Transcript of Carroo's court appearance

[mildone]

You do understand he wasn't found innocent. A deal was made.

No deal was made in the sense that you mean it. The victim decided to withdraw the restraining order and, when asked by the judge, said she would not testify in the criminal case. So the prosecutor had no case (which he more or less said himself).

Here's the only "deal": "Carroo stipulated that police had probable cause for charges and thus is not eligible to file a civil suit, according to his criminal attorney, Peter Gilbreth, who said the family had no such interest anyway."

And his attorneys surely only agreed to that, despite what they said, because he wanted to get back to his team and playing football as soon as possible. If he didn't agree, the prosecutor could've dragged things out and then dismissed at some later date. The prosecutor himself said that since the victim was refusing to testify, there would be almost no chance of winning the case so dismissal was inevitible.

The anger management nonsense was apparently an automatic requirement based on the domestic violence nature of the charges. Carroo's attorney's probably could've fought to eliminate that as well, but again Carroo's main priority was to get back to playing.

So based on everything I've read that came from media reports of witness statements, from the attorney's for both sides, from the prosecutor, Carroo didn't actually do what he was charged with doing. The case wasn't dropped due to a technicality. It was dropped because the victim refuses to testify.

In this country, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. He's innocent of the charges.

 

[JoeRU0304]

Bus, he wasn't found guilty nor did he plead guilty to anything; don't know why that's so hard to understand.

...I and my colleagues have been to administrative law court for my day job and a number of us have had cases where our 'side' agreed to terms we didn't fully agree with because the overall decision favored us and the juice wasn't worth the squeeze to 'fight' the terms of the agreement. It certainly didn't mean we 'lost' the case or were found to be at fault.

I don't want to pass judgment on the reported victim, but when you file such a complaint, in the courtroom the gloves come off. You have no expectation of confidentiality or privacy in the courtroom and this would have been a high interest case hearing. All of the details, as well as allegations against her, would have been revealed and she may not have wanted to go through that, especially if there's no sound evidence. I've also seen civil/administrative law situations before where the plaintiff/complainant is all gung-ho, but once a counter-complaint was filed and the plaintiff realized they would now have to answer for their part, they quickly moved to settle the case under terms that were much different than their original demands.


Joe P.

 

[BROTHERSKINNY]

No deal was made in the sense that you mean it. The victim decided to withdraw the restraining order and, when asked by the judge, said she would not testify in the criminal case. So the prosecutor had no case (which he more or less said himself).

Here's the only "deal": "Carroo stipulated that police had probable cause for charges and thus is not eligible to file a civil suit, according to his criminal attorney, Peter Gilbreth, who said the family had no such interest anyway."

And his attorneys surely only agreed to that, despite what they said, because he wanted to get back to his team and playing football as soon as possible. If he didn't agree, the prosecutor could've dragged things out and then dismissed at some later date. The prosecutor himself said that since the victim was refusing to testify, there would be almost no chance of winning the case so dismissal was inevitible.

The anger management nonsense was apparently an automatic requirement based on the domestic violence nature of the charges. Carroo's attorney's probably could've fought to eliminate that as well, but again Carroo's main priority was to get back to playing.

So based on everything I've read that came from media reports of witness statements, from the attorney's for both sides, from the prosecutor, Carroo didn't actually do what he was charged with doing. The case wasn't dropped due to a technicality. It was dropped because the victim refuses to testify.

In this country, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. He's innocent of the charges.

Well Said!

 

[RU76]

Under no circumstances in a million years would Carroo ever been found innocent. The only choices would be guilty or not guilty or some sort of dismissal. Anything other than guilty is what Carroo's lawyer was shooting for and as quickly as possible. This was accomplished. In my opinion (150 +/- jury cases tried to conclusion) the judge was pompous, which really should be expected as a norm in municipal court where virtually no one cares about anything other than raising money with court costs and fines. I did not read the article but I am curious if court costs were assessed.

 

[WhiteBus]

No deal was made in the sense that you mean it. The victim decided to withdraw the restraining order and, when asked by the judge, said she would not testify in the criminal case. So the prosecutor had no case (which he more or less said himself).

Here's the only "deal": "Carroo stipulated that police had probable cause for charges and thus is not eligible to file a civil suit, according to his criminal attorney, Peter Gilbreth, who said the family had no such interest anyway."

And his attorneys surely only agreed to that, despite what they said, because he wanted to get back to his team and playing football as soon as possible. If he didn't agree, the prosecutor could've dragged things out and then dismissed at some later date. The prosecutor himself said that since the victim was refusing to testify, there would be almost no chance of winning the case so dismissal was inevitible.

The anger management nonsense was apparently an automatic requirement based on the domestic violence nature of the charges. Carroo's attorney's probably could've fought to eliminate that as well, but again Carroo's main priority was to get back to playing.

