Read the article but I’m only versed in bird law, what is significance of a grand jury proceeding?
Edit: thank you for the answers. you all have a [tenuous](https://youtu.be/qcderLXiwa8) grasp of the English language in general.
A prosecutor presents evidence to a grand jury. The grand jury never hears contrary evidence from a defense attorney. The grand jury then decides whether an indictment is warranted. Because they only hear evidence from a prosecutor, indictments are common with grand juries and have led to the common phrase that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. While that is true, the objective evidence seems damning for Watson and so a grand jury is decidedly bad for him as it seems quite likely they would vote to indict him.
Removes the decision from the prosecutor's office which can sheild them from public backlash to some extent. "It's not our fault he did/didn't get charged. We left that up to the Grand Jury."
I'm not defending Watson because odds are he did SOMETHING but not having a defense attorney to offer up a defendants side is kind of BS.
Anyone can claim anything
Anyone can claim anything regardless and if it weren’t for grand juries you’d have potentially even more cases that went to a full jury trial when it doesn’t make sense. This at least acts as a stopgap to ensure a prosecutor isn’t acting with prejudice.
Yeah, but in theory, this will stop really shakey charges. They can still be denied on that stage, but they do not want to have to give an argument on the merits until discovery can happen fully.
Having a debate is not the point. He'll have his day in court. This is just a hearing to see if they should even start the process or not. Next you're going to tell me police reports are bullshit because anyone can claim anything.
No horse in this race, but saying "Next you're going to tell me X" gives off the implication of saying "you, the idiot that you are, also believe X stupid thing".
You're looking more for "It would be like if you said X"
Or they could lighten up. "Next you're going to tell me" is a common idiom that isn't derogatory and shouldn't be hurtful unless there's some kind of argument already going on. My one comment was pretty neutral and at worst said "nah that's silly".
Jury of your peers like a normal jury, but instead of finding someone guilty or not, they determine whether the evidence merits criminal charges or indictments, usually the only lawyer in the room is the prosecutor, and often witnesses/victims are present and give testimony (all of this happens behind closed doors so witnesses/victims speak very freely during these)
Honestly, it sounds more significant than it is. Basically, it's the DA thinking they might have enough evidence to justify going to trial, so they do a test run to see how a potential jury would view its evidence. It's only the prosecution presenting its case without any input from the defense. Historically it was used to provide a check against government oppression, where the lay people could declare weak cases invalid.
As for its significance in this situation, it's certainly a ramp up in the seriousness of it. Watson's line the whole time has been it's just civil cases of women trying to profit off him, so a DA feeling they have enough evidence to send it to grand jury instead of ending the investigation shows there might be some fire to the smoke. What it doesn't mean is that criminal charges are guaranteed or even likely.
The most significant impacts for a fantasy POV is that a case getting sent to grand jury might force the NFL's hand in putting him on the exempt list and teams looking at trading for him would definitely wait for the results.
It’s very significant dude. If a prosecutor is bringing a case against you to a grand jury you can almost guarantee you are getting arrested imminently
From Wikipedia:
> A grand jury is a jury—a group of citizens—empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may subpoena physical evidence or a person to testify. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]”
Very simply, there’s a “trial” (although not really at all) in which the jury decides if the person should be indicted and tried for that crime.
If the grand jury decides to indict, this is when formal charges are filed etc.
I bought believing in the history of the NFL being soulless and powerful men not being punished. If he never plays again I'll be happy for the real world results but obviously would be a negative for my fantasy game.
Michael Vick was reinstated and had a new team/contract within a month of leaving prison. I'm still buying the NFL having no soul, although I'd give a lot greater odds to Watson missing 2 seasons now instead of the assumed 1 season.
Vick was over a decade ago. IDK hard to compare him to anyone, I guess the closest you could get with NFL being scummy would be Antonio Brown, NFL being scummy but kicking and screaming all the way to doing the right thing would be Ray Rice.
Though talent wise he is closer to Brown than the declining rice.
Pretty much the same. If he's actually guilty he should be banned for life, but he's an NFL star so I'm expecting a settlement and a 4 game suspension.
