Jaylon Tate's case dismissed
- Status
Illinois88
- United States
McC might have a law degree. Okay, that might help. He supposedly received his JD from a prestigious program. That should matter not one iota. What if he received it from a program outside the T-14, say Illinois?
Info came out in the NG about the Jaylon Tate case. I cant post the link because I'm on my phone.
CrazedUIFan
UI Fan in QC Land
From reading this article and the one McColley wrote, it's obvious she was assaulted, but it isn't completely clear if it was Tate or Lee. it will be interesting to get the info from the phone the defense is seeking.
Tevo
- Wilmette, IL
The mention of "[Hailey] also told Giddens that Tate was upset with her for being at Lee's apartment" implies some more complicated relationships. How would Tate have known she was at Lee's? Or do they mean he was upset about her being there earlier? If Hailey and Lee were more than just friends, there could be all sorts of motives at play, on both sides of what might have really occurred.
But it does sound like the entirety of the State's case hinges on the heresay statements. The victim has recanted her statements, it sounds like there isn't any video evidence, we haven't heard of any physical evidence that proves Tate was the assailant. But if the judge DOES allow the heresay, that certainly looks bad.
But it does sound like the entirety of the State's case hinges on the heresay statements. The victim has recanted her statements, it sounds like there isn't any video evidence, we haven't heard of any physical evidence that proves Tate was the assailant. But if the judge DOES allow the heresay, that certainly looks bad.
In the simplest terms, the excited utterances exception applies to statements people make when some starling event happens and they are still excited or upset about it. They are considered more reliable than regular hearsay because they are emotional outbursts at a moment the people saying them are probably not thinking clearly enough to lie.
Looking on the N-G article, these statements should qualify as excited utterances if the prosecutor can establish that the victim was indeed emotionally upset and that she made the statements in the immediate aftermath of the incident. My guess is they can show that and these would be admitted. In fact, this kind of excited utterance testimony is very common in domestic violence cases. That combined with evidence of the physical injury is typically legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction.
Which means this thing isn't going away anytime soon. By filing the motion, the prosecution is making its intentions clear. They feel they have enough to go to trial even without the victim's cooperation. Typically, that means plea negotiations. Tate could take this to trial and try to attack the credibility of the witnesses or put forward an alternative theory that the other guy was the real attacker and may poke enough holes in the case to establish reasonable doubt and prevail but that's a big risk. For one thing, that would likely mean he would have to testify. He would be cross-examined and it might not come off well. Particularly if he did, in fact, throw the punch.
With a non-cooperative victim and first time offender, a non-criminal disposition with counseling, and order of protection, and community service, etc. is where a case like this would typical end up. If you were expecting a full vindication, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Last edited:
JJB
- Chicago, IL
Thanks for that summary. It's been about a decade since my crim law days, so I was curious if (or how much) the victim's intoxicated state impacts the admissibility ruling?
Last edited:
These facts seem to clearly flunk the second part of that, right? These statements came many minutes later, at a different location and without the alleged perpetrator present.
I don't have much experience in the domestic violence realm and it wouldn't shock me if the rules of evidence tend to be construed pretty broadly against defendants in that area, but on just law school exam rules of evidence this strikes me as a stretch.
"Objection overruled. The issue of the hearsay declarant's intoxication goes to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility."
The victim was cogent enough to articulate what happened. I think her intoxication has no bearing on the hearsay exception question; probably helps it get admitted, if anything.
I would guess that's the argument the defense will use. She had enough time to come up with a lie and that's exactly what she did according to her own email.
You hit the issue on the nail. The key to admissibility will be how close in time the statements were made in relation to the alleged battery. Just upon what I read in the article, I think the state will have a good chance of succeeding with its motion.
Agreed those are coming in.
A textbook excited utterance would be something like a 911 call but yes, the immediacy aspect is, in my experience, fairly permissive. The prosecutor would need to establish the declarant's was still in an excited state when the statements were made. That covers a lot of ground. Testimony that she was crying, hysterical, visibly shaken should be enough, even an hour or two after the event. Again, you get that a lot in DV cases.
The chronology of the victim's interaction with each of the three potential state's witnesses, and then the police, is somewhat confusing. The victim was at some point at Lee's apartment and at her own. The victim's roommate, Evans, apparently would testify that the victim said "Guys", meaning her statement was to both Evans and someone else. Was that someone else Lee? If so, then the victim apparently went to Lee's apartment first, then went to her own place with Lee, then went with Lee and Giddens back to Lee's place. Were the police then called to Lee's apartment? In trying to mesh the NG account with McColley's piece from a week or so ago, it looks like Lee would be who McColley stated (or at least inferred) was the perp?
I am no lawyer and obviously we have some experts here, so a question for you all...
Am I parsing the article too much in that she never directly identifies Tate as hitting her. In one case she said her boyfriend did it, who the other person "knew" to be Tate, and in another case the other person said Tate should not have done that, and she said "I know."