So based on everything I've read that came from media reports of witness statements, from the attorney's for both sides, from the prosecutor, Carroo didn't actually do what he was charged with doing. The case wasn't dropped due to a technicality. It was dropped because the victim refuses to testify.

In this country, you're innocent until you're proven guilty. He's innocent of the charges.

I've never said he was guilty but this was a settlement. You are 100% wrong about the classes. If he was completely innocent he wouldn't have to take those classes.
Simply a deal was made, and he can play Saturday....and Rutgers needs his talent. be happy and move on

 

[mildone]

Under no circumstances in a million years would Carroo ever been found innocent. The only choices would be guilty or not guilty or some sort of dismissal. Anything other than guilty is what Carroo's lawyer was shooting for and as quickly as possible. This was accomplished. In my opinion (150 +/- jury cases tried to conclusion) the judge was pompous, which really should be expected as a norm in municipal court where virtually no one cares about anything other than raising money with court costs and fines. I did not read the article but I am curious if court costs were assessed.

Nobody is "found innocent" in court. You're found not guilty. Not the same thing, semantically. Which is maybe what you were saying, I'm not sure.

 

[DHajekRC84]

somebody in my company made some inappropriate remarks and we all had to talk a mandatory on-line training course. I didn't realize I was guilty because I had to take that course. Good to know.;)

 

[DHajekRC84]

He's only "adequately prepared for marriage" if he's learned to not put his partner and his girlfriend in the same place at the same time.

and he's scored big time if they actually agree to be..every guy's dream [banana]

 

[RU31trap]

I think this is a win win for Caroo. If I were to guess the evidence for a FRO was going to be tough to prove. When she backed off on the assualt charges the prosecutor basically had his hands tied. This really pisses off Judges and Prosecutors, hence the lecture.

The team and Laviano will be much better with Caroo.

 

[loki_dog]

I'm just surprised the exchange didn't end with

"Now go to your room and think about what you may or may not have done"

 

[kupuna133]

One of the nice features of the new board is the fact that old posts do not "fall off the board" like the old version.

Very nicely said. I love how people change their tune and practice revisionist history when their experience and "sources" turn out to be false.

 

[RUsSKii]

I've never said he was guilty but this was a settlement. You are 100% wrong about the classes. If he was completely innocent he wouldn't have to take those classes.
Simply a deal was made, and he can play Saturday....and Rutgers needs his talent. be happy and move on

Carroo's lawyer's could have dragged this out in court if it hadn't been in his best interest for a quick resolution to resume playing for R.U. So instead they made a deal. This proves little about his complete guilt or innocence, which leads us to form our own opinions based on the facts known and the credibility of everyone involved..
But if the case for simple assault charges with a "domestic violence" add-on had been tried in court and Carroo had been found not guilty there, then there would be no anger management classes to take (or penalties, for that matter) and under this country's laws he would be for all intensive purposes innocent.
Also to add: I'm happy he's back, and ready to move one.

 

[knightfan7]

Very nicely said. I love how people change their tune and practice revisionist history when their experience and "sources" turn out to be false.

The fact this whole situation ended the way a large percentage of these things do in real life and not on TV gives wiggle room to those who want to believe one way or another.

It's time for all of us to move on and stop beating this horse. It's dead gang.

 

[kupuna133]

The fact this whole situation ended the way a large percentage of these things do in real life and not on TV gives wiggle room to those who want to believe one way or another.

It's time for all of us to move on and stop beating this horse. It's dead gang.

I agree and that is the way I approached this from the get go. Way too many moving parts and not enough info good or bad to get a proper read on this thing. I wanted this not to be true for both sides. Any kind of physical altercation never has a true winner.

 

[RUmonster]

Do you realize that you’ve been given the benefit of the doubt by this victim and the Rutgers Police Department?

Assuming that he is guilty and SHE is a VICTIM by him....POMPOUS ASS

 

[Upstream]

Do you realize that you’ve been given the benefit of the doubt by this victim and the Rutgers Police Department?

Assuming that he is guilty and SHE is a VICTIM by him....POMPOUS ASS

You're really splitting hairs here. She was injured. By definition that makes her a victim (even if she was a victim of her own actions).

 

[FLKnight]

You're really splitting hairs here. She was injured. By definition that makes her a victim (even if she was a victim of her own actions).

And that is what's wrong with our society.

 

[Upstream]

And that is what's wrong with our society.

Huh? I'm thinking that you don't really know what the word "victim" means. Just because she is a victim of the events that transpired, doesn't mean or imply that someone else is at fault for her injuries.