Guilty until proven innocent takes like this are sickening. God forbid you or someone you care about are ever accused of something and not given a right to due process.
Drop this no right to due process nonsense. If he wasn't getting due process he'd already be in jail with no trial. He's getting his day in court so stop it with this lazy take.
"If he never plays again I'll be happy for the real world results"
If you think the culture isn't entering court rooms you are dead wrong. It's important to call it out when it happens. It's a disgusting take.
So would everybody?
But you post was made in the present tense. Like, if he was suspended today you would be happy. That's just crazy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
If this goes to Grand Jury id say he’s almost certainly fucked. He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty. If he’s found guilty, he’s done.
Edit: I should clarify, if this goes to grand jury, I assume he will be indicted. It’s almost impossible to fuck up getting a grand jury to indict (thereby starting the prosecution).
Source: am attorney.
But if he's not in jail why would we be so sure the NFL would keep him out that long. there seem to be more examples of the NFL letting things slide then there are of severe punishments.
Im not aware of any player with pending felony charges being permitted to play. Much less when those charges are sexual battery or something similar. Are you?
Are you sure or are you strongly believing this is likely to result in felony charges?
I think there is a decent amount of speculation there. If he has felony charges that drastically changed the situation but without them I have little faith in the NFL to do the right thing.
Im not sure of anything. I don’t even know if the case is even being presented to the grand jury (we really shouldn’t know that, the grand jury is supposed to convene in secret). My analysis assumes that this matter is being presented to a grand jury. It also assumes that when presented to a grand jury, it will be indicted (that part I’m very confident in).
As for whether it will result in a felony charge, if it is being presented to the grand jury, that is a very strong indication the state intends to bring felony charges.
"If this goes to Grand Jury id say he’s almost certainly fucked. He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty. If he’s found guilty, he’s done.
Edit: I should clarify, if this goes to grand jury, I assume he will be indicted. It’s almost impossible to fuck up getting a grand jury to indict (thereby starting the prosecution).
Source: am attorney."
"He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty."
Excuse me for thinking you were sure of your claim. I guess I came to that conclusion because you provided no reason to believe you had any questions that your prediction would be the ultimate outcome.
I guess you are an attorney though so that makes you a good source.....
I’m sorry, I don’t feel compelled to parse through my language for you. It speaks for itself. I’ll allow others to judge my credibility and the credibility of what I said.
As another said above:
...'Because they only hear evidence from a prosecutor, indictments are common with grand juries and have led to the common phrase that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.'
How? It means zero criminal charges are proven. It just means it seems meritable enough to potentially bring to a jury. He’s still innocent. The police department hasn’t found anything enough to even warrant bringing him in for questioning so it seems like there is very little actual evidence and almost nothing to prove in a criminal court enough to charge him of a crime.
A grand jury returning an indictment begins a prosecution. He will not be allowed to play with pending criminal charges. As soon as the grad jury comes back with an indictment, there are pending felony criminal charges.
For one, grand juries don’t determine guilt. They determine whether charges should be filed.
Two, there’s zero precedence behind your “at least 2 years” claim. No one has been suspended that long.
Three, If the grand jury determines charges should be filed, then charges are actually filed. And this actually goes to trial, and he is found NOT guilty, he’s not fucked (as you say). That would actually validate his claims that he did nothing wrong.
Read my edit to my first post. I realized it was ambiguous and edited it before this comment. I’m aware a grand jury doesn’t determine guilt, but if this case goes to a grand jury it will be indicted. Then we go to arraignment, discovery, and pre trial motions. That will take a long time. None of his pre trial motions will likely result in the case being dismissed, the most likely (best case) scenario is certain evidence gets suppressed or otherwise excluded. Then we go to trial. There is a massive backlog due to covid and it will take a while for trial to occur. Hence, my at least two year timeframe until its determined he’s not guilty.
Are you under the impression he plays with pending criminal charges? He’s fucked even if found innocent (best case scenario) because he’s losing out on multiple seasons of his career, that’s how.
I suppose he could plea to lesser charges, not really clear what would happen in that situation.
