Page 41 of 44 FirstFirst ... 313940414243 ... LastLast
Results 801 to 820 of 873

Thread: Mike Goodson Arrested

  1. #801
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaJet View Post
    I would add that ownership means little when it comes to the law of criminal possession.

    The law allows a conviction for possession whether it is actual or "constructive".

    Constructive possession has nothing to do with actual ownership and little to do with actual physical possession. I don't have time to write a memo on constructive possession, just google it.
    That would place a large burden on the DA to demonstrate that he had contsructive possession of the weapon when the owner of the weapon is present and claims it as his own.

    I'm not saying that its impossible, and not saying that the DA won't try to indict based on that theory, but at the end of the day, absent some significant facts that we aren't aware of, its extremely unlikely that it happens.

    I do think its very likely that the DA seeks an indictment for the gun possession charge as a way to get Goodson to testify against his buddy. Its also a possibility that the grand jury returns an indictment on that charge.

    Constructive possession is possession in which the person does not physically have the property, but although the property is not physically on his/her person, he/she is aware of the presence of the property and is able to exercise intentional control or dominion over it. So, a person who, although not in actual possession, has knowledge of its character, and knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.
    Last edited by crasherino; 06-12-2013 at 12:23 PM.

  2. #802
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    East Coast of the United States - subject to change on short notice
    Posts
    20,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaJet View Post
    Now, you may be right that the grand jury finds there is insufficient evidence to proceed with gun possession charges (be it actual or constructive) against Goodson.
    There is no maybe about it.

    I told you right out of the gate, that the prosecutor could file whatever charges he or she liked but the jury would not convict Goodson on possession of the firearm.

    Prosecutors file charges, juries find guilt or innocence.

    Under the circumstances of Goodson's arrest, there is no way in God's green earth that a jury would convict (or a grand jury will indict) Goodson on possession of a firearm, when the firearm was not physically found on Goodson AND the driver claimed ownership of the gun straight away .

    The only way Goodson could get indicted is if the prosecutor can come up with legally binding documentation that the gun was bought by - or is registered to Goodson by running the gun's serial number and I have not heard or read that the prosecutor has been able do that.

    Short of that, I have a better chance of hitting the powerball, then of Goodson getting indicted on that possession of a firearm charge.

    And lets not forget that Goodson was charged with POSSESSION - NOT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM - They are, in fact, 2 different charges, with different burdens of proof for each.
    Last edited by ARodFLKeysJetsFan; 06-12-2013 at 05:08 PM.

  3. #803
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    And lets not forget that Goodson was charged with POSSESSION - NOT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM - They are, in fact, 2 different charges, with different burdens of proof for each.
    That is incorrect - he is charged with possession. Possession can be either actual or constructive....it makes no difference under the law.

  4. #804
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    12,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    There is no maybe about it.

    I told you right out of the gate, that the prosecutor could file whatever charges he or she liked but the jury would not convict Goodson on possession of the firearm.

    Prosecutors file charges, juries find guilt or innocence.

    Under the circumstances of Goodson's arrest, there is no way in God's green earth that a jury would convict (or a grand jury will indict) Goodson on possession of a firearm, when the firearm was not physically found on Goodson AND the driver claimed ownership of the gun straight away .

    The only way Goodson could get indicted is if the prosecutor can come up with legally binding documentation that the gun was bought by - or is registered to Goodson by running the gun's serial number and I have not heard or read that the prosecutor has been able do that.

    Short of that, I have a better chance of hitting the powerball, then of Goodson getting indicted on that possession of a firearm charge.

    And lets not forget that Goodson was charged with POSSESSION - NOT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM - They are, in fact, 2 different charges, with different burdens of proof for each.
    I disagree somewhat Arod! A DA can get a sheet of paper indicted. It means little. The burden of proof in a GJ is significantly less then at a criminal trial. Beyond a reasonable doubt vs Preponderance of evidence. Its easy to indict but hard to convict!


    The keys word so many are not stating is : KNOWINGLY !!! If Goodson had no knowledge of the gun and the other guy said it was his gun, well the DA can get an indictment bUt he will never get a conviction. BUt he will want his conviction rate unmarked so he will then plea the case down to BS. The GJ if it is smart can chose NO BILL or NO CASE! It can also chose to indict based on weighted evidence presented by the DA with great powers of persuasion.


    Borrowed from a person a few posts up:

    Constructive possession is possession in which the person does not physically have the property, but although the property is not physically on his/her person, he/she is AWARE of the presence of the property and is able to exercise intentional control or dominion over it. So, a person who, although not in actual possession, has KNOWLEDGE of its character, and KNOWINGLY has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.


