Comments on: Source: Masoli Theft Case ‘In Front Of’ Grand Jury

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:08:35 +0000

so where are we at with this. This is from 2 weeks ago

By: ToSam

ToSam — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:51:12 +0000

Sam, unless you have seen the evidence how in the world would you know that he’s unlikely to be convicted of any crimes?

Also, regarding whether a grand jury has been convened - would you like to bet? The process started February 11.

Sure, there are lots of rumors and misinformed twitter posts flying around, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t LOTS of evidence you don’t know about.

Just wait and see.

By: Sam

Sam — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 17:48:12 +0000

When an indictment has been presented to a grand jury, the accused is actually not typically even part of the proceeding. If they are, their attorney cannot be present in the courtroom, and the evidentiary standards are not the same as during trial - things like hearsay are often admissible in the grand jury proceeding that would be suppressed or excluded at trial.

Bottom line - JM has not been indicted by a grand jury, nobody on here really knows whether a grand jury has even been convened and presented with an indictment, and even if he is indicted by a grand jury, it appears unlikely that he will be convicted of any crimes other than possibly trespassing in relation to this incident.

I’m not licensed to practice in Oregon, but I’m quite familiar with general criminal procedure concepts, and its shocking how much misinformation and speculation based on twitter posts the alleged incident has caused. Let the legal system run its course - at this point there is absolutely nothing besides an accusation (which in my opinion appears questionable) and a bunch of rumors.

By: Mark Stevens

Mark Stevens — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:38:34 +0000

Watching court TV, it is often said that any attorney can get a potato charged in front of a grand jury.

The defendant is asked questions by the prosecuting attorney only. All the evidence against the defendant is presented no counter claims of innocents is allowed.

The goal is to see is there enough evidence for a “possible” conviction

By: You step on a duck?

You step on a duck? — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 23:36:14 +0000

Just think if true, two of the top 10 heisman hopefuls will be off the team. That is crazy for two guys in the same backfield to be face possible charges. James is going for sure, and if indicted, then Masoli was be removed too.
Not looking too good for UO.

By: nearduck

nearduck — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 00:24:32 +0000

Court holiday yesterday… how did it go to the grand jury?

By: knowhow

knowhow — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:55:43 +0000

HE isn’t in front of a grand jury. “The grand jury has this in front of them” means they are trying to indict him. That means the DA thinks there is enough proof to charge and arrest him, but they are having the people indict him instead. They present proof to the grand jury to see whether they think there is probable cause. If they say yes, they’ll make the arrest/charge him.

Indictments are usually secret until the arrest is made because you don’t want the accused to know he’s about to get arrested.

By: holdin5aces

holdin5aces — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:04:11 +0000

We all called him Bob in middle school, but yes today Phil Knight.

By: You step on a duck?

You step on a duck? — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:53:37 +0000

Grand jury testimony is usually not made public, so the information in front of the grand jury is not out in the public domain just yet. If he is charged it will be a major issue. I hope ESPN picks up on the story. I haven’t heard of anything other than on this site and a few small oregon papers/blogs.

By: Duckfan

Duckfan — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:46:09 +0000

That sounds like a rather biased source to me. ” It will be difficult to charge Masoli, though it appears he probably was involved.” If the court could show he was involved, why would they have difficulty convicting him?

This sounds like some U of O haters looking for an explanation as to why nothing will come of this.