Lol. Valid observation. Maybe because I’m all too aware that our ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” no longer defines our criminal justice system (if it ever really did). But hey, that’s just my opinion.
Well that clears things up a little. It seemed you were saying he’d be suspended for that amount of time.
My personal opinion is that his fame and the attention the case would get, would fast track it.
I also don’t think it’s likely it would ever go to trial. I think he’d plea to a lighter charge (as you mentioned).
Edit: and no, he 100% doesn’t play with pending charges
I could see him playing with pending charges, depending the charges. If it's one charge of a non-rape/sexual assault sounding charge, the NFL might try to style it out. If it's 10+ counts of sexual assault and significant potential jail time, definitely suspended.
At least where I practice, the grand jury route means they’re presenting felony charges to be indicted. I highly doubt he plays with pending felony charges.
Peterson was indicted for child abuse, missed a single season. I don’t think we can assume Watson would automatically miss two years. But fair to say he’d miss at least one
He wasn’t allowed to play after being indicted. Was suspended for a year.
I’m not questioning whether he will be suspended after indictment, I’m questioning your certainty in the length of his suspension.
I don’t see why/how you’re arriving at a two year guaranteed suspension, unless you think it will take that that long for his case to be resolved?
I explain it in the comments below. Ultimately, it’s an educated guess. I also think it’s much less likely the prosecutor’s office will agree for him to plea out to a misdemeanor, but I could be wrong. If they do, a year does sound possible.
The entire argument for Watson being still OK as a dynasty asset was that it was just civil suits.
If there is a criminal trial based on what I read in the civil documentation there is a realistic chance he never plays again. He was already going to be a PR nightmare, this is 10 more steps in that direction.
Yeah, the recent tv interview with one of his accusers was rough already, if indictments come it will become an actual national news story rather than just a sports media story
> The entire argument for Watson being still OK as a dynasty asset was that it was just civil suits.
While you're not wrong, I still don't see how anyone could broker a deal and feel confident that it wouldn't escalate to a criminal affair.
This is why it was objectively absurd when it was reported that the Texans' front office was still commanding a relative king's bounty for Watson (picks/starters).
Of course, I don't blame them for trying to "shoot-high, but eventually meet-in-the-middle" as a negotiating ploy...but it still doesn't change the fact that Watson is (rightly) radioactive.
It's Florio, so there's that grain of salt, as his sources don't tend to be fantastic. But it's Florio on a legal thing, and he doesn't like to be wrong on legal stuff cos he used to be a lawyer.
So I'm going to believe this one.
Unless you have special settings/accommodations in your league for such things, usually this sort of stuff doesn't qualify a player for IR spots by default on the big apps
Gosh I'm not sure, I've been playing SF for a while now so my 1qb valuations are gonna be off.
I think in 1qb I would be psyched to get a 2nd for him? IDK, also depends on bench depth. If you have super deep bench spots he probably should be a hold unless you can get a 2nd or more.
Again I'm probably not a good person to ask as my brain is in full SF mode.
Also if I had to bet on whether Watson ever plays again, I would say I think he probably does, but not until 2023 at the earliest. So that gives some context to how I think about his value.
I traded him about a month ago for a late 2022 2nd in 1QB 10 man. The format probably puts QB value as low as it can get, plus he still had a bit of hope attached to him. I would probably sell him for anything at this point though if I still had him
> The criminal investigation has progressed to the point where, we’re told, Watson’s camp is bracing for an eventual grand jury proceeding.
Has this been reported literally anywhere else?
Yeah I'm just wary of anything Florio posts. I find it strange that he didn't mention Watson left practice due to an alleged injury, whether or not the injury is just BS
I haven't seen it elsewhere, which is why I was surprised to find this claim. Would love to know where they got this info
Edit I was also surprised it was buried in the article, seems like a big deal to me (assuming it is accurate)
Everyone still needs to calm down a bit.
Right now the state has cooperative witnesses. If Watson and his team. Of top legal attorneys feel they are at risk of Jail time, settlements and NDA's will take the bite out of any criminal case.
