Not if, but when.
According to one of his attorneys, the charges against DeAndre Baker will be dropped and the criminal case in Broward County, Fla., against the Giants cornerback will go away.
“This case is going to be dismissed,’’ Patrick Patel told The Post on Monday. “One day soon, this case is gonna be dismissed.’’
Don't mean to start another baker thread among the many, but thought this deserved it's own thread.
Lawyer guarantees dismissal ny post - (
New Window )
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
and all the BBI mouth breathers can once again stand corrected in the hope that next time they will learn to just shut the fuck up.
good luck with that. they turned a simple complilation of scouting reports that I posted into food riot this morning.
I hear that's a no nonsense wrecking crew.
Yeah, possibly encouraged by an undisclosed “settlement” before they turned themselves in.
💯
Quote:
In comment 14906249 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
I’m not an expert in the criminal justice system, but isn’t rare not to be granted bail? Particularly when no one was physically hurt?
Quote:
In comment 14906251 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906249 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
I’m not an expert in the criminal justice system, but isn’t rare not to be granted bail? Particularly when no one was physically hurt?
Supposedly because he was facing up to 60 years was the reason given that he would not have granted it
Quote:
there will still be people that want him cut!
I'm not sure I want him cut, but I'm sure he's still an immature child who was skipping team meetings last week even before the alleged incident. So I'm not sure I want him back, either.
I think there's a really good chance that he's a nitwit even if he's not a felon. I don't know if we should be rooting for his guaranteed money to hold up here.
I'm rooting for him. If he is innocent and absolved i'd like to think its a wake-up call. Maybe this hit at the right time with the right coach who can get him back on track.
Quote:
.
💯
+2
Took a couple days for envelopes to be delivered. Or for reminders to be sent about what happens to snitches. Or some combo thereof.
Shocked.
Quote:
.
Shocked.
You're shocked that he's an idiot? Well, I guess there had to be one.
However, just for fun, what makes sense to me is a shakedown that may have, a least partially, worked. I'm guessing their lawyers worked out the payoff with the accussers. I'm sure the lawyers explained their clients can't pay out if they no longer have a career. The accussers, if they have half a brain, needed something in return because they will likey face charges for lying to police. Alternatively, they are guilty of the charges and the rest is still true (i.e. paid off).
Regardless, as others have said, hopefully the smoke will clear and it really was a wakeup call.
You’re the
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
A judge at a bail review hearing never dismisses the case. Their role isn’t to opine on the merits of the case but to determine if the accused is entitled to bail based on specific criteria.
Based on what I have heard of this case, the key issue is likely whether or not Baker brandished a firearm. If witnesses are saying he did, then I think the case goes forward, regardless of what inconsistencies might exist between the affidavits and earlier statements. If witnesses are backing off on this allegation, then a good chance the charges are dismissed.
I don't want him cut; but TRADED is a different matter!
In JJ's system is there room for a player who did not feel it necessary to attend any team sessions so far?!?
Quote:
there will still be people that want him cut!
I don't want him cut; but TRADED is a different matter!
In JJ's system is there room for a player who did not feel it necessary to attend any team sessions so far?!?
LOL who is gonna trade for him right now?!
Quote:
there will still be people that want him cut!
I'm not sure I want him cut, but I'm sure he's still an immature child who was skipping team meetings last week even before the alleged incident. So I'm not sure I want him back, either.
I think there's a really good chance that he's a nitwit even if he's not a felon. I don't know if we should be rooting for his guaranteed money to hold up here.
dude you're right, he is a child, he just turned 22. Yea i bet he skipped class too.
If he's guilty, cya but if not you people need to chill the fuck out and realize his off the field antics isn't your problem so chill the fuck out.
Quote:
In comment 14906299 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
.
Shocked.
You're shocked that he's an idiot? Well, I guess there had to be one.
this fucking guy. lol
Additionally, one of the men that the police they spoke to that night specifically mentioned that Baker was not involved. The police left that out of their reports. That's a problem for the prosecution.
They can't even say specifically if Baker had a gun there because all of the witnesses' statements are invalid.
Like many here, after hearing the initial accusations (robbery, guns, gambling, etc) I was angry and expected Baker to be gone. Now, it seems as if there is nothing here and nothing for Goodell to punish these players over. He can't suspend them for conduct detrimental, when there is no evidence that anything happened. The attorneys making the case that they were victims of a sham is, at minimum, a plausible scenario.
