In the meantime, the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, has suspended Adrian Peterson from playing football and getting paid until April, 2015.  What does this have to do with a courtroom or a criminal case?

In the defense of any client, there are certain, simple actions that can be taken to improve their defense and their chances for lenient treatment.  None of these were done by Adrian Peterson.  Here are some suggestions for him: (I’m sure he’ll listen to me!)

1.  From day one he should have expressed, in some forum, his remorse.  He got the attention, but the true victim here was not Adrian Peterson.  It was his son.

2.  From day one, he should have started a parenting evaluation.

3.  He should have gotten to work as soon as possible on any recommendations coming from the parenting assessment.  These could include: anger management, counseling, education about discipline methods, etc.

4.  If Adrian Peterson was treated that way as a child (which was his defense) he may need therapy himself.  One of the great talents he has as an athlete is that he “runs angry.”  Maybe that stems from his childhood and he could benefit from therapy himself.

5.  In the Texas court, he really didn’t admit that he was guilty.  He should have done that.  The sentence would not have changed, but it would have shown him taking responsibility for his actions.

Recently, he has expressed remorse and said he was sorry for his actions, and that were all his fault.  It’s too late.  If he had done all of the above, before his case reached Roger Goodell, it would be hard for the commissioner to continue the suspension.  But by delaying these actions, Adrian Peterson has hurt his own case.  In any criminal case, a good defense lawyer has his client complete many of the anticipated probation requirements before he gets to court.  This puts the client in the best possible position when he must face the judge.  (Or NFL Commissioner).

These are simple steps that would have helped Adrian Peterson.  For some reason, he didn’t do them.  Was it poor legal advice or was it his own decision to not act?

The post What Adrian Peterson Did Wrong appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Adrian Peterson settled the case through a procedure called, No Contest.

—What does that mean?  In some jurisdictions in the country, a defendant is allowed to avoid pleading guilty, but at the same time, say they don’t want to fight the case.  Not every state allows this.  (Minnesota does not)  Why wouldn’t he simply plead guilty?  He may think his intent in the case was to only discipline the child.  Saying he’s guilty means admitting that he intended to do more than discipline the child.  He intended to harm him.  If Adrian Peterson admits guilt, it may jeopardize his child protection case pending in Minnesota and it may jeopardize his standing with the NFL.  Or, it may have been because he didn’t want to drag-out the case and go through a very embarrassing trial.

—Was this a plea bargain?  Yes.  Originally, Adrian Peterson was charged with a felony.  He said No Contest to a misdemeanor.  Which means the penalty is far less and the consequences for his other problems are also less.  Perhaps the NFL would not let him ever play again if he was convicted of a felony.  In addition, his plea bargain requires probation with several things to do, including going to parenting classes.

—Why would the prosecutor agree to this?  As I posted earlier, when parties go to trial, there’s no guarantee the prosecutor will win.  Particularly in a case with this much “baggage.”  (Star athlete, media coverage, sympathetic jurors, etc)  Also, it will avoid having to put the four-year old child victim on the witness stand.  With the agreement of the mother, the prosecutor chose to go for the sure conviction—even if it was only a misdemeanor.

—Does Adrian Peterson “get off?”  No way.  Not only has he missed several games, who knows when the NFL will allow him back.  He has a criminal conviction, is on probation for two years, and all of that will affect his contracts for sponsoring products.  Even if he’d pled guilty to a felony, he probably would not have gone to prison, anyway.  Why?  He’s a first time offender, showed remorse, was willing to change his parenting practices, and is a star.  I doubt he would’ve gone to prison.

—What do you think of this deal?  Fair to everyone?  Too easy on Adrian Peterson?

The post Adrian Peterson is Guilty–Sort Of appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  Most jurisdictions allow either the prosecutor or the defense to get rid of a bad judge automatically.  It’s called a “Notice of Removal” and either side can file one with the clerk of court  They don’t have to give any reasons to support their request—it’s automatic and the judge is booted.  There are two conditions, however:

a.  It must be made prior to the parties appearing before the judge for the first time.  Once they’ve had a court hearing, they’re stuck with the judge.  Apparently, in Adrian Peterson’s case, the prosecutors didn’t do this.

b.  It can only be used once.  Either side has to make a preliminary decision: will the next judge be worse than the first one?

2.  In Adrian Peterson’s case, the prosecutor first asked the judge to voluntarily remove himself.  I’ve seen this happen in my cases, but not for bias.  It’s usually happened because the judge had a conflict-of-interest—he knew the parties or had some personal/financial connection to the case.