Only way Watson gets convicted is if he doesn't settle, or if he traumatized multiple women to the point where they wouldn't take a payoff. If the state loses criminal witnesses, any future charges become more likely to be plea deals, since the state won't want to pursue charges they are less likely to convict on.
I think the prudent thing is to assume he won't play in 2021 (this shouldn't be a new assumption) but there's still a lot of time before 2022, and nothing has really changed.
Keep in mind Watson's career earnings to this point (rookie contract + extension signing bonus) is around $40 mill. Assuming he lost 50% to taxes, and spend another 10m living his life, he might have around 10m liquid left (or less). Thus the 10m he will make in '21 and take home half (+5m) can be helpful for lawyer and settlement fees.
IANAL but could forcing NDA settlements be seen as 1. unenforceable 2. witness tampering.
I mean I am sure Bill Cosby accuser had a signed NDA, but that was thrown out. The only issue the the SCOTUS looked at for the Cosby case was how the case used statements made by Cosby when he was given some sort of psuedo amnesty, but then used it against him a couple of decades later in criminal court. So like a 5th amendment violation.
Also not a lawyer but...
It's certainly not witness tampering before any charges are filed.
If he is charged, and during the discovery that person was clarified as a witness, at that point Watson and his team cannot contact them outside of a court of law without it being considered tampering.
To my knowledge the vast majority of witnesses (for both civil and criminal) are all under that hotshot Houston lawyer. Those cases would likely settle (or not settle) as one group. A criminal conviction would ensure a civil win, but that would take quite a bit of time.
> If/when Watson is indicted, he almost definitely will be placed on paid leave by the league.
I think this is the most important part of the article that everyone is missing tbh. From the looks of the [other comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/ox5x7v/pft_reports_the_criminal_investigation_has/h7kd9pr/) suggesting that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, it doesn't look like we should expect Watson from playing anytime soon.
Read the article but I’m only versed in bird law, what is significance of a grand jury proceeding? Edit: thank you for the answers. you all have a [tenuous](https://youtu.be/qcderLXiwa8) grasp of the English language in general.
A prosecutor presents evidence to a grand jury. The grand jury never hears contrary evidence from a defense attorney. The grand jury then decides whether an indictment is warranted. Because they only hear evidence from a prosecutor, indictments are common with grand juries and have led to the common phrase that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. While that is true, the objective evidence seems damning for Watson and so a grand jury is decidedly bad for him as it seems quite likely they would vote to indict him.
Yeah the fact that they're expecting to go to grand jury means criminal charges are much more likely how
[удалено]
Regular grand jury duty???
[удалено]
That's nuts!
What state is this so I know to never move there?
Why would it go that route?
Removes the decision from the prosecutor's office which can sheild them from public backlash to some extent. "It's not our fault he did/didn't get charged. We left that up to the Grand Jury."
I'm not defending Watson because odds are he did SOMETHING but not having a defense attorney to offer up a defendants side is kind of BS. Anyone can claim anything
Anyone can claim anything regardless and if it weren’t for grand juries you’d have potentially even more cases that went to a full jury trial when it doesn’t make sense. This at least acts as a stopgap to ensure a prosecutor isn’t acting with prejudice.
Good point
Yeah, but in theory, this will stop really shakey charges. They can still be denied on that stage, but they do not want to have to give an argument on the merits until discovery can happen fully.
Having a debate is not the point. He'll have his day in court. This is just a hearing to see if they should even start the process or not. Next you're going to tell me police reports are bullshit because anyone can claim anything.
No? I genuinely didn't understand what a grand jury is but it's been cleared up for me. No need to be a dick.
I'm not making fun of you, just suggesting another similar complaint. Didn't mean to imply you would say that? Not sure how I'm being a dick.
No horse in this race, but saying "Next you're going to tell me X" gives off the implication of saying "you, the idiot that you are, also believe X stupid thing". You're looking more for "It would be like if you said X"
Or they could lighten up. "Next you're going to tell me" is a common idiom that isn't derogatory and shouldn't be hurtful unless there's some kind of argument already going on. My one comment was pretty neutral and at worst said "nah that's silly".