Personally, I have no idea what really happened but will try to judge this guy by his behavior moving forward.
Finally, for those complaining Baker has not been participating in the virtual team sessions (which I agree is both a mistake, and pathetic) aren't these sessions considered voluntary?
Quote:
there will still be people that want him cut!
I don't want him cut; but TRADED is a different matter!
In JJ's system is there room for a player who did not feel it necessary to attend any team sessions so far?!?
Maybe we can get that third round pick back...
Additionally, one of the men that the police they spoke to that night specifically mentioned that Baker was not involved. The police left that out of their reports. That's a problem for the prosecution.
They can't even say specifically if Baker had a gun there because all of the witnesses' statements are invalid.
Like many here, after hearing the initial accusations (robbery, guns, gambling, etc) I was angry and expected Baker to be gone. Now, it seems as if there is nothing here and nothing for Goodell to punish these players over. He can't suspend them for conduct detrimental, when there is no evidence that anything happened. The attorneys making the case that they were victims of a sham is, at minimum, a plausible scenario.
Personally, I have no idea what really happened but will try to judge this guy by his behavior moving forward.
Finally, for those complaining Baker has not been participating in the virtual team sessions (which I agree is both a mistake, and pathetic) aren't these sessions considered voluntary?
I wouldn’t count out a suspension. The new CBA actually allows suspensions to be handed down as soon as an arrest warrant is issued, regardless of the outcome of the legal process.
and all the BBI mouth breathers can once again stand corrected in the hope that next time they will learn to just shut the fuck up.
Dream On!! Look at what's happened here in the span of three days. Baker gets arrested and half the discussion was about how negligent the team was to trade up for a guy with a ton of red flags and a career that lasted one year.
You'd think time and again after rushing to judgment on things and being often proved wrong that people would sit back and let things play out. Hell, even now we have no fucking clue what's going to happen - but we know what's happened here.
Baker was a wasted pick, the scouts and Gettleman ignored red flags that EVERYONE knew about, and Bobby Abacus even gave a few multi-paragraph rants about how analytics fucked us again (if you are wondering what the fuck the connection was, you weren't alone).
And people won't learn. They'll do it again next time.
Quote:
As others have mentioned, it appears the criminal case is over as they have no witnesses.
Additionally, one of the men that the police they spoke to that night specifically mentioned that Baker was not involved. The police left that out of their reports. That's a problem for the prosecution.
They can't even say specifically if Baker had a gun there because all of the witnesses' statements are invalid.
Like many here, after hearing the initial accusations (robbery, guns, gambling, etc) I was angry and expected Baker to be gone. Now, it seems as if there is nothing here and nothing for Goodell to punish these players over. He can't suspend them for conduct detrimental, when there is no evidence that anything happened. The attorneys making the case that they were victims of a sham is, at minimum, a plausible scenario.
Personally, I have no idea what really happened but will try to judge this guy by his behavior moving forward.
Finally, for those complaining Baker has not been participating in the virtual team sessions (which I agree is both a mistake, and pathetic) aren't these sessions considered voluntary?
I wouldn’t count out a suspension. The new CBA actually allows suspensions to be handed down as soon as an arrest warrant is issued, regardless of the outcome of the legal process.
The fact that this, in theory, could be a shake down would probably negate the warrant...no?
This whole incident is about as likely to be a shakedown of Baker and Dunbar as it is to be any criminal actions on their parts.
But still, our first round prospective starting CB is out gambling at dice as opposed to studying his playbook for a new coaching regime. Our 1st round CB who admitted, in the middle of last season, he hadn't studied his playbook enough. Our first round CB who used to sleep through position meetings, or in the locker room when others were learning and somehow applying themselves to their new jobs. Our first round CB who is a top 15 talent who fell to the 30th selection at least partly because he tested poorly at the combine, which resulted at least partly from his lack of preparation for it.
Is this a guy Joe Judge wants on his team?
I doubt it from here. But I'm not there nor on JJ's staff.
This whole incident is about as likely to be a shakedown of Baker and Dunbar as it is to be any criminal actions on their parts.
