The Curious Case of Luke Daly (Cats Kicker)

[UMGriz75]

Your reading things into what it means for him to do this deal simply ignores the realities of what he was faced with, and his comfort level with leaving things to chance.

Reading what Luke himself was "reading into it" -- full dismissal and vindication -- I think one of us is ignoring "realities" here.

Since you don't know what the offers were before and after her deposition I can see why you wouldn't understand Luke's interpretation of events, or his choices. But never let false factual speculation dampen your enthusiasm for espousing and defending cock-sure opinions solidly based on degraded effluent.

Well, I haven't had to call you any names yet, but it is obvious you can't discuss anything in a civil manner.

Luke's Facebook page celebrated the "dismissal" of the charges, his full vindication, and his prospective return to Bobcat football.

I pointed out above that Luke had been misinformed or misunderstood. The fact is "deferred prosecution," as reported by the Billings Gazette, is neither a dismissal, vindication nor does it remove the student athlete conduct code handicap of "criminal charges" since deferring prosecution of them does not dismiss the charges.

Still following, Sparky?

Luke has since taken down his Facebook page, and I suspect out of embarrassment after learning that he did not get what he thought he got.

Indeed, in the interim, he is subject to most of the actual penalties that a guilty verdict would imply, and including the risk that the "ex" would manufacture another confrontation -- the risk being the automatic revocation of the deferred prosecution agreement.

After reading your description of the deposition, expert witnesses, etc, it seemed clear that his best course of action to get the actual "vindication" he sought was to ask for a trial, since you described a scenario that made it impossible to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

For some reason, you want to argue and call names and spit and foam about it. I don't know why. The facts, if as clear as you claim, would have the direct result Luke wants. All other alternatives propose risk at various levels. I'm not reading anything into anything, that's simply how the law works. Perhaps you are retreating from the "facts" as you strongly stated them, but that does not change the definition of a "deferred prosecution agreement" nor the things that "can go wrong" during the time frame involved. The fact is, it is not what Luke thought it was.

Perhaps he had relied on you for the advice?

 

[UMGriz75]

As to "risk" under prosecution agreements, I chair hearing panels on national and international coach qualifications for an Olympic sport. This past summer I chaired a hearing panel regarding the ability of a coach to coach his competitors at national level events due to his domestic violence criminal history being an automatic bar. The hearing panel members consisted of myself, a policewoman experienced in domestic violence, and a several-time Olympic gold medalist.

That case was instructive with regard to Luke. Same initial scenario. An initial charge of domestic abuse over a custodial dispute, conflicting testimony and evidence, and a deferred sentence. On the record were several instances of violations of the standard temporary restraining order (defendant may not be within 1000 feet of "victim").

We held our hearing. Every witness testified that the "ex" took to the habit of showing up where-ever she knew that the coach was going to be -- typically at his gym where he took their daughters for training, and where the "ex" had never before taken any interest.

She began showing up on nights that she knew he was training and just walk in and plop down in a chair. He had the obligation to leave under the order. She often had reported his violation in advance, so the police would be arriving as she got there. The police wrote their tickets on him as violations if he didn't "get out" fast enough. Every single violation in his file was a "set-up" for which witnesses and evidence was presented.

After the hearing, panel members discussed the case. We quickly restored his right to coach. The police woman noted that, in her experience, about half of the "violations" of protective orders she investigated turned out to be set-ups by the supposed victim. She said that judges and prosecutors simply refused to charge "false reports" or to make the orders reciprocal -- too much political tailwind. In the battle of "he said, she said," she always won.

So, guys like our coach were continually charged and convicted, plea agreements revoked, jail times served, fines paid, job opportunities foreclosed, about half of which were done on the basis of false claims made by vindictive "ex's" most often in custodial situations where the father was most highly at risk for such claims.

So, Sparky, when you do actually understand the "risk" involved for people like Luke, under circumstances that extend the time-frame for "violations," get back to us with your solution.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

Your reading things into what it means for him to do this deal simply ignores the realities of what he was faced with, and his comfort level with leaving things to chance.

Reading what Luke himself was "reading into it" -- full dismissal and vindication -- I think one of us is ignoring "realities" here.

Since you don't know what the offers were before and after her deposition I can see why you wouldn't understand Luke's interpretation of events, or his choices. But never let false factual speculation dampen your enthusiasm for espousing and defending cock-sure opinions solidly based on degraded effluent.

Back to block, Ben Stone.

I think you misunderstood 75. He was talking about JJ. JJ wasn't offered and He didn't take.

I fully understood he was talking about JJ, said JJ was offered the same deal, and JJ turned it down. You state JJ wasn't offered, which is what I understood as well. I simply asked 75 for proof of his assertion. I see I got two diatribes blathering useless pap in reply, ignoring the request to back up his claim.

He also states Daly claimed he would be kicking for the Cats again but that's something 75 inferred, the post on Facebook did not state that, only that Daly could pursue kicking again. I know what Luke meant but won't comment on that here.