    Casherino also said he was charged with possession NOT constructive possession. I do not know NJ law but in my opinion, he was charged with POSSESSION( based on constructive possession). In my experience it is always POSSESSION ! The case is built on constructive possession in the DA's opinion. I have never heard of a charge titled Constructive Possession or at least I do not remember such a charge.

    Interesting discussion but beat to death!
    Last edited by Kentucky Jet; 06-12-2013 at 03:43 PM.

  5. #805
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Fishers, Indiana
    Posts
    3,952
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    There is no maybe about it.



    The only way Goodson could get indicted is if the prosecutor can come up with legally binding documentation that the gun was bought by - or is registered to Goodson by running the gun's serial number and I have not heard or read that the prosecutor has been able do that.
    You really have no idea what you're talking about do you....

    It's not surprising, in my time as a prosecutor I had to deal with plenty of cops who thought they knew the law but didn't.

    The only thing worse then the defendants and their attorneys were the cops who tried to tell me how to do my job.....

  6. #806
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,106
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm surprised at all of the conflicting information. This is not typical of internet conversations

  7. #807
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Crasherino is absolutely correct here. Constructive possession falls under "possession of a firearm".

    Secondly, say that you get into my car and you notice a Baretta 92FS sitting between the passenger and driver's seat. We drive down the road and I get pulled over. You CAN be charged with possession (under the constructive possession doctrine) and you CAN be found guilty of the charge. That I own the gun and freely admit to such does not matter.

    Personally, I think it's a bunch of BS, but my opinion it doesn't matter as that's what the legislature and the courts have determined.

    Operating theory for constructive possession is that A: you are aware of the gun and B: it's somewhere you can readily take control of it and use it.

    Whether or not a jury would actually convict you of possession is a different story. That all depends on the jury.

    IF I were to be carrying the gun in a shoulder holster, then even if aware of it, you shouldn't be charged as you don't have ready access to the gun.

  8. #808
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    2,112
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    Crasherino is absolutely correct here. Constructive possession falls under "possession of a firearm".

    Secondly, say that you get into my car and you notice a Baretta 92FS sitting between the passenger and driver's seat. We drive down the road and I get pulled over. You CAN be charged with possession (under the constructive possession doctrine) and you CAN be found guilty of the charge. That I own the gun and freely admit to such does not matter.

    Personally, I think it's a bunch of BS, but my opinion it doesn't matter as that's what the legislature and the courts have determined.

    Operating theory for constructive possession is that A: you are aware of the gun and B: it's somewhere you can readily take control of it and use it.

    Whether or not a jury would actually convict you of possession is a different story. That all depends on the jury.

    IF I were to be carrying the gun in a shoulder holster, then even if aware of it, you shouldn't be charged as you don't have ready access to the gun.
    All of that pre-supposes he would be dumb enough to admit he knew it was there or it was sitting on the dashboard where he couldn't miss it. And even in the second case he was slobbering and incoherent so even if it was hanging from the mirror he could easily make a case of not knowing.

    Since you used the word "AND" there, I'm assuming either condition alone is not sufficient, they both have to be proven.

  9. #809
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by JetsNeedNewton View Post
    All of that pre-supposes he would be dumb enough to admit he knew it was there or it was sitting on the dashboard where he couldn't miss it. And even in the second case he was slobbering and incoherent so even if it was hanging from the mirror he could easily make a case of not knowing.

    Since you used the word "AND" there, I'm assuming either condition alone is not sufficient, they both have to be proven.

    I'm not arguing the facts of the case, as I don't think we know them right now. Just talking more in general about the law itself.

    Yes, both conditions must be met. You have to know about the gun and have access to it.

  10. #810
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    I'm not arguing the facts of the case, as I don't think we know them right now. Just talking more in general about the law itself.

    Yes, both conditions must be met. You have to know about the gun and have access to it.
    as well as the intent to exercise control over it.

    From model jury instructions in NJ:

    So, a person who, although not in actual possession, has knowledge of its character, and knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons, is then in constructive possession of it.
    I don't think merely knowing that the driver routinely carries a gun in the glove compartment is enough to establish possession by a passenger. I would think, however, that if you know that your buddy carries a gun in the glove compartment and you, periodically, take it out and play with it, the situation would change.

    I can't swear by that distinction, but that would be my interpretation.

  11. #811
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    East Coast of the United States - subject to change on short notice
    Posts
    20,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by IndianaJet View Post
    You really have no idea what you're talking about do you....

    It's not surprising, in my time as a prosecutor I had to deal with plenty of cops who thought they knew the law but didn't.

    The only thing worse then the defendants and their attorneys were the cops who tried to tell me how to do my job.....
    And lawyers are always right? LOL....yeah sure.

    Have you ever written an arrest affidavit?