But still, our first round prospective starting CB is out gambling at dice as opposed to studying his playbook for a new coaching regime. Our 1st round CB who admitted, in the middle of last season, he hadn't studied his playbook enough. Our first round CB who used to sleep through position meetings, or in the locker room when others were learning and somehow applying themselves to their new jobs. Our first round CB who is a top 15 talent who fell to the 30th selection at least partly because he tested poorly at the combine, which resulted at least partly from his lack of preparation for it.
Is this a guy Joe Judge wants on his team?
I doubt it from here. But I'm not there nor on JJ's staff.
Some good points. It seems that he will be under scrutiny at the least and will have have a short leash. I can't say it is fair - but it is reality in terms of past behavior (if reports are correct) and missing meetings. Baker has put a target on his back. This recent event shows bad judgment at the least.
It could be a wake-up call if he gets out of it, or he could just go on thinking he is entitled and "bulletproof" - excuse the unintended pun.
Time will tell. I don't think the Giants should cut him - or trade him for a low return. They should also have a Plan "B" ready.
I just hope the guy gets cleared in both the legal system and with the NFL so he can be judged based upon what he is able to do on the field.
If he is found to be guilty, then put him away and end his career.
The one thing I truly hate is when someone is tried by the mob.
Quote:
In comment 14906249 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
Where did I say that you claimed that the judge granted a dismissal?
I am responding to your point. You said that the legal expert said that the judge granted bail based on the affidavits. I'm pointing out that whatever was in the affidavits may have been enough to grant bail but it obviously wasn't enough to dismiss the charges on their face.
Hence, there's still something there.
Quote:
In comment 14906251 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906249 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
Where did I say that you claimed that the judge granted a dismissal?
I am responding to your point. You said that the legal expert said that the judge granted bail based on the affidavits. I'm pointing out that whatever was in the affidavits may have been enough to grant bail but it obviously wasn't enough to dismiss the charges on their face.
Hence, there's still something there.
It was a bail hearing, not an evidentiary hearing. Bakers lawyer did not even request a dismissal of the charges, because this is not the venue to do so. Bakers lawyer submitted one affadavit from a witness for purposes of the bail, but said he had others he was holding on to for legal defense.
This whole thing seems off, but if they do dismiss charges, Judge tells Baker 1 thing and it’s simple. “You have all the talent in the world. I watched games last season so Patrick and I can scout the defense and make the system better for this team moving forward. I want you to take some time to calm your nerves. But this is it. You miss any voluntary workouts, you have any more mishaps... your done as a Giant. We want you here and think you can be a top CB in this league which is why we signed Bradberry to show you as a vet what it takes to be a top CB. Put this behind you, focus on football and let’s work towards improving to win a championship in the near future.”
We all know if guilty, he’s cut.
Quote:
In comment 14906251 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906249 montanagiant said:
Quote:
In comment 14906235 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14906210 montanagiant said:
Quote:
There is no case against Baker or Dunbar because the people who accused them are the same ones who signed the affidavits saying they did nothing wrong.
Which is probably why they both took their time turning themselves in. Those affidavits are the reason why they were granted bail
Not to be difficult but it feels like an "if" is missing. CBS's legal expert has no way of knowing who the exculpatory affidavits are from; they have not been made public in any fashion. There's no secret lawyer database where they tell each other what affidavits they're in possession of.
Yes, she does, she talked directly to the lawyers for Dunbar and Baker.
The Judge who granted bail stated that he did so because of those affidavits
He granted bail but not a summary dismissal.
There's still something there.
I never claimed he granted a dismissal, I said he granted bail and said he would not have done so without those affidavits
Where did I say that you claimed that the judge granted a dismissal?
I am responding to your point. You said that the legal expert said that the judge granted bail based on the affidavits. I'm pointing out that whatever was in the affidavits may have been enough to grant bail but it obviously wasn't enough to dismiss the charges on their face.
Hence, there's still something there.
A judge does not grant a dismissal at a bail hearing. Only the Prosecution can do that
I stand corrected then.
I still think there's a valid consideration to the point that ColHowPepper made though - Baker's attorney(s) holding back some portion of the affidavits as a strategic maneuver could definitely mean that he thinks the state does have enough to still take this to trial.