 

[UMGriz75]

I fully understood he was talking about JJ, said JJ was offered the same deal, and JJ turned it down. You state JJ wasn't offered, which is what I understood as well. I simply asked 75 for proof of his assertion.

It has always been the policy of the Missoula County Attorney's office to make a plea offer. I didn't say it was the "same" offer. The charges were different. However, I suspect it was a good offer. I no longer recall the details of what it was. But, the prosecution had big problems. The alleged victim didn't want to testify, at one point had to be suggested to that "filing a false report" might be the alternative if she didn't, several other aspects of the case had fallen apart, Fred doubted they could get a conviction, and he desperately wanted a way out of the case. JJ took the principled approach. It was risky, but only to risk-adverse people. Dave Paoli is not risk-adverse. He got the best result for his client, not one laden with ambiguity or that the client, as in Luke's case, didn't even understand.

Based on your rendition of the facts, Luke should have as well. Based on your rendition of the facts, I doubt that the alleged victim would have been willing to testify. Indeed, for "future reference" in bitter ongoing custodial problems, a trial transcript would have been Luke's best friend. Now, it all remains innuendo, he pays the penalties as though "guilty," and he is exposed for a time period to further custodial machinations affecting the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

Good job. You ought to be a criminal defense lawyer. Get good insurance coverage.

 

[grizpack]

If he is getting a deferred prosecution, wouldn't the student conduct code at UM, MSU, or presumably other instate schools prohibit him from being on the team, as the charges would still be technically pending?

 

[UMGriz75]

If he is getting a deferred prosecution, wouldn't the student conduct code at UM, MSU, or presumably other instate schools prohibit him from being on the team, as the charges would still be technically pending?

Yes.

Luke had completely misunderstood what happened with the agreement. Not uncommon, believe me.

Then, she starts posting the videos of his son with her new boyfriend. Luke goes all over the internet in anger. Oooops, there we go with precisely the danger of these drawn out "behave for six months" agreements. She set him up. He responded, publicly, angrily, setting her up to claim he was harassing her and trying to alienate her friends and family. Violation of the restraining order, with their typical prohibitions on harassment? Revocation of the plea agreement?

"Horribilis" fantastic agreement couldn't have fallen apart faster putting Luke right back in the hot soup.

Not saying that happened, but Luke's FB page went down pretty fast and the video deleted. The game she played is an old one, and I suspect something like that happened, just based on long experience in the system. No, not my own.

 

[Phat Cat]

That girl in a troublemaker. She'll do everything she can to use the kid against him. What a little bitch.

 

[BDizzle]

That girl in a troublemaker. She'll do everything she can to use the kid against him. What a little bitch.

Wow. Quality comment. I'd say they both are at fault.

 

[SeattleBobcat]

egriz keeping it classy. Maybe you guys should worry about your own team, instead of constantly stirring up bullshit.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

egriz keeping it classy. Maybe you guys should worry about your own team, instead of constantly stirring up bullshit.

Thanks so much for posting this on eGriz.com.

 

[BDizzle]

egriz keeping it classy. Maybe you guys should worry about your own team, instead of constantly stirring up bullshit.

Wasn't the classy comment from a cat fan?

 

[catsack]

egriz keeping it classy. Maybe you guys should worry about your own team, instead of constantly stirring up bullshit.

Wasn't the classy comment from a cat fan?

Same guy made comments about the girl on bobcat nation

 

[EverettGriz]

That girl in a troublemaker. She'll do everything she can to use the kid against him. What a little bitch.

Well that justifies beating her...

 

[PlayerRep]

That girl in a troublemaker. She'll do everything she can to use the kid against him. What a little bitch.

Well that justifies beating her...

Misdemeanor partner assault does not equal "beating" a partner/woman. That would likely be a felony.

75 and others, note the wording of the last sentence of the recent Gazette article. Could the charge have been withdrawn, or is that just loose wording?

"A jury trial was initially scheduled for Friday. The deferred prosecution agreement, according to Halverson, includes the stipulation that Daly complete the aggression control class and provide the city attorney’s office with regular updates of his progress.

If Daly meets his requirements, the charges may be permanently dismissed. If not, Halverson has the option of refiling the charges, he said."

 

[EverettGriz]

Misdemeanor partner assault does not equal "beating" a partner/woman.

Does in my book. Guess I'm just old-fashioned that way.


:?

 

[UMGriz75]

75 and others, note the wording of the last sentence of the recent Gazette article. Could the charge have been withdrawn, or is that just loose wording?

If Daly meets his requirements, the charges may be permanently dismissed. If not, Halverson has the option of refiling the charges, he said."