3.  If either side hasn’t used the automatic Notice of Removal, things become tougher.  Most jurisdictions have a procedure to challenge a judge for being biased or unfair.  The Chief Judge or an appellate judge would hear the case.  It is handled just like a trial.  In Adrian Peterson’s case, the prosecutor would have to present evidence to convince the second judge the first one was too biased to be fair.  Of course, the defense can present evidence to counter he prosecutor’s case.

4.  What will the prosecutor do now that the judge won’t be removed?

a.  It could be the prosecutor is mad and doesn’t think the public and the victim will get a fair trial in front of this judge.  Some judges are clearly biased toward the defense or the prosecution.

b.  Even though the prosecutor lost this hearing, he’s drawn attention to the issue.  Hopefully, the judge will be on “his best behavior” and rule fairly throughout the trial.

c.  If the prosecutor loses the Adrian Peterson trial on assault, the issue of a biased judge might give the prosecutor a reason to appeal.

Any thoughts from you??

The post Adrian Peterson—A New Judge for His Case? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  It’s common for accused people to plead Not Guilty early in the case.  The person (and everyone else) may know they’re guilty, but will use the Not Guilty plea to stall the case.  It’s a formality to buy time for the defense.

2.  Adrian Peterson may really think he’s not guilty.  Although the case is in Texas, the law is similar to that in Minnesota.  It says:

“Assault in the 2nd Degree.  (a)  Whoever assault another with a dangerous weapon may be sent to prison for not more than seven years.  (b) Whoever assaults another with a dangerous weapon and inflicts substantially bodily harm may be imprisoned for not more than ten years.”

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt two things in Adrian Peterson’s case:

a.  That he injured the child and caused harm

b.  That he intended to cause the harm (In other words, it wasn’t an accident)

During the brief interviews Adrian Peterson has given, he’s mentioned that he’s not guilty because he didn’t intend to harm the child.  Instead, he intended to discipline the child.  Personally, I think this will be a tough defense for Adrian Peterson.  How can a person strike a four year old with a stick and cause cuts and bruises to the child’s lower legs, buttocks, lower back, and on his hand (a wound caused by the child trying to defend himself)—and not intend or know that physical harm will be the result???

3.  The penalty for Adrian Peterson if he’s found guilty of the charge is commitment to prison.  Maybe Adrian Peterson and his lawyer are negotiating a future guilty plea in return for probation instead of prison.  In order to buy time for this process, Adrian Peterson has to plead Not Guilty.

4.  In Minnesota, Adrian Peterson is working through a case plan in a child protection case involving the same victim.  It probably includes anger management, counseling, and parenting education with recommendations for further treatment.  If Adrian Peterson can accomplish these goals, he may be able to negotiate a settlement of the criminal case in Texas.  In light of completing the case plan, the prosecution in Texas may agree to probation for Adrian Peterson instead of prison—at which time Adrian Peterson could change his plea to guilty.

The post Is Adrian Peterson Really Not Guilty? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

What does that mean?  What happens now?

1.  The government may open a child protection case whenever there’s a serious allegation that a child needs protection or services from a parent.  Clearly, physical abuse by Adrian Peterson would qualify for opening a case.  It’s not a criminal case.  It’s not to find the parent guilty or not guilty of abuse.  The purpose is to change the parent’s behavior in order to reunify the family and assure the child will be safe.

2.  After the case opens, Adrian Peterson and the mother would be given a case plan to complete.  Typically, this would include parenting education and anger management, for instance.  The judge can order no contact between the parents and the child to further protect the child.  Visitation could occur under supervised conditions.  If the parents complete the case plan, the child could be reunited with them and the child protection case dismissed.

3.  Is Adrian Peterson the custodial parent?  He has several other children with several other women.  I don’t know if Adrian Peterson is the custodial parent of the 4-year old.  If he’s not, then it may be unfair to the mother (the custodial parent) to have a child protection case opened if she is providing adequate care for the child.

4.  However, if Adrian Peterson abused the child and the mother didn’t take protective steps—remove the child, report to police, doctors, etc, she could be included in the child protection case.

5.  Problem—if Adrian Peterson is not the custodial parent, why did the Minnesota prosecutor file the child protection case?  The Texas court has probably ordered no contact between Adrian Peterson and the child.  But that order is only effective in the state of Texas.  It would not prohibit contact in Minnesota.  Now, that the child protection case has been filed in Minnesota, a judge could prevent contact for the child’s safety.

6.  What can happen next?  The parents will receive a case plan.  The sooner they can complete that plan and convince a judge the child would be safe in their custody, reunification could occur.

It’s a sad event for everyone.  At least the child will receive the protection he deserves and the parents will be given help to become better, safer parents.

The post Adrian Peterson and Child Protection appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.