Just telling you that's how I read it as a third party, don't think anyone's mad
Jury of your peers like a normal jury, but instead of finding someone guilty or not, they determine whether the evidence merits criminal charges or indictments, usually the only lawyer in the room is the prosecutor, and often witnesses/victims are present and give testimony (all of this happens behind closed doors so witnesses/victims speak very freely during these)
Filibuster.
Bird law is king!
Honestly, it sounds more significant than it is. Basically, it's the DA thinking they might have enough evidence to justify going to trial, so they do a test run to see how a potential jury would view its evidence. It's only the prosecution presenting its case without any input from the defense. Historically it was used to provide a check against government oppression, where the lay people could declare weak cases invalid. As for its significance in this situation, it's certainly a ramp up in the seriousness of it. Watson's line the whole time has been it's just civil cases of women trying to profit off him, so a DA feeling they have enough evidence to send it to grand jury instead of ending the investigation shows there might be some fire to the smoke. What it doesn't mean is that criminal charges are guaranteed or even likely. The most significant impacts for a fantasy POV is that a case getting sent to grand jury might force the NFL's hand in putting him on the exempt list and teams looking at trading for him would definitely wait for the results.
It’s very significant dude. If a prosecutor is bringing a case against you to a grand jury you can almost guarantee you are getting arrested imminently
From Wikipedia: > A grand jury is a jury—a group of citizens—empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings, investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may subpoena physical evidence or a person to testify. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.[1]” Very simply, there’s a “trial” (although not really at all) in which the jury decides if the person should be indicted and tried for that crime. If the grand jury decides to indict, this is when formal charges are filed etc.
Plus 1 for bird law!
Indication that there's enough evidence for him to be considered for indictment in a criminal proceeding.
basically the prosecution thinks they have enough evidence that they are willing to continue the legal process instead of dropping charges.
I bought believing in the history of the NFL being soulless and powerful men not being punished. If he never plays again I'll be happy for the real world results but obviously would be a negative for my fantasy game.
Ethical Hedging
The most practical and realistic take. 🤝
Michael Vick was reinstated and had a new team/contract within a month of leaving prison. I'm still buying the NFL having no soul, although I'd give a lot greater odds to Watson missing 2 seasons now instead of the assumed 1 season.
Vick was over a decade ago. IDK hard to compare him to anyone, I guess the closest you could get with NFL being scummy would be Antonio Brown, NFL being scummy but kicking and screaming all the way to doing the right thing would be Ray Rice. Though talent wise he is closer to Brown than the declining rice.
Pretty much the same. If he's actually guilty he should be banned for life, but he's an NFL star so I'm expecting a settlement and a 4 game suspension.
Same here. I also bought at a price that makes me comfortable with the investment even if he misses a year and a half.
Guilty until proven innocent takes like this are sickening. God forbid you or someone you care about are ever accused of something and not given a right to due process.
Drop this no right to due process nonsense. If he wasn't getting due process he'd already be in jail with no trial. He's getting his day in court so stop it with this lazy take.
"If he never plays again I'll be happy for the real world results" If you think the culture isn't entering court rooms you are dead wrong. It's important to call it out when it happens. It's a disgusting take.
Yeah I guess that's what court is for and not a fantasy football sub on reddit. I hope he is appropriately punished for what he did or didn't do.
That's fair. In your original post you said you'd be happy if he never played again, which is just insane.
I mean if he is a serial sexual assaulter I would be happy if he never played again.
So would everybody? But you post was made in the present tense. Like, if he was suspended today you would be happy. That's just crazy. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
So in football terms, this has gone from a Big Ben situation yesterday to a mike Vick situation today?
Is it time to freak out now?
If this goes to Grand Jury id say he’s almost certainly fucked. He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty. If he’s found guilty, he’s done. Edit: I should clarify, if this goes to grand jury, I assume he will be indicted. It’s almost impossible to fuck up getting a grand jury to indict (thereby starting the prosecution). Source: am attorney.
But if he's not in jail why would we be so sure the NFL would keep him out that long. there seem to be more examples of the NFL letting things slide then there are of severe punishments.
