I actually really appreciate the update as I took great interest in this case last year. I don’t follow the NFL or watch ESPN or anything and I very well may never have heard about the judgement if not for reading about it here.
Perhaps you should read it. Then you might figure out the answer for yourself.
Just curious -
Any chance Brian could sue for something like wrongful imprisonment? Or that someone didn’t do their jobs properly?
It seems obvious that his original lawyer gave him some pretty shitty advice…
What makes that obvious?
I doubt they spent much, considering that the lying bitch didn’t defend.
I’m glad that it got bumped because I never heard about it when it first happened nor would I have heard about it since this NFL thingy.
And I wouldn’t say Bricker was right so much as he just repeated a story from the news.
No, as to the first. It’s not the government’s fault he didn’t contest the charges.
I’m not disagreeing with you - if he does something “stupid” as in plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit it’s not very fair to hold the government liable.
But at the same time, I can’t help but feel that if someone is willing to “volunteer” for 5 years in jail without any other outside motivating factors (as in protecting a family member etc etc) then something has gone wrong somewhere and undue pressure was put on him or similar. Which someone should be held to account for…
Of course, it could just be that he has (or had) a really really shitty lawyer
I’m sure it was plea “deal”. Would you rather have 5 years or 20 years? Because you’re getting one of them.
I don’t follow your reasoning. It’s pretty simple isn’t it? Witness says rape. Defendant may well go to jail. Lawyer says “do a deal or you risk life”. Turns out witness was lying. Why does this scenario have to involve either government wrongdoing or a shitty lawyer?
Well he didn’t do the crime -
So I’m betting that some pretty heavy pressure and threats were put on him to plead guilty.
You’d have to expect that it wasn’t a friendly afternoon chat, or a bit of quick talking but rather intense threatening.
I’d have to wonder, how it’s possible that an innocent person faces so much pressure. I don’t have a legal or factual reason to back it - just simply feels wrong.
Lights on. No one’s home.
Right, but the evidence was that he did. It sounds like the evidence against the guy was pretty strong. You had her testimony, you had injuries consistent with her testimony, you had his statement that they had had sex. Even if he was actually innocent, there was a pretty good chance of conviction. So, I don’t think his attorney’s advice was idiotic.
Perhaps clairobscur could provide thoughts about how this problem is less common in France. Perhaps the backlog of, and/or cost of, trials there is less severe, so there is less reason for the prosecution to offer plea deals where the potential time to serve in jail is so starkly contrasted (between guilty plea and risked finding of guilt)?
And that disbelief is fueled by cases like this. :mad:
Sounds fair. Her lie stole five years of her victim’s life, she should have to give up five years in return.
I like reading follow-ups about such stories. YMMV.
That’s precisely the problem, I guess. Those deals are insane. Again, I’m not culturally accustomed to them. Nevertheless, I think if they must exist, they should be more reasonnable (say 5 years/7 years or 15 years/20 years) not 5 years or 40 years (which was the sentence he was possibly facing IIRC). Justice can’t be served this way. By accepting a deal, either his sentence was way too short or it was way too long. In any case, it couldn’t be a fair sentence. A system that results in an unfair sentence whether the accused is guilty or not is broken.
Well, as weird as it may sems to me (and many others), innocent people admit to crimes all the time without any particular pressure (not even the pressure coming from the deal offered in this case). I occasionnally read about innocent people with a rather submissive personnality, or easily influenced, or even in a (in)famous case here, because they wanted to please the enquirers 
admiting guilt.
Not really relevant to this case, but there you go…
No, but I would argue that he was a “collateral damage” of the justice system. We need and want a justice system, knowing very well that occasionally, it will badly hurt some innocent “bystanders”, and it benefits us all. So, I state that these people should be made whole as much as possible, even when the State didn’t do anything wrong.
I’m also glad this thread was updated. I saw the original story elsewhere but I’m happy to see the developments. Your post has a very sour grapes feel to it.