Or it could mean exactly the opposite - that he thinks the case is weak enough that it could crumble even without him having to play those cards.
But the poker player in me feels like there's a reason why those affidavits are being held back, and it might be that they're more valuable (for whatever reason) in the exoneration that they MIGHT provide than the certainty that they'll prove Baker is innocent. Cohen is certainly playing the hand like it's pocket aces. But unlike poker, he doesn't benefit by getting anyone to raise the pot. If he's got a winner, he can go all-in right now, and a fold by the prosecutor is the best outcome. He's not doing that, as of yet.
If the case itself was completely flimsy, why not push to get the charges dropped entirely rather than drag this out? It's not like it's in Baker's best interest to have this hang over his head, so if the lawyer is angling for his best case to win at trial, that suggests to me (totally IMO) that he's pretty sure there will be a trial. And if that's the case, it could be because there might still be some sort of evidence in the case that he hasn't overcome yet.
I'll admit though, I just really have a hard time rooting for a kid that was wasting his NFL opportunity and betraying the Giants' choice of him even before the alleged robbery. I think it's very possible that the way his track record bothers me is affecting the way that I view his legal situation.
Quote:
A judge does not grant a dismissal at a bail hearing. Only the Prosecution can do that
I stand corrected then.
I still think there's a valid consideration to the point that ColHowPepper made though - Baker's attorney(s) holding back some portion of the affidavits as a strategic maneuver could definitely mean that he thinks the state does have enough to still take this to trial.
Or it could mean exactly the opposite - that he thinks the case is weak enough that it could crumble even without him having to play those cards.
But the poker player in me feels like there's a reason why those affidavits are being held back, and it might be that they're more valuable (for whatever reason) in the exoneration that they MIGHT provide than the certainty that they'll prove Baker is innocent. Cohen is certainly playing the hand like it's pocket aces. But unlike poker, he doesn't benefit by getting anyone to raise the pot. If he's got a winner, he can go all-in right now, and a fold by the prosecutor is the best outcome. He's not doing that, as of yet.
If the case itself was completely flimsy, why not push to get the charges dropped entirely rather than drag this out? It's not like it's in Baker's best interest to have this hang over his head, so if the lawyer is angling for his best case to win at trial, that suggests to me (totally IMO) that he's pretty sure there will be a trial. And if that's the case, it could be because there might still be some sort of evidence in the case that he hasn't overcome yet.
I'll admit though, I just really have a hard time rooting for a kid that was wasting his NFL opportunity and betraying the Giants' choice of him even before the alleged robbery. I think it's very possible that the way his track record bothers me is affecting the way that I view his legal situation.
This all took place last week. Lawyers want to investigate, get evidence and statements if available. One article mentioned that they are looking to get security videos from other neighbors that will either support the claims made or prove the victims lied in their initial statements. Who knows what other evidence they are still trying to gather. When charges this serious is filed, a lawyer has to prepare for it to go to trial regardless of how they feel about the case.
They can have a video from one of the people at the party showing nothing happened and yet they will continue to gather more evidence. The point is to make your hand as strong as possible before showing what you have and not just settling with some information.
To use your analogy of poker, if you have 3 aces in your hand are you going to show what you have before the other players decide if they are going to fold or put in or are you going to draw two more cards looking for another ace to add to your hand?
Quote:
In comment 14906730 montanagiant said:
Quote:
A judge does not grant a dismissal at a bail hearing. Only the Prosecution can do that
I stand corrected then.
I still think there's a valid consideration to the point that ColHowPepper made though - Baker's attorney(s) holding back some portion of the affidavits as a strategic maneuver could definitely mean that he thinks the state does have enough to still take this to trial.
Or it could mean exactly the opposite - that he thinks the case is weak enough that it could crumble even without him having to play those cards.
But the poker player in me feels like there's a reason why those affidavits are being held back, and it might be that they're more valuable (for whatever reason) in the exoneration that they MIGHT provide than the certainty that they'll prove Baker is innocent. Cohen is certainly playing the hand like it's pocket aces. But unlike poker, he doesn't benefit by getting anyone to raise the pot. If he's got a winner, he can go all-in right now, and a fold by the prosecutor is the best outcome. He's not doing that, as of yet.
