Appears Trevor's Trial Has Been Moved Back

Donate To GopherHole
B

Blizzard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
6,602
Reaction score
2,134
Points
113
It appears that Trevor's trial has been continued until 1/07/10.

77 11/17/2009 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED 11/17/2008 ORAL
SET FOR 11/17/2009 AT 09:00 GRANTED STIP
42 11/17/2009 REPORT RE: TRIAL DATE SET FOR 01/07/2010 AT 09:00
18 11/17/2009 REPORT RE: STATUS SET FOR 01/07/2010 AT 09:00

http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/CaseSearch.aspx

----

If this is the case ( no pun intended ) I can't see him playing this year.
 

I would say thanks for that update, but it wasn't the news I wanted to hear :(.

Well - as long as he can redshirt, and we get 2 years out of him, we can wait until next year to see Trevor make his impact. Bummer.
 

Blizzard said:
It appears that Trevor's trial has been continued until 1/07/10.

77 11/17/2009 MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE FILED 11/17/2008 ORAL
SET FOR 11/17/2009 AT 09:00 GRANTED STIP
42 11/17/2009 REPORT RE: TRIAL DATE SET FOR 01/07/2010 AT 09:00
18 11/17/2009 REPORT RE: STATUS SET FOR 01/07/2010 AT 09:00

http://www2.miami-dadeclerk.com/cjis/CaseSearch.aspx

----

If this is the case ( no pun intended ) I can't see him playing this year.
Click to expand...

I don't know that's a given. I view the fact that they pushed it back a couple weeks instead of a couple months as a sign they're trying to get this over in time for him to play. If it actually begins on that date it should be over and done with no later then the 15th. He'd still be available for the majority of Big 10 games. I guess it'd be up to him if he wants the extra year or not. If it gets pushed back any further then this though, it would become impractical.
 

Maybe he could be the Gophers' late tournament dark horse. I Hope so, but I have to agree - not very like likely.
 

I have to admit that I do not know much about the particulars of the case against Trevor, but doesn't he have a pretty solid alibi? It is my understanding that there are multiple persons who can corroborate his defense that he was not present at the time of the alleged assault. Perhaps other people here can shed some more light.

In my limited experience in criminal defense work, it always seemed to me that when the authorities (police, county attorneys, etc.) kept "dragging" out the case of a defendant with a solid defense but potentially had knowledge of the crime, it was simply an attempt to get that defendant to roll.

Based on the details of what other board posters know about the details of the allegations, is it possible that the prosecuting attorney is simply trying to get Trevor to roll and he is refusing?
 


I don't think Trevor he will be playing this year, I hope he is found not guilty and has two more years of elgibility left after this is over.

I am also starting to doubt whether White will play this year. A year off might be what White needs more than anything right now though.
 

I doubt that the prosecutor is trying to get Trevor "to roll." Reportedly, Trevor's attorney was the one who initially moved back the trial date. Trevor is entitled to a speedy trial under the constitution.

There may still be some hope depending upon what comes out of the alibi depositions. Supposedly, Trevor's attorney didn't think the depos would be finished in time for the December trial date, necessitating the new trial date. That being said, if the depos are going forward this month and next month, and if they go very well for Trevor, the prosecutor could reevaluate his/her case against Trevor, determine that s/he is unable to convict, and ultimately dismiss the whole thing prior to trial.

Here's to hoping the depos go well and the prosecutor walks away.
 

DesMoinesGopher said:
I have to admit that I do not know much about the particulars of the case against Trevor, but doesn't he have a pretty solid alibi? It is my understanding that there are multiple persons who can corroborate his defense that he was not present at the time of the alleged assault. Perhaps other people here can shed some more light.

In my limited experience in criminal defense work, it always seemed to me that when the authorities (police, county attorneys, etc.) kept "dragging" out the case of a defendant with a solid defense but potentially had knowledge of the crime, it was simply an attempt to get that defendant to roll.

Based on the details of what other board posters know about the details of the allegations, is it possible that the prosecuting attorney is simply trying to get Trevor to roll and he is refusing?
Click to expand...

I suppose it's possible if they suspect one of his teammates of the crime, but it seems unlikely. If they suspected that they'd just go arrest that person. There's nothing for Trevor to 'roll' on unless they admitted it to him or he was somehow a witness. That type of thing is far more common in drug cases, etc.
 

That being said, if the depos are going forward this month and next month, and if they go very well for Trevor, the prosecutor could reevaluate his/her case against Trevor, determine that s/he is unable to convict, and ultimately dismiss the whole thing prior to trial.

Here's to hoping the depos go well and the prosecutor walks away.
Click to expand...

Works for me. :)
 



iirc the prosecutor identified her assailant as about 6'4'' and 190lbs...i still have no clue how that could be confused with Trevor at 6'8'' 290.
 

Question: If there were 4 people that could cleary exonerate Mbakwe, why would they have even taken this to court? Is the whole case built on the lady picking him out of a line up and him being near the location? I would like to hope this is all a big mistake, but it seems that there may be more to this than what we are privy to. Hope I'm wrong......
 

If I'm not mistaken, Trevor decided to forgo a redshirt after being injured for the majority of his freshman year to play a minor role for Marquette. If he were to be exonerated by mid-January, I would be surprised if he didn't suit up.
 

gopherphan said:
iirc the prosecutor identified her assailant as about 6'4'' and 190lbs...i still have no clue how that could be confused with Trevor at 6'8'' 290.
Click to expand...

I have no clue how a 240 pound man can be confused with a 290 pound man.
 



I can't decide whether I would rather have him redshirt if he comes back that late. I guess it probably depends on Royce. If Royce is back I would probably rather have Trevor get a full 2 years.
 

gopherphan said:
iirc the prosecutor identified her assailant as about 6'4'' and 190lbs...i still have no clue how that could be confused with Trevor at 6'8'' 290.
Click to expand...

Trevor is 240, not 290.

Secondly, I can easily see how she might mix up height and weight by that much. I'm 6'8". When people guess my height, which is at least once a day, I hear anything from 6'3" to 7'0".
 

Here's why we have to wait and see: Generally, a prosecutor has an ethical obligation not to prosecute someone unless the prosecutor believes she has enough evidence to convict. Certainly what a zealous prosecutor believes is enough evidence might very well differ from what you or I might believe to be adequate evidence to convict.

Here, the prosecutor must believe that she has enough evidence to support the State's case. We only know some of what that evidence might be (witness identification, various statements from others concerning Trevor's whereabouts, etc.) and we won't know for sure what the evidence will be in favor of the State until trial (that is, if the media actually makes an effort to sit in at trial and report on trial).

Even so, not all the information is in yet--at least concerning any outstanding depositions. If the depo testimony is solid and credible, and if it adequately addresses or contradicts evidence from the State's case against Trevor, the prosecutor may very well rethink the entire prosecution and drop the case prior to trial.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom