Zero. Give or take 1%.
Jaylon Tate's case dismissed
- Status
Zero. Give or take 1%.
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
Short answer: nearly zero.
A jury may find Tate "not guilty," but that is substantially different from a finding of actual innocence. Moreover, absent some kind of gross misconduct, prosecutors enjoy immunity from suit. In addition, it is unlikely that the accuser has the kind of financial resources necessary to make a civil suit worthwhile. Finally, given the decision to pursue the case against Tate, the prosecutor is not likely to pursue charges against the accuser at this time.
I don't remember seeing this posted anywhere...Last Sunday, Loren Tate interviewed AD Josh Whitman. Below was one of the questions and answers.
How are you dealing with the legal problems of three men's basketball players?
We aren't happy about it. We're taking steps so these kinds of situations won't happen. Leron Black's case has now been resolved, so John Groce and I will sit down and discuss appropriate steps internally. In terms of the other two, we have to let the legal process run its course, but if the allegations prove true, there is no place in our athletic program for domestic violence. It is an intolerable offense.
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/illini-sports/baseball/2016-05-01/tate-qa-josh-whitman.html
I didn't know where to put this as it could probably go in any of the three threads.
How are you dealing with the legal problems of three men's basketball players?
We aren't happy about it. We're taking steps so these kinds of situations won't happen. Leron Black's case has now been resolved, so John Groce and I will sit down and discuss appropriate steps internally. In terms of the other two, we have to let the legal process run its course, but if the allegations prove true, there is no place in our athletic program for domestic violence. It is an intolerable offense.
http://www.news-gazette.com/sports/illini-sports/baseball/2016-05-01/tate-qa-josh-whitman.html
I didn't know where to put this as it could probably go in any of the three threads.
Good find. To me, this says Black is staying and all that needs to be worked out are the details of his punishment. It also seems to say that nothing is going to happen on Tate and Nunn until their legal cases are complete, and that any conviction at trial or any guilty plea to any sort of offense remotely related to a domestic battery charge will result in a scholarship revocation.
I think Tate's trial date is June 7. Is that correct? I do not know if Nunn has a trial date yet. There seems to be a lot more public information in the Tate case than the Nunn case.
IlliniDent
- Chicago, IL
great response and fits exactly what I wanted to hear
Smultronstallet
- Urbana, IL
You are correct about Tate: June 7th at 9am. Nunn's next appearance is May 18th at 10am.
Smultronstallet
- Urbana, IL
Today Rob McColley posted something else about the Tate situation: http://illinireport.info/
illinoisfan11
- Peoria, IL
This is the most detail I've heard about this "case" the state is pursuing. Unless there's something much more that McColley doesn't know, it's ludicrous to me that the state is pursuing this. Pretty clear she was a total sh!t show all night and was embarrassed about being "that girl." I'd like my tax dollars back that are being wasted to pursue this "case."
Suffice it to say, there's probably something McColley doesn't know.
With what I've read, it certainly seems like there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.
Based on what Rob has written, you could see an argument that the DA believes a crime was committed here, and that by pursuing the case they are hopeful that the details will come to light. At this point, it is actually best for Jaylen to see his day in court with a successful outcome. The DA dropping the case actually looks worse for him, unless they bring charges against someone else . . . I suspect that all involved here are quite motivated to not have case appear in court, except for Jaylen at this point.
Everyone should read all of Robs articles to get his full picture of what he believe the events of the night are, which I wont recount here as to not spread any further accusations of which I have no knowledge to suggest their accuracy/inaccuracy.
Everyone should read all of Robs articles to get his full picture of what he believe the events of the night are, which I wont recount here as to not spread any further accusations of which I have no knowledge to suggest their accuracy/inaccuracy.
Regarding the bolded, are you saying 60 Minutes is representative of unbiased journalism?
[/I]
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you would says this. This type of thing has happened on numerous occasions throughout this country's history and in the very recent past.
State's Attorney's offices don't want to use their resources on a trial if they don't have to, and especially don't like losing trials, worse still highly-publicized trials.
Julia Rietz isn't going forward with this unless she believes she has a winner of a case. The version of this told by Tom Bruno and McColley is a sure loser for the State. Rietz is an experienced prosecutor and not an idiot. Clearly one of two things is the case:
1. There is more information we don't know about.
2. This will be resolved without the trial occurring.
Julia Rietz isn't going forward with this unless she believes she has a winner of a case. The version of this told by Tom Bruno and McColley is a sure loser for the State. Rietz is an experienced prosecutor and not an idiot. Clearly one of two things is the case:
1. There is more information we don't know about.
2. This will be resolved without the trial occurring.
This is a very important point. Part of what I was trying to say, is that if you believe Rob's account then you can see how the prospect of a trial could be used to put a lot of pressure on the people involved in the situation (to whom having a trial is a lose lose situation) to produce information that would lead to the prosecution of Jaylen Tate beings stopped. Problem I see is that I don't see that happening until someone else is accused by the victim (the only piece of evidence we know of pointing to Tate is that accusation, there might be something else we dont know about - EMT, etc that were subject of the subpeona, but nothing else has been presented at the hearings). And that person can't be the victim herself as she already asserted self-injury once without any effect.
Of course if there is material information we don't know about, then our speculation will have been just that, speculation.
This is certainly how Rob's account reads. He only slightly stopped short of saying this directly out of respect (my pure speculation) for whom he believe's did this.
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
I'd have a hard time believing that the state would try person A for a crime they believed was committed by person B, just to get witness testimony.
He didn't stop short of anything last month posting on an illini Internet forum. He made clear who he thinks did it and basically gave a play by play.
He's ridiculous.
Has not gone to trial yet. Will be an interested few days leading up to the trial date I think.
Also a lawyer. Assuming McColley is at least somewhat plugged in, my bet would be the case being resolved short of trial. Given the current spate of incidents, as well as the larger discussion around the country about investigations involving assaults on women in college, sexual or otherwise, it is in Reitz's best interest to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, even if they end up dropping the charges. There's no downside to doing a complete and thorough investigation. But there's no way that Reitz is doing this solely to smoke out the "actual" perpetrator.
Edit: Didn't realize that they were already at the motion in limine stage. That's beyond mere investigation. There's definitely something we don't know about or they're putting pressure on Tate to plea to something.
Last edited:
Lucy727
- Des Plaines, Il
- Status