I don't understand the first post. Was he saying that the robbery victims would recant for cash? Was he offering up other people who would claim to be witnesses in Baker's defense? Or was he offering up a hitman?
[Reply]

He was offering for his clients to recant or say anything if Baker paid them.
[Reply]

I have little involvement in extortion. I thought that was a relatively common thing to do in legal matters. No?

Oh, wait. Maybe that's common in civil matters and not criminal matters. Is that the difference?

Regardless, it sounds like this has been a very expensive partygoing experience for Mr. Baker.
[Reply]

Just part of the "Gangsta" lifestyle. Nothing to see here, move along.
[Reply]

So technically he's still probably guilty?
[Reply]

From the sounds of it. Or it was all a setup.
[Reply]

If your first assessment is correct and I believe it is, then these idiots hired an idiot to try and extort money? Why are the idiots that hired him not getting in trouble as well?

What evidence is there against Baker and Dunbar? I mean this could be them getting fucked by the guys they supposedly robbed.

Also what kind of idiot ass attorney thinks it's a good idea to try and extort money through another attorney? Baker's attorney was probably like Holy shit this guy's a moron and you just won your case.
[Reply]

Giants are not in on DeAndre Baker.
Teams interested: Chiefs, Bengals, 49ers and Jaguars. https://t.co/HS3pPAknVO

— Paul Schwartz (@NYPost_Schwartz) November 16, 2020

[Reply]

That is not common or even allowed in criminal cases.* Civil cases are demands (generally) about money, although there are some exceptions. I run into your car with my car. You are injured and your car is damaged. You want money. You file a lawsuit and you ask for money. The negotiations are about money. And money can solve the case. That is, I (usually the insurance company, but still...) agree to pay you a certain amount of money and you agree that the damages are made whole and the case goes away. In that instance, the civil case would be titled or captioned "RainMan v. Frozenchief." You would be the plaintiff and I would be the defendant.

Criminal cases are different because the remedy or relief sought is not primarily money, although there are some cases where a fine is at issue. Criminal cases seek a very specific remedy: loss of liberty or other rights. Because of that very specific remedy, only governmental agencies can file criminal cases. That's why criminal cases are usually titled something like "People of the State of California v John Doe" or "United States of America v John Doe." The governmental entity essentially says, "John Doe broke the law and the law demands a certain punishment."

To make a criminal case, the government relies upon the testimony of witnesses. It may seem odd, but witnesses are supposed to be neutral, at least financially neutral. Victims in a case may get restitution but in our system, restitution is only designed to make someone whole. It is not to compensate for any other damages. Civil cases include pain and suffering but restitution does not. So for a car wreck with $10K in medical damages, you might get $20-40K for settlement to cover pain and suffering, lost work, etc. But if you have $10K in total damages from a DUI, including or even primarily medical bills, the restitution would only be $10K. And usually that's your insurance company demanding money. But a witness or victim should not be looking at a criminal case as a way to make money.

With that background, imagine this matter going to trial. The victim takes the stand and talks about how Baker robbed him/her at gunpoint and took money and jewelry, etc. Then the jury hears about how the victim would 'say or do anything if the money was right'. If the money is right, then it means that they are not really a victim seeking justice for what the law demands. Instead, they are just trying to get money and they will say anything, whether true or not, to justify getting the money.

By making the demand in the way he did, the victim's lawyer ensured that everyone will see his client as a shake-down artist, not a victim seeking justice.

* Yes, I do know about civil compromises. While the exact procedure varies from state to state, there are sometimes ways that parties can resolve criminal cases if the defendant pays restitution to the victim. Such cases usually involve property damage/theft cases and do not involve felonies or serious crimes. Also, domestic violence cases, which can include property damage, are typically excluded. In the jurisdictions where civil compromise is allowed, the procedures are spelled out explicitly and all documents and releases are put onto the public record. I have not had a civil compromise in quite some time, but in my typical civil compromise case my client was drunk/high and damaged or stole something. As the defendant's attorney, I contact the victim myself and ask if they would accept full restitution if the case would be dropped. I do not state my client will say "anything." In cases involving businesses, they are frequently happy to do so because it means they get paid right away and nobody has to take any time to go to court. Many times they want my client to agree to not come onto their property for a certain period of time after the civil compromise. Failure to abide by such a condition is a criminal offense. Again, this method of resolving cases is typically limited to a small subset of cases. I debated about whether to include this info but I figured if I didn't include it, someone would say something like "Years ago my cousin smashed into the glass door at some business and he paid for it and the charges went away so you are full of shit."
[Reply]

Do we now gotta worry if we sign him that the Chiefs locker room and facilities will start having shit stolen? :-)

Kelce: "Hey what the fuck happened to my Louis Vuitton coat and Gucci bag?" :-)
[Reply]

Lee dat, iss fake.


[Reply]

I think the argument is that the whole thing was a setup from the start.

We give them our stuff, falsely claim they stole it and call the police, offer to drop charges for money because we have them over a barrel.
[Reply]

It's not clear, at all, that they were.
[Reply]

That would be a happy ending to the story, I guess, though it would just transfer my views of evil from one group to another.

Celebrities are certainly targets in our society. I can see why they have to be so defensive.
[Reply]

I mean...I doubt even a slouch like Gettleman outright releases the player and the commissioner puts him on his list if the kid didn’t make a horrible mistake, but it’s possible. All I care about is what he does from this point forward.
[Reply]