If the case itself was completely flimsy, why not push to get the charges dropped entirely rather than drag this out? It's not like it's in Baker's best interest to have this hang over his head, so if the lawyer is angling for his best case to win at trial, that suggests to me (totally IMO) that he's pretty sure there will be a trial. And if that's the case, it could be because there might still be some sort of evidence in the case that he hasn't overcome yet.
I'll admit though, I just really have a hard time rooting for a kid that was wasting his NFL opportunity and betraying the Giants' choice of him even before the alleged robbery. I think it's very possible that the way his track record bothers me is affecting the way that I view his legal situation.
This all took place last week. Lawyers want to investigate, get evidence and statements if available. One article mentioned that they are looking to get security videos from other neighbors that will either support the claims made or prove the victims lied in their initial statements. Who knows what other evidence they are still trying to gather. When charges this serious is filed, a lawyer has to prepare for it to go to trial regardless of how they feel about the case.
They can have a video from one of the people at the party showing nothing happened and yet they will continue to gather more evidence. The point is to make your hand as strong as possible before showing what you have and not just settling with some information.
To use your analogy of poker, if you have 3 aces in your hand are you going to show what you have before the other players decide if they are going to fold or put in or are you going to draw two more cards looking for another ace to add to your hand?
Except, as I mentioned, getting your opponent to fold is the optimal outcome in this scenario if you're Baker's attorney.
If you have no-doubt-about-it exculpatory evidence already in hand, holding onto it strategically doesn't make sense. I have to think that even if what Baker's lawyer has is extremely compelling, there's something about it that's not airtight. At least not yet, as you note.
“And this ruckus blows out in another room in this house,’’ Patel said. “He doesn’t have anything to do with the ruckus. He didn’t even see it. The only thing he sees is out of the corner of his eye a table getting flipped over and everybody running, screaming and yelling. And he’s out. Thank God he bounced.’’
Patel said he is in the process of procuring video evidence to debunk the arrest warrant’s contention Baker’s car was “pre-positioned’’ for a quick getaway. The video would show Baker was in the passenger seat of his car — another 22-year-old was serving as Baker’s designated driver for the night — and waited in line until several cars passed through a security checkpoint in the gated community before exiting the complex.
DeAndre Baker’s NFL future could be an agonizing test case
Based on the time stamp when Baker’s car passed through the gate, Patel believes he will be able to prove it took at least two hours for anyone at the party to call the police.
“You’re robbed at armed gunpoint and you’re gonna wait two hours to call the police?’’ Patel said. “It’s a shame the kid’s life is ruined at this point in time and he’s got to fight his way out of this. But it just gets worse and worse and worse, this whole story. It’s disgusting.’’
link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Patel said Baker arrived at the party carrying his “Madden” console, two controllers, and a charger. He went into the house, hooked the game up to a big-screen TV, and played the video game for the hour to hour-and-a-half he was there. Baker inadvertently left the game at the house. Patel said he will try to get electronic proof Baker was indeed logged in and playing “Madden” that night.
“And this ruckus blows out in another room in this house,’’ Patel said. “He doesn’t have anything to do with the ruckus. He didn’t even see it. The only thing he sees is out of the corner of his eye a table getting flipped over and everybody running, screaming and yelling. And he’s out. Thank God he bounced.’’
Patel said he is in the process of procuring video evidence to debunk the arrest warrant’s contention Baker’s car was “pre-positioned’’ for a quick getaway. The video would show Baker was in the passenger seat of his car — another 22-year-old was serving as Baker’s designated driver for the night — and waited in line until several cars passed through a security checkpoint in the gated community before exiting the complex.
DeAndre Baker’s NFL future could be an agonizing test case
Based on the time stamp when Baker’s car passed through the gate, Patel believes he will be able to prove it took at least two hours for anyone at the party to call the police.
“You’re robbed at armed gunpoint and you’re gonna wait two hours to call the police?’’ Patel said. “It’s a shame the kid’s life is ruined at this point in time and he’s got to fight his way out of this. But it just gets worse and worse and worse, this whole story. It’s disgusting.’’
link - ( New Window )
The timestamp would be a very interesting development, and it's interesting (to me, at least) that Patel is going with the opposite tack that Cohen has been choosing.
I'm curious to see if this Jersey City ambulance chaser can pull some fancy lawyering here.