    We'll see who's right and who's wrong when the weapons charge gets tossed.
    Last edited by ARodFLKeysJetsFan; 06-12-2013 at 05:26 PM.

  12. #812
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    East Coast of the United States - subject to change on short notice
    Posts
    20,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    That is incorrect - he is charged with possession. Possession can be either actual or constructive....it makes no difference under the law.
    It most certainly does make a big difference in how the arresting officer must write his report.

    It must be specifically annotated in the narrative of the arrest affidavit whether Goodson actually possessed or constructively possessed the weapon - and good luck proving constructive possession.

    Having access to the weapon is easy enough to prove - Goodson was in the car that the weapon was in - unless it was locked in the glove compartment or in a lock box.

    That being said, Goodson would also have had to admit to the arresting officer that he knew the gun was in the car, essentially telling on himself (there is really no other way to prove knowledge) and NOBODY is that stupid - and there is no indication anywhere that I have seen or read that that happened.

    You guys can argue with me all you like - I'll bet ANYBODY HERE $100.00 that Goodson does not get convicted of the possession of a firearm charge.

    There it is - NOW PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.

    If you are so confident in your knowledge of the law, put your money where your mouth is.
    Last edited by ARodFLKeysJetsFan; 06-12-2013 at 05:36 PM.

  13. #813
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    12,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by crasherino View Post
    as well as the intent to exercise control over it.

    From model jury instructions in NJ:



    I don't think merely knowing that the driver routinely carries a gun in the glove compartment is enough to establish possession by a passenger. I would think, however, that if you know that your buddy carries a gun in the glove compartment and you, periodically, take it out and play with it, the situation would change.

    I can't swear by that distinction, but that would be my interpretation.
    Agreed. I think you are spot on! I see a former prosecutor is also forgetting the word: knowingly..... It really figures into the equation. Also its interesting that we have not heard if the gun was in open view or in a locked glove compartment! Yet so many have Goodson tried and convicted and in prison! From the sounds of things Goodson was too drunk to even open the glove compartment if it was unlocked! LOL

    I can not see this going to trial. Possession is a very weak charge as the current facts are presented. I read that the cops charged the man because his friend was very drunk too and they " could or would not believe his confession". They were going to let the DA or GJ decide this matter! The DA decided to go to a GJ. As I said earlier a ham sandwich can get indicted! But could it be convicted in a criminal trial? Highly unlikely and even the DA will admit to that!

  14. #814
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    It most certainly does make a big difference in how the arresting officer must write his report.

    It must be specifically annotated in the narrative of the arrest affidavit whether Goodson actually possessed or constructively possessed the weapon - and good luck proving constructive possession.

    Having access to the weapon is easy enough to prove - Goodson was in the car that the weapon was in - unless it was locked in the glove compartment or in a lock box.

    That being said, Goodson would also have had to admit to the arresting officer that he knew the gun was in the car, essentially telling on himself (there is really no other way to prove knowledge) and NOBODY is that stupid - and there is no indication anywhere that I have seen or read that that happened.

    You guys can argue with me all you like - I'll bet ANYBODY HERE $100.00 that Goodson does not get convicted of the possession of a firearm charge.

    There it is - NOW PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.

    If you are so confident in your knowledge of the law, put your money where your mouth is.

    Nice shifting of the goalposts there. The comment wasn't about an officer's arrest report. It was about what Goodson was charged with. Allow me to refresh your memory counselor:

    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    And lets not forget that Goodson was charged with POSSESSION - NOT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM - They are, in fact, 2 different charges, with different burdens of proof for each.
    Hmmm, don't see anything about officer reports there, do you ? All I see is you discussing the CHARGE of possession and wrongly claiming that "constructive possession" is a different charge.

    Now you have the gall to turn around and demand that someone else put up or shut up ? That's pathetic.

  15. #815
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    It most certainly does make a big difference in how the arresting officer must write his report.

    It must be specifically annotated in the narrative of the arrest affidavit whether Goodson actually possessed or constructively possessed the weapon - and good luck proving constructive possession.

    Having access to the weapon is easy enough to prove - Goodson was in the car that the weapon was in - unless it was locked in the glove compartment or in a lock box.

    That being said, Goodson would also have had to admit to the arresting officer that he knew the gun was in the car, essentially telling on himself (there is really no other way to prove knowledge) and NOBODY is that stupid - and there is no indication anywhere that I have seen or read that that happened.

    You guys can argue with me all you like - I'll bet ANYBODY HERE $100.00 that Goodson does not get convicted of the possession of a firearm charge.

    There it is - NOW PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.

    If you are so confident in your knowledge of the law, put your money where your mouth is.

