When most people with his money and as much to lose as he possibly could have with a guilty verdict would probably have settled he insisted he wasn't guilty and fought it on principle.
The only guy sleeping better than Rose tonight is Phil Jackson
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
Civil case perjury is almost never prosecuted. And just because she lost doesnt mean you'd conclude she was lying at a criminal level -- jury just found it more likely that the defense's story was true (and indeed, we dont know they exact reason she lost).
Generally, under the "American Rule" each side pays its own legal fees. Here she is probably not out anything as I assume her lawyer took it on contingency. Barring a smoking gun gotcha lying moment, it's very unlikely that Rose could get a court to shift his fees onto her for malicious prosecution, and if he did, she may not have any money to actually pay.
So there are likely no legal ramifications based on my spitballed early take.
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
Generally you cant sue someone for defamation for prosecution of a lawsuit. It's hazier around the borders though. Im not sure if that applies to press conferences, since that isnt the case its extra curricular.
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
I was more curious on a general level. Like if Rose wasn't an athlete he still probably would face defamation even if he was cleared. I know he could file a counter-suit but its interesting that if he doesn't do anything there really wasn't much downside for the girl in accusing him in this. I guess it could potentially hurt her chances with future employers and stuff but considering the types of people she was hanging out with I wouldn't think that was a major concern for her.
an NBA groupie, sure "regular" people wouldn't try and make money this way but sort of limited downside hoping for a quick buck. I mean isn't this an "easier" move than one of these chicks who tries getting knocked up by a star and needs to actually... have a kid.
an NBA groupie, sure "regular" people wouldn't try and make money this way but sort of limited downside hoping for a quick buck. I mean isn't this an "easier" move than one of these chicks who tries getting knocked up by a star and needs to actually... have a kid.
Maybe she tried that first but wasn't able to get pregnant. Or got tired of waiting!
actually, that's not much of an option - an appellate court is not going to overturn a jury verdict unless the judge committed some kind of legal error like letting in inadmissible evidence or giving the jury a wrong instruction - and the odds of that are fairly low. The appellate court is not going to substitute its judgment of the facts themselves for the jury's.
... and since the standard of proof is lower in a civil case than a criminal case (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), this case has become very unattractive for a prosecutor to bother pursuing.
... and since the standard of proof is lower in a civil case than a criminal case (preponderance of the evidence vs. beyond a reasonable doubt), this case has become very unattractive for a prosecutor to bother pursuing.
Long way of saying I think this is over...
I dont think there is a prosecutor in America who would charge after a civil defense verdict.
Those texts that she sent him after why he didn't have sex with
That she never talked about being raped and was only after his money was a pretty decisive witness
That's the friend that she mentioned in her texts that also wanted to have sex with Rose. That's why the judge tried to tell her attorneys that the evidence could be used against her earlier in the trial.
Two jurors took a pic with Rose. One said he had never heard of him (not a sports fan), the other is not a Rose fan.
For the record I think it was a money grab, that that photo-op has to be frowned upon, right?
I don't know the details of the case, and if it was a money grab sucks that Rose had to go through this, but yes, I think it's poor form for jurors post trial to be seen taking pictures with either the plaintiff or defendant. There are more with all the people smiling and yucking it up.
even when as a party's lawyer I won a jury case, I would stay away from the jury afterwards. You did your job, they did theirs, case over.
It's very common to meet with the jurors after a case to get their opinions on the case, what they based their decisions, on etc. Every lawyer tries to do this.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
Civil case perjury is almost never prosecuted. And just because she lost doesnt mean you'd conclude she was lying at a criminal level -- jury just found it more likely that the defense's story was true (and indeed, we dont know they exact reason she lost).
Generally, under the "American Rule" each side pays its own legal fees. Here she is probably not out anything as I assume her lawyer took it on contingency. Barring a smoking gun gotcha lying moment, it's very unlikely that Rose could get a court to shift his fees onto her for malicious prosecution, and if he did, she may not have any money to actually pay.
So there are likely no legal ramifications based on my spitballed early take.
Quote:
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
Generally you cant sue someone for defamation for prosecution of a lawsuit. It's hazier around the borders though. Im not sure if that applies to press conferences, since that isnt the case its extra curricular.
Quote:
or just knows more about law than I do, are there any ramifications for the girl for falsely accusing Rose (aside from the legal fees and time she wasted)? Just curious.
he could always sue her for defamation but i doubt any more comes of this...
she tried for the money grab and failed, now both move on
I was more curious on a general level. Like if Rose wasn't an athlete he still probably would face defamation even if he was cleared. I know he could file a counter-suit but its interesting that if he doesn't do anything there really wasn't much downside for the girl in accusing him in this. I guess it could potentially hurt her chances with future employers and stuff but considering the types of people she was hanging out with I wouldn't think that was a major concern for her.
Maybe she tried that first but wasn't able to get pregnant. Or got tired of waiting!
actually, that's not much of an option - an appellate court is not going to overturn a jury verdict unless the judge committed some kind of legal error like letting in inadmissible evidence or giving the jury a wrong instruction - and the odds of that are fairly low. The appellate court is not going to substitute its judgment of the facts themselves for the jury's.
Long way of saying I think this is over...
Long way of saying I think this is over...
I dont think there is a prosecutor in America who would charge after a civil defense verdict.
@jon_greenberg
Two jurors took a pic with Rose. One said he had never heard of him (not a sports fan), the other is not a Rose fan.
That's the friend that she mentioned in her texts that also wanted to have sex with Rose. That's why the judge tried to tell her attorneys that the evidence could be used against her earlier in the trial.
Quote:
jon greenberg Verified account
@jon_greenberg
Two jurors took a pic with Rose. One said he had never heard of him (not a sports fan), the other is not a Rose fan.
For the record I think it was a money grab, that that photo-op has to be frowned upon, right?
Quote:
Quote:
jon greenberg Verified account
@jon_greenberg
Two jurors took a pic with Rose. One said he had never heard of him (not a sports fan), the other is not a Rose fan.
For the record I think it was a money grab, that that photo-op has to be frowned upon, right?
I don't know the details of the case, and if it was a money grab sucks that Rose had to go through this, but yes, I think it's poor form for jurors post trial to be seen taking pictures with either the plaintiff or defendant. There are more with all the people smiling and yucking it up.
he wished the accuser well as well in her going back to school
Quote:
Rose well, except when's playing the Lakers.
he wished the accuser well as well in her going back to school
Fucking well-wishers
It's very common to meet with the jurors after a case to get their opinions on the case, what they based their decisions, on etc. Every lawyer tries to do this.