 

[SleepingGiantIsAwake]

While the judge was a bit over the line, considering the outcome, I actually like what the judge did.....hopefully if Carroo is blessed to play in the NFL, the judge took some interest in pounding home a point to Leonte which will hopefully stick with him and maybe lead to him making a better decision in a future situation with a lot more $$$ at stake. The judge may seem like a dick to some, but I think his message had good intentions.

 

[FLKnight]

Huh? I'm thinking that you don't really know what the word "victim" means. Just because she is a victim of the events that transpired, doesn't mean or imply that someone else is at fault for her injuries.

I know the definition of "victim". I'm not sure how you wouldn't read the judges statement as inferring the ex-gf was the victim and LC the aggressor.

 

[mildone]

I know the definition of "victim". I'm not sure how you wouldn't read the judges statement as identifying the ex-gf as the victim and LC the aggressor.

The victim herself no longer sees herself as a victim.

Edit: I should've also said, so who gives a flying F what the judge says. Judges have a role and they play that role. Nothing he said on the part of the transcript that was released should be considered as evidence of wrongdoing on Leonte's part. At best, it can be considered fatherly advice about not being in the wrong place at the wrong time when you have an NFL career waiting in the wings.

 

[FLKnight]

The victim herself no longer sees herself as a victim.

Edit: I should've also said, so who gives a flying F what the judge says. Judges have a role and they play that role. Nothing he said on the part of the transcript that was released should be considered as evidence of wrongdoing on Leonte's part. At best, it can be considered fatherly advice about not being in the wrong place at the wrong time when you have an NFL career waiting in the wings.

Exactly...

 

[Upstream]

I know the definition of "victim". I'm not sure how you wouldn't read the judges statement as inferring the ex-gf was the victim and LC the aggressor.

I don't read that the judge is implying that LC was the aggressor that caused the girl's injuries. I read it as implying that the girl and police had claimed that LC was the aggressor and they are now giving LC "the benefit of the doubt" in not pursuing the complaint further.

I really read his lecture of Carroo as advice to avoid these types of situations because, as he now learned, you never know how it will end up, especially since LC will be in the spotlight if he plays football on Sundays. I agree with that advice. Carroo would have been a lot better off if he had just stayed in the locker room, as he was advised.

 

[BROTHERSKINNY]

The victim herself no longer sees herself as a victim.

Edit: I should've also said, so who gives a flying F what the judge says. Judges have a role and they play that role. Nothing he said on the part of the transcript that was released should be considered as evidence of wrongdoing on Leonte's part. At best, it can be considered fatherly advice about not being in the wrong place at the wrong time when you have an NFL career waiting in the wings.

But, Perception is reality. While the Judges intent may have been fatherly advice, the perception is that Leonte did something wrong even after the accuser decided not to pursue the case. At that point, the appropriate response by the judge is, "Mr. Carroo, you are free to go". Or if the judge wanted to dispense his fatherly advice he could have called Leonte and his attorney, into his chambers for a private discussion. That is not what the judge did, He publicly chastised Leonte in front of reporters and on the record and made it seem as though he was being done a favor when the reality is he was not guilty of any crime! This is how the perception that ALL men are violent is perpetuated. And on another note, I do not know what Leontes arrangement with his attorney is but at regular NJ attorney Billing rates of $350/ hr Leontes bill must be pretty substantial. The three false DV charges my ex made against me cost me roughly $6500 per incident. Mind you, Like Leonte I was not guilty of anything but the court staff still treats you like a pariah. So, I think leontes incident was a little more involved than mine so his is probably approaching close to $10,000 for handling this. Who is going to pay for that?
There are lots of problems the way DV cases are adjudicated today and we need to make the system more fair for men for two reasons. 1) There are too many false accusations which means real cases of DV are being neglected and 2) There is a heavy price that men pay (financially, socially and emotionally) when they are falsely accused of DV.

 

[mildone]

I don't read that the judge is implying that LC was the aggressor that caused the girl's injuries. I read it as implying that the girl and police had claimed that LC was the aggressor and they are now giving LC "the benefit of the doubt" in not pursuing the complaint further.

I really read his lecture of Carroo as advice to avoid these types of situations because, as he now learned, you never know how it will end up, especially since LC will be in the spotlight if he plays football on Sundays. I agree with that advice. Carroo would have been a lot better off if he had just stayed in the locker room, as he was advised.

There's no benefit of the doubt. The only evidence was this girls statement and possibly those of other witnesses. She's refusing to testify. And if there were other witnesses that would testify that Carroo did something wrong, then the prosecutor would not be saying that without the girls testimony, there's no point in continuing the prosecution. So there's no evidence at all to suggest that Carroo did anything wrong here.

The judge can say whatever he wants, but that is not evidence of anything. The implications based on the victim's actions (she refused to pursue the restraining order, she stated that she's not scared, she refuses to testify) speak a whole hell of a lot louder than any BS the judge says at the very end of the day.