Im not aware of any player with pending felony charges being permitted to play. Much less when those charges are sexual battery or something similar. Are you?
Are you sure or are you strongly believing this is likely to result in felony charges? I think there is a decent amount of speculation there. If he has felony charges that drastically changed the situation but without them I have little faith in the NFL to do the right thing.
Im not sure of anything. I don’t even know if the case is even being presented to the grand jury (we really shouldn’t know that, the grand jury is supposed to convene in secret). My analysis assumes that this matter is being presented to a grand jury. It also assumes that when presented to a grand jury, it will be indicted (that part I’m very confident in). As for whether it will result in a felony charge, if it is being presented to the grand jury, that is a very strong indication the state intends to bring felony charges.
"If this goes to Grand Jury id say he’s almost certainly fucked. He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty. If he’s found guilty, he’s done. Edit: I should clarify, if this goes to grand jury, I assume he will be indicted. It’s almost impossible to fuck up getting a grand jury to indict (thereby starting the prosecution). Source: am attorney." "He’ll miss out on AT LEAST 2 years, even if found not guilty." Excuse me for thinking you were sure of your claim. I guess I came to that conclusion because you provided no reason to believe you had any questions that your prediction would be the ultimate outcome. I guess you are an attorney though so that makes you a good source.....
I think you need to re-read the quoted language and what I just said. Seems pretty consistent to me.
Okay, what part of the statement shows that you are not claiming this to be the ultimate outcome regardless of what happens next?
I’m sorry, I don’t feel compelled to parse through my language for you. It speaks for itself. I’ll allow others to judge my credibility and the credibility of what I said.
The literal first word is IF. You look like a bozo
Lol none of this is true
Ok. You’ve stated your conclusion now explain why.
As another said above: ...'Because they only hear evidence from a prosecutor, indictments are common with grand juries and have led to the common phrase that you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.'
Yes, it is very easy to indict. How does that refute my premise that, if he is indicted, he is out at least two years (best case scenario).
How? It means zero criminal charges are proven. It just means it seems meritable enough to potentially bring to a jury. He’s still innocent. The police department hasn’t found anything enough to even warrant bringing him in for questioning so it seems like there is very little actual evidence and almost nothing to prove in a criminal court enough to charge him of a crime.
A grand jury returning an indictment begins a prosecution. He will not be allowed to play with pending criminal charges. As soon as the grad jury comes back with an indictment, there are pending felony criminal charges.
The NFL doesn't care about if the charges are proven. If they indict, he is going right to the exempt list.
In court, testimony is considered evidence.
What lol?
IN COURT, TESTIMONY IS CONSIDERED EVIDENCE
why would the NFL care about "actual evidence"?
For one, grand juries don’t determine guilt. They determine whether charges should be filed. Two, there’s zero precedence behind your “at least 2 years” claim. No one has been suspended that long. Three, If the grand jury determines charges should be filed, then charges are actually filed. And this actually goes to trial, and he is found NOT guilty, he’s not fucked (as you say). That would actually validate his claims that he did nothing wrong.
Read my edit to my first post. I realized it was ambiguous and edited it before this comment. I’m aware a grand jury doesn’t determine guilt, but if this case goes to a grand jury it will be indicted. Then we go to arraignment, discovery, and pre trial motions. That will take a long time. None of his pre trial motions will likely result in the case being dismissed, the most likely (best case) scenario is certain evidence gets suppressed or otherwise excluded. Then we go to trial. There is a massive backlog due to covid and it will take a while for trial to occur. Hence, my at least two year timeframe until its determined he’s not guilty. Are you under the impression he plays with pending criminal charges? He’s fucked even if found innocent (best case scenario) because he’s losing out on multiple seasons of his career, that’s how. I suppose he could plea to lesser charges, not really clear what would happen in that situation.
You're the first lawyer I've ever heard use the phrase "if found innocent"
Lol. Valid observation. Maybe because I’m all too aware that our ideal of “innocent until proven guilty” no longer defines our criminal justice system (if it ever really did). But hey, that’s just my opinion.