Am I parsing the article too much in that she never directly identifies Tate as hitting her. In one case she said her boyfriend did it, who the other person "knew" to be Tate, and in another case the other person said Tate should not have done that, and she said "I know."
I had the exact same thought.
It can be difficult to decipher from a police report sometimes how things were stated. The police report is a summary of the events. It will be interesting to see if the witnesses filled out written statements explaining their version.
At any rate regardless if she said "Jaylon Tate" did this to me probably won't matter because all witnesses contend that is who she referred to and she seems to confirm it with "my boyfriend" and "I know" when Jaylon was referenced as source of injuries
(1) No. The purpose of the State's Attorney's motion is to seek a preliminary ruling ahead of any trial that the victim's statements can be admitted under a hearsay exception if there is a trial. That's all.
(2) As long as the evidence shows that the statement was made while the speaker was still upset and feeling the stress of the moment and had not yet calmed down or reflected at all on what had happened, there is no set time frame. It can be hours later if the speaker has been crying, hysterical, in shock the whole time. Or the excitement period may expire in a matter of seconds if the speaker immediately collects herself and does not appear emotionally upset by what happened.
(3) Intoxication is probably not a factor here. The speaker was coherent enough to get the message across. If anything, drunkenness might have made her more emotionally volatile, which would support a finding the statements were excited utterances.
She joked that she wished he would have hit her somewhere else as well, couldn't that be used against her as evidence that enough time went by to collect herself.
Anyway, just my two cents, but the talk about the other guy sounds like a classic red herring to me based on what we know so far. The victim's recantation included a claim that she hit herself. Uh-huh. Hit herself. She didn't claim some man other than Tate is the one who struck her. In fact, it would be extremely bizarre for a victim to go to someone, not her boyfriend's apartment alone, get punched in the face by him, then immediately report alongside the guy who just punched her to her best friend/roommate/teammate that her boyfriend, who did nothing wrong, was the one who did it. Is it possible that sequence of events could happen? Yes, in the sense that anything is possible. But it's a very, very unlikely scenario. On the other hand, what is a sequence of events that is not odd to a seasoned domestic violence prosecutor? Woman gets a little intoxicated, gets into a fight with her significant other and gets punched by him, then goes to friends and tells them about it while visibly shaken up, but wakes up in the morning and feels partially responsible and wishes the whole thing would disappear and so sends an email to her boyfriend's lawyer recanting and saying that she hit herself.
Bruno has been all over the place trying to defend his client in the court of public opinion but there's one critical thing that he is conspicuously not saying: that Tate and the woman here were never alone together out of view during the relevant timeframe, after she left the party but before she turned up somewhere else with a bloody mouth. That's the key. Keep in mind, these motion papers aren't the prosecution's whole case. There's just enough there for them to get over the evidentiary hurdle regarding the hearsay question. But I imagine they have a timeline that puts these two in the same place where something could have happened without anyone necessarily being in position to witness it. It doesn't mean they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial setting; the significance of today's news is that the State's Attorney obviously feels confident enough in the case they do have to continue the prosecution. Whether that means plea deal or trial, who knows, but the chances of a quick vindication are off the table.
Bruno has been all over the place trying to defend his client in the court of public opinion but there's one critical thing that he is conspicuously not saying: that Tate and the woman here were never alone together out of view during the relevant timeframe, after she left the party but before she turned up somewhere else with a bloody mouth. That's the key. Keep in mind, these motion papers aren't the prosecution's whole case. There's just enough there for them to get over the evidentiary hurdle regarding the hearsay question. But I imagine they have a timeline that puts these two in the same place where something could have happened without anyone necessarily being in position to witness it. It doesn't mean they can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial setting; the significance of today's news is that the State's Attorney obviously feels confident enough in the case they do have to continue the prosecution. Whether that means plea deal or trial, who knows, but the chances of a quick vindication are off the table.
Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the kind of thing that at least implies the shock is wearing off and the speaker is now starting to reflect on the event more rationally. That part of it is pretty sketchy for the prosecution. I think any statement made around the time those "jokes" were said might get excluded. But it wouldn't effect the admissibility of anything said before that. I still think the earlier statements are in.
Seems to me the validity of an "excited utterance" would be diminshed by the third separate one to the third different person.
The University can choose to renew, or not to renew, either scholarship for any reason.
It doesn't matter if either individual is convicted or not. The legal proceedings and their status on the basketball team are two entirely different situations. I am aware that JW and JG have indicated they would let the legal process play out before determining their future.
In my mind, it does not matter what they plead to, but whether or not the facts support whether or not they were actually responsible for the domestic battery. If the preponderance of evidence shows that they were indeed responsible, I believe the suspensions will become permanent, regardless of what lesser offense they plead to.
FYI, I would fully support that position for either individual.
- Status