I don't get it. People are elevating the stern lecture from the judge into something it's not. Trying to claim that because the judge lectured Carroo, Carroo must therefore be somehow guilty of some degree of wrongdoing is ridiculous. It'd be like me saying, "yo, Upstream - don't beat your dog" being taken to mean that you must beat your dog.

What the victim did here is what matters. And she clearly didn't think that, whatever Carroo did or didn't do, it warranted any further action. That makes Carroo innocent of the charges.

Is he completely innocent of everything? Who freaking knows. Who among us is completely innocent of everything? Give me a freaking break.

Regarding the advice to Carroo about leaving the Hale Center, it came from a friend, not anybody in authority. Getting the source of the advice right is kind of important because it colors how one should consider Leonte's subsequent decision. Because in one case, he's just ignoring the advice of a friend which most of us do all the time and it doesn't make us bad people. But if he had been told what not to do by someone he was supposed to listen to and he did it anyway, that would be a problem. It was a friend, as reported by the journalist that overheard and report about it; not someone in authority.

And regardless of the advice, Carroo absolutely was right to go help his GF and his mom out. If people want to point fingers, then they should be pointing fingers at the GF, the ex-GF, the mom - anybody else that didn't manage to avoid getting into an altercation in the first place that put Carroo in a position to have to come help.

 

[Upstream]

There's no benefit of the doubt. The only evidence was this girls statement and possibly those of other witnesses. She's refusing to testify. And if there were other witnesses that would testify that Carroo did something wrong, then the prosecutor would not be saying that without the girls testimony, there's no point in continuing the prosecution. So there's no evidence at all to suggest that Carroo did anything wrong here.

The judge can say whatever he wants, but that is not evidence of anything. The implications based on the victim's actions (she refused to pursue the restraining order, she stated that she's not scared, she refuses to testify) speak a whole hell of a lot louder than any BS the judge says at the very end of the day.

I don't get it. People are elevating the stern lecture from the judge into something it's not. Trying to claim that because the judge lectured Carroo, Carroo must therefore be somehow guilty of some degree of wrongdoing is ridiculous. It'd be like me saying, "yo, Upstream - don't beat your dog" being taken to mean that you must beat your dog.

What the victim did here is what matters. And she clearly didn't think that, whatever Carroo did or didn't do, it warranted any further action. That makes Carroo innocent of the charges.

Is he completely innocent of everything? Who freaking knows. Who among us is completely innocent of everything? Give me a freaking break.

Regarding the advice to Carroo about leaving the Hale Center, it came from a friend, not anybody in authority. Getting the source of the advice right is kind of important because it colors how one should consider Leonte's subsequent decision. Because in one case, he's just ignoring the advice of a friend which most of us do all the time and it doesn't make us bad people. But if he had been told what not to do by someone he was supposed to listen to and he did it anyway, that would be a problem. It was a friend, as reported by the journalist that overheard and report about it; not someone in authority.

And regardless of the advice, Carroo absolutely was right to go help his GF and his mom out. If people want to point fingers, then they should be pointing fingers at the GF, the ex-GF, the mom - anybody else that didn't manage to avoid getting into an altercation in the first place that put Carroo in a position to have to come help.

I think we are mostly arguing the same side of the point. The judge isn't accusing LC of anything, and he is not passing any judgment on whether LC did or did not do anything. He is only saying that the girl and police previously claimed LC did something and the girl and police have some doubt and the girl and police are now giving LC the benefit of the doubt in deciding to no longer pursue this case.

I do disagree that LC was correct in going out to help his GF and mom. I agree with his friend who told him to stay in the locker room. Sometimes (especially in emotional situations), you should listen to your level-headed friends. And I would guess that at this point, LC also agrees that he would have been better off staying in the locker room.

 

[Caliknight]

Some posters in this thread are like the violinists troupe going down with the titanic.

 

[mildone]

Some posters in this thread are like the violinists troupe going down with the titanic.

I LOLed. Very good.

I swear it's like split personality between this and the CE board. Now I have to meet you in person.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Look, I know a lot of people on this board have been in "O.J." mode for the last 24 hours, but based on the judge's comments and the fact that having the charges dropped in exchange for mandatory anger management classes is not the same thing as an acquittal, I think we should all agree that Leonte had a good day yesterday. He should be thankful and he should go on living his life in as positive a manner as possible.

The bottom line is that the people who may have believed that he "picked up the recruiting hostess and threw her to the ground" were wrong.

But the people who have maintained that "Leonte did absolutely nothing wrong" were also wrong.

The truth, the actual fact of the case, appears to have been something in between.

So we move on.

Nobody is capable of processing nuance.