    The highlighted part is wrong as well. If the gun was sitting right there in the open, then it doesn't matter if Goodson admits to knowing about it. It can be inferred, by the fact that it was clearly visible, that Goodson must have been aware of it's existence.

  16. #816
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    It most certainly does make a big difference in how the arresting officer must write his report.

    It must be specifically annotated in the narrative of the arrest affidavit whether Goodson actually possessed or constructively possessed the weapon - and good luck proving constructive possession.

    Having access to the weapon is easy enough to prove - Goodson was in the car that the weapon was in - unless it was locked in the glove compartment or in a lock box.

    That being said, Goodson would also have had to admit to the arresting officer that he knew the gun was in the car, essentially telling on himself (there is really no other way to prove knowledge) and NOBODY is that stupid - and there is no indication anywhere that I have seen or read that that happened.

    You guys can argue with me all you like - I'll bet ANYBODY HERE $100.00 that Goodson does not get convicted of the possession of a firearm charge.

    There it is - NOW PUT UP OR SHUT-UP.

    If you are so confident in your knowledge of the law, put your money where your mouth is.
    Dude, settle down. I was responding to your post where you said:

    And lets not forget that Goodson was charged with POSSESSION - NOT CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM - They are, in fact, 2 different charges, with different burdens of proof for each.
    The charge is " illegal possession of a firearm". There is no separate charge of "illegal CONSTRUCTIVE possession of a firearm". Whether possession is constructive or actual is irrelevant - the charge is the same. The circumstances and the burden of proof are different, but the actual felony is the same irrespective of how the possession came to be.

    No one is claiming that he is going to be convicted - that's just you making things up. The only point that anyone is trying to make is that he can be charged with possessing the gun without actually owning it.

    Will a grand jury indict him? Probably not. But its certainly possible. Will he be convicted of it? I highly doubt it. We have no idea what the real circumstances are, but it doesn't sound like it. But, the prosecutor may hold him to the charge until he rolls on his friend. Or, he may drop the whole thing. We have no idea.

  17. #817
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    925
    Post Thanks / Like
    I hate to dumb down this fine legal debate, yet, is it possible that the DA office brought the indictment to the Grand Jury to cover there rear end.
    Here you have a case involving local professional sports figure, would not want to look soft. So you bring the case to the GJ and allow them to decide if the evidence is strong enough to bring the defendant to trial
    Then if the charges are laughed out of court and the state waste its time and finances, the DA can claim it was just doing the GJ bidding.....just a thought

  18. #818
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,326
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by fltflo View Post
    I hate to dumb down this fine legal debate, yet, is it possible that the DA office brought the indictment to the Grand Jury to cover there rear end.
    Here you have a case involving local professional sports figure, would not want to look soft. So you bring the case to the GJ and allow them to decide if the evidence is strong enough to bring the defendant to trial
    Then if the charges are laughed out of court and the state waste its time and finances, the DA can claim it was just doing the GJ bidding.....just a thought
    Yep, that's a possibility. DA would also be covered if the GJ hands down a "no bill".

  19. #819
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    East Coast of the United States - subject to change on short notice
    Posts
    20,201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Demosthenes9 View Post
    The highlighted part is wrong as well. If the gun was sitting right there in the open, then it doesn't matter if Goodson admits to knowing about it. It can be inferred, by the fact that it was clearly visible, that Goodson must have been aware of it's existence.
    It has not been reported anywhere that the gun was sitting right there in the open slick.

    All we know is that the weapon was found - we don't know where it was found in the vehicle or how exactly the trooper came across it. What we do know is that it wasn't found in either individual's physical possession and that the driver claimed ownership of it.

    Nice try though.

    Again - $100 bucks says Goodson doesn't get convicted on the possession of a weapon charge.

    Put your money where your mouth is, all you have to do is grab your balls and man-up.
    Last edited by ARodFLKeysJetsFan; 06-13-2013 at 09:11 AM.

  20. #820
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    19,066
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by ARodFLKeysJetsFan View Post
    It has not been reported anywhere that the gun was sitting right there in the open slick.

    All we know is that the weapon was found - we don't know where it was found in the vehicle or how exactly the trooper came across it. What we do know is that it wasn't found in either individual's physical possession and that the driver claimed ownership of it.

    Nice try though.

    Again - $100 bucks says Goodson doesn't get convicted on the possession of a weapon charge.

    Put your money where your mouth is, all you have to do is grab your balls and man-up.
    We have no idea where the gun is found. We don't know much of anything here.

    Again, show me the post where someone said he was going to be convicted. I would love to see it. Once again, NO ONE SAID HE IS GOING TO BE CONVICTED. NOT ONE PERSON.

    $100 says the Jets don't win the Super Bowl, ARod. Put up or shut up.

    (That's how stupid your bet is).

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us