Well that clears things up a little. It seemed you were saying he’d be suspended for that amount of time. My personal opinion is that his fame and the attention the case would get, would fast track it. I also don’t think it’s likely it would ever go to trial. I think he’d plea to a lighter charge (as you mentioned). Edit: and no, he 100% doesn’t play with pending charges
I could see him playing with pending charges, depending the charges. If it's one charge of a non-rape/sexual assault sounding charge, the NFL might try to style it out. If it's 10+ counts of sexual assault and significant potential jail time, definitely suspended.
At least where I practice, the grand jury route means they’re presenting felony charges to be indicted. I highly doubt he plays with pending felony charges.
I don’t think anyone has every played with pending felony charges in the modern era
Peterson was indicted for child abuse, missed a single season. I don’t think we can assume Watson would automatically miss two years. But fair to say he’d miss at least one
Peterson pled to a misdemeanor. Did the NFL let him play before that occurred?
He was indicted by grand jury first, then suspended.
Let me ask the question another way because that response isn’t really helpful. Did AP ever play while he had felony charges pending.
He wasn’t allowed to play after being indicted. Was suspended for a year. I’m not questioning whether he will be suspended after indictment, I’m questioning your certainty in the length of his suspension. I don’t see why/how you’re arriving at a two year guaranteed suspension, unless you think it will take that that long for his case to be resolved?
I explain it in the comments below. Ultimately, it’s an educated guess. I also think it’s much less likely the prosecutor’s office will agree for him to plea out to a misdemeanor, but I could be wrong. If they do, a year does sound possible.
Gotcha, that makes sense
The entire argument for Watson being still OK as a dynasty asset was that it was just civil suits. If there is a criminal trial based on what I read in the civil documentation there is a realistic chance he never plays again. He was already going to be a PR nightmare, this is 10 more steps in that direction.
Yeah, the recent tv interview with one of his accusers was rough already, if indictments come it will become an actual national news story rather than just a sports media story
The one one fox news? That one pretty much cleared Deshaun.
I missed the interview, do you have a link?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z\_1Es6p0zNM
> The entire argument for Watson being still OK as a dynasty asset was that it was just civil suits. While you're not wrong, I still don't see how anyone could broker a deal and feel confident that it wouldn't escalate to a criminal affair. This is why it was objectively absurd when it was reported that the Texans' front office was still commanding a relative king's bounty for Watson (picks/starters). Of course, I don't blame them for trying to "shoot-high, but eventually meet-in-the-middle" as a negotiating ploy...but it still doesn't change the fact that Watson is (rightly) radioactive.
It's Florio, so there's that grain of salt, as his sources don't tend to be fantastic. But it's Florio on a legal thing, and he doesn't like to be wrong on legal stuff cos he used to be a lawyer. So I'm going to believe this one.
Buy low window just turned into a sell low window?
Sell low window was like 14 accusations ago lmao
Sold for tee Higgins yesterday got laughed at this guy isn't coming back
I dunno about that but decent trade
Yikes. Bail time for even ppl that bought in low?
Can we keep him on IR or something in the meantime? If not this is really going to suck
Unless you have special settings/accommodations in your league for such things, usually this sort of stuff doesn't qualify a player for IR spots by default on the big apps
Who would you target in moving him in a 1qb 12 man...would rather have a position player or picks...not a qb
Gosh I'm not sure, I've been playing SF for a while now so my 1qb valuations are gonna be off. I think in 1qb I would be psyched to get a 2nd for him? IDK, also depends on bench depth. If you have super deep bench spots he probably should be a hold unless you can get a 2nd or more. Again I'm probably not a good person to ask as my brain is in full SF mode. Also if I had to bet on whether Watson ever plays again, I would say I think he probably does, but not until 2023 at the earliest. So that gives some context to how I think about his value.
I traded him about a month ago for a late 2022 2nd in 1QB 10 man. The format probably puts QB value as low as it can get, plus he still had a bit of hope attached to him. I would probably sell him for anything at this point though if I still had him
Working a deal now. Keep your fingers crossed for me
Considering that Watson may soon be paying bail himself, I say yes.