Loose wording. There is a six month statute of limitations on misdemeanors. They can't withdraw and then refile if six months has passed. I served two terms as Judge pro tem on these kinds of cases in justice and municipal courts, ruling on these agreements. I hated these agreements because the defendants never understood them, and often enough the prosecution didn't either. My clerk brought in 100 arrest warrants one day to sign, from accumulated failures to appear, failure to pay fines, failure to complete counselling, on and on. I noted that most of them were more than a couple of years old, just cleaning out and updating the files. I noted to the Clerk, "you do know we lose jurisdiction at some point?" I dismissed them all. She had a cow, but even the Chief Judge and other judges had not understood the "jurisdiction" issue. Neither did 90% of the defense attorneys. This is one reason I give Luke lots of slack for not understanding the terms of this agreement.

 

[horribilisfan8184]

75 and others, note the wording of the last sentence of the recent Gazette article. Could the charge have been withdrawn, or is that just loose wording?

If Daly meets his requirements, the charges may be permanently dismissed. If not, Halverson has the option of refiling the charges, he said."

Loose wording. There is a six month statute of limitations on misdemeanors. They can't withdraw and then refile if six months has passed. I served two terms as Judge pro tem on these kinds of cases in justice and municipal courts, ruling on these agreements. I hated these agreements because the defendants never understood them, and often enough the prosecution didn't either. My clerk brought in 100 arrest warrants one day to sign, from accumulated failures to appear, failure to pay fines, failure to complete counselling, on and on. I noted that most of them were more than a couple of years old, just cleaning out and updating the files. I noted to the Clerk, "you do know we lose jurisdiction at some point?" I dismissed them all. She had a cow, but even the Chief Judge and other judges had not understood the "jurisdiction" issue. Neither did 90% of the defense attorneys. This is one reason I give Luke lots of slack for not understanding the terms of this agreement.

You admit not having seen the actual deal, but nonetheless speculate about its terms and how Luke doesn't understand them. Ok Carnac, whatever you say. And every constitutional or statutory right afforded a criminal defendant can be waived in writing or orally in open court (Billings Municipal Court is a court of record). Something the law requires municipal judges/JP's to advise every defendant before accepting a guilty plea, so why make a wholly incorrect statement about waiver of speedy trial? State v. Fitzgerald, 283 Mont. 162, 166-67, 940 P.2d 108, 111 (1997) The others on here are right, you just make things up as you go to support whatever your predetermined narrative is. Luke has one of the finest criminal lawyers in Billings and Montana. Not sure why you insist on implying you think he is an idiot, or has misinformed his client about what the deal terms are. It appears to be you that doesn't understand criminal charges can be, and are in fact often ordered, dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be refiled, which is exactly what this prosecutor asserted to the reporter. State v. Strong, 2010 MT 163, 357 Mont. 114 (Mont., 2010)

This thread should be re-titled : THE CURIOUS CASE OF 75 SHOWING OFF HIS IGNORANCE

 

[AZGrizFan]

75 and others, note the wording of the last sentence of the recent Gazette article. Could the charge have been withdrawn, or is that just loose wording?

If Daly meets his requirements, the charges may be permanently dismissed. If not, Halverson has the option of refiling the charges, he said."

Loose wording. There is a six month statute of limitations on misdemeanors. They can't withdraw and then refile if six months has passed. I served two terms as Judge pro tem on these kinds of cases in justice and municipal courts, ruling on these agreements. I hated these agreements because the defendants never understood them, and often enough the prosecution didn't either. My clerk brought in 100 arrest warrants one day to sign, from accumulated failures to appear, failure to pay fines, failure to complete counselling, on and on. I noted that most of them were more than a couple of years old, just cleaning out and updating the files. I noted to the Clerk, "you do know we lose jurisdiction at some point?" I dismissed them all. She had a cow, but even the Chief Judge and other judges had not understood the "jurisdiction" issue. Neither did 90% of the defense attorneys. This is one reason I give Luke lots of slack for not understanding the terms of this agreement.

Just another example of 75 spouting off about how he knows so much more than anybody else, understands everything better than anybody else and is smarter than everybody else. Seriously...is there ANYTHING, ANY subject in your mind, in which you're not an expert?

So far in your numerous manifestos on this board you've claimed that at various times in your life you've been a lawyer, a judge, a CFO, a teacher and a coach. You're either a goddamned genius, Gump, or you can't seem to hold a job. :roll: :roll:

 

[UMGriz75]

[ Not sure why you insist on implying you think he is an idiot, or has misinformed his client about what the deal terms are.

Unlike you, I've seen them. Luke thought he was completely vindicated.

A "deferred prosecution agreement" is not the "vindication" that Luke thought it was no matter how much you want to spin this into yet another of your trolling arguments. What he thought it was, and what it was, are two different things.

 

[UMGriz75]

So far in your numerous manifestos on this board you've claimed that at various times in your life you've been a lawyer, a judge, a CFO, a teacher and a coach. You're either a goddamned genius, Gump, or you can't seem to hold a job. :roll: :roll:

What was interesting is that, at one point, it was all at the same time! It's been a great life. You should have tried one.