is my understanding that people sentenced under Federal jurisdiction have to serve a minimum of 83% of their sentence. Not positive about that, but it seems to me that I heard that is part of Federal sentencing guidelines. You are well informed. If one takes into account regulatory as well as statutory matters the figure is adjusted down slightly from 85%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Good time calculations in the federal system are to reduce by up to, but no more than 15%, time served. Federal time is essentially federal time. Typicaly defendants serve 90% or more. Rare is the individual who gets that dow to 85%. Not like state or local jurisdictions were very typically defendants can serve as little as 50 or 60%. Good info here. Not surprisingly, the "experts" on TV don't know what they're talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Score 1 Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 If Vick pleads guilty, he likely would serve no more than a year in jail, according to federal guidelines. If the conspiracy charges are dropped, allowing him to only admit a role in the dogfighting offenses (misdemeanors) he could face even less time. Vick's legal team not only must negotiate with the U.S. Attorney's Office, but with the NFL as well. If Vick cannot secure a deal that saves his NFL career, he could decide to go to trial, risking a lengthy prison sentence if he is convicted. www.ajc.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 www.ajc.com So Vick pleads, gets a 1 year sentence, doesn't serve all of that with good behavior, and then he is suspended for next season. After that, he can technically come back to the NFL, but you know that the whole PETA/ASPCA crowd is going to follow him (and more importantly for him getting hired, any team that hires him) for the rest of his career, he going to be greeted with barking and chants of "Ookie! Ookie" whenever he runs out onto a field and he can trash any endorsement deals he might have had for anybody besides Bad Boys Bail Bonds. All this for a guy who honestly was not a great football QB. Ouch! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 It has become far too evident that he was in someway involved in this. I withdraw my name from people who back Michael Vick. He's an absolutely amazing football player, but it seems like the feds will let everyone walk except for Vick. I'm not sitting by Menudo and company yet though, as I don't feel any hazing is needed until after he is found guilty or innocent. It's been fun guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 (edited) I don't see how they can suspend Thurman for 2 years (minimum so far - who knows how much longer it will go?) for his transgressions and then 1 year of apparent compliance with league policy that apparently got him exactly nowhere in Goodell's eyes when we are talking about a guy who by all visible evidence was the big cheese in a dog fighting operation that had been around for years - and that's not even looking at other transgressions (Ron Mexico, flipping off fans, airport water bottle). If Vick goes down in a Federal rap (pun intended), how can Goodell not give him at least 2 years worth of suspension above & beyond his time in the Federal pen, given the precedence he has now established? Edited August 16, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 I don't see how they can suspend Thurman for 2 years (minimum so far - who knows how much longer it will go?) for his transgressions and then 1 year of apparent compliance with league policy that apparently got him exactly nowhere in Goodell's eyes when we are talking about a guy who by all visible evidence was the big cheese in a dog fighting operation that had been around for years - and that's not even looking at other transgressions (Ron Mexico, flipping off fans, airport water bottle). If Vick goes down in a Federal rap (pun intended), how can Goodell not give him at least 2 years worth of suspension above & beyond his time in the Federal pen, given the precedence he has now established? I strongly suspect there was something to that late night party back in July for Odell even though charges were dropped. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL quietly investigated it themselves. 'Cause I just don't get that unless there is something unreported thus far. Anyway, you're right about the comparison IMO. The laws he's broken are just over the top. He can't say he" just made a mistake" or any of that nonsense. I think we all can have at least some empathy for players who have substance abuse issues. Vick is a dogfighting kingpin. That said, 2 years out of the league (including jail) before a reinstatement review can even happen is the bare minimum I would expect. If Godell really has the balls, a llifetime ban would really show he means business. Although I doubt anyone could successfully come back after 2 years away anyway IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 I think we all can have at least some empathy for players who have substance abuse issues. Speak for yourself. If Godell really has the balls, a llifetime ban would really show he means business. LOL - there is no way he has the jewels for that. No commish of any sport does. It's what Vick deserves, of course, but no way will it happen. And if he serves even a full year in jail (altho he deserves more), I'd be quite surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 Speak for yourself. Are you a cop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.