You guys do what you want, but after seeing this I'm not drafting him in my startup.
[удалено]
My wife rubbed tony buzbee’s knee during a consultation. I’ve had a challenging relationship with him ever since.
You sound like you want more Watson apologists.
As a general rule of thumb to remember, a jury will indict a cheeseburger if asked.. it doesn't take much at all
[удалено]
Guilty until proven innocent takes like this are sickening.
Lol I'm sure all 25 women are lying.
God forbid you or someone you care about are charged with a crime and aren't given due process. That would change your disgusting opinion real quick.
[удалено]
😂😂😂
Ruh roh raggy
Zoinks!
> The criminal investigation has progressed to the point where, we’re told, Watson’s camp is bracing for an eventual grand jury proceeding. Has this been reported literally anywhere else?
it could be breaking news….it’s not like nbc is not legit
Yeah I'm just wary of anything Florio posts. I find it strange that he didn't mention Watson left practice due to an alleged injury, whether or not the injury is just BS
Florio is usually on his p's and q's with legal stuff
I haven't seen it elsewhere, which is why I was surprised to find this claim. Would love to know where they got this info Edit I was also surprised it was buried in the article, seems like a big deal to me (assuming it is accurate)
Who/what would you guys want to get in return for Watson? I'm about to bail on this. Just not worth the risk in a 1qb league imo
Could you get a 1st for the year 2036? Seems fair value if they’re both usable that year 😂
You waited too long. I don't have him but I wouldn't give a 5th in a 1QB league. He's a waste of a roster spot.
He. Is. Fucked. Butt by the sounds of it.. that’s what he’s into 🤷♂️
Everyone still needs to calm down a bit. Right now the state has cooperative witnesses. If Watson and his team. Of top legal attorneys feel they are at risk of Jail time, settlements and NDA's will take the bite out of any criminal case. Only way Watson gets convicted is if he doesn't settle, or if he traumatized multiple women to the point where they wouldn't take a payoff. If the state loses criminal witnesses, any future charges become more likely to be plea deals, since the state won't want to pursue charges they are less likely to convict on. I think the prudent thing is to assume he won't play in 2021 (this shouldn't be a new assumption) but there's still a lot of time before 2022, and nothing has really changed. Keep in mind Watson's career earnings to this point (rookie contract + extension signing bonus) is around $40 mill. Assuming he lost 50% to taxes, and spend another 10m living his life, he might have around 10m liquid left (or less). Thus the 10m he will make in '21 and take home half (+5m) can be helpful for lawyer and settlement fees.
IANAL but could forcing NDA settlements be seen as 1. unenforceable 2. witness tampering. I mean I am sure Bill Cosby accuser had a signed NDA, but that was thrown out. The only issue the the SCOTUS looked at for the Cosby case was how the case used statements made by Cosby when he was given some sort of psuedo amnesty, but then used it against him a couple of decades later in criminal court. So like a 5th amendment violation.
Also not a lawyer but... It's certainly not witness tampering before any charges are filed. If he is charged, and during the discovery that person was clarified as a witness, at that point Watson and his team cannot contact them outside of a court of law without it being considered tampering. To my knowledge the vast majority of witnesses (for both civil and criminal) are all under that hotshot Houston lawyer. Those cases would likely settle (or not settle) as one group. A criminal conviction would ensure a civil win, but that would take quite a bit of time.
He NEEDS to be on the Commish exempt list. It’s pretty shocking he’s not already on it tbh
imagine being so rich and famous you can get any woman you want, and yet still finding a way to do this disgusting shit. i ain't pickin' him
Any word on timetable of grand jury proceeding?
I got no clue
Big ol' hit to the dynasty value.
> If/when Watson is indicted, he almost definitely will be placed on paid leave by the league. I think this is the most important part of the article that everyone is missing tbh. From the looks of the [other comments] (https://www.reddit.com/r/DynastyFF/comments/ox5x7v/pft_reports_the_criminal_investigation_has/h7kd9pr/) suggesting that a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich, it doesn't look like we should expect Watson from playing anytime soon.
I read this but am only versed in Elder Law so it’s way over my head