Josh Jacobs facing charges…

[Thirteen Below]

What I recall seeing is it is video from the security camera in the garage where she hit the floor. I don't think the "discussion" started there.

I wonder if the tape has audio from the initial argument, and even the preliminary physical scuffle before they migrated out to the garage. If it was a motion-activated camera, probably not, but depending on what sort of security system he had installed, it might. And even that much could be quite helpful.

 

[Magooch]

What I wonder is what if a world exists where they see it, and it fails to meet the threshold of some of the other guys that have seen less than 4 game suspensions...say we are 5, 6 or 7 weeks in and they levy it should have been a 2 or 4 game suspension...what recourse does Jacobs have?

For better or worse I don't think Jacobs really has many options for recourse as far as I can tell.
The CBA has basically given Goodell the ability to unilaterally add/remove players from the exempt list so there's no real grounds to fight that on... and because it is not seen as a "suspension" (he is still getting paid), there's not really much to do with it. If Jacobs misses 7 weeks on the exempt list, the league wraps it up and says we've settled on a 4 game suspension, then he pays back 4 games' worth of pay and keeps the remaining 3 weeks' pay and as far as the league and CBA is concerned it's pretty much all square.

But if it was introduced as evidence in a criminal case, doesn't that make it a public record? And if so, does he really have any say in the matter? Do any of the involved parties have any say?

It seems pretty certain that the plea agreement to which Jacobs agreed involved a financial payoff that met the woman's expectations, and I think it's likely that any such agreement would include an understanding by both parties that they don't release the tape on their own. But if it's a public record, under Wisconsin law I don't know if either of them can prevent it.

Anyone have an informed opinion? This board really needs to draft an attorney on Day 1 or early Day 2 next April.

Certainly not an attorney and only informed enough to be dangerous, but my understanding was that the judge handed it over to local PD and the league has already formally requested to view it. So it's not just out there for broad public consumption, but yeah, I don't really think Jacobs has any grounds to protest if PD turns over footage to the league for their investigation (I mean, he already DID try and seal the footage and that request was denied. What more is there?)

 

[Thirteen Below]

I believed you.

I'd be quite surprised if anyone here did not. His word is gospel, far as I'm concerned.

 

[Heyjoe4]

One issue that may be involved is the video. When did the video start and end? Was the entire altercation on video or just a small part where Jacobs was the aggressor? Lots of little things we don't know and could actually taint the perception that the league could have, not knowing the full story.

I wouldn't release the video either. The police investigated, Jacobs pled to charges and that's the only thing that the league really should have a right to know. They are not law enforcement, and their actions are not on a criminal basis but on a contractual agreement with the player. If they make him sit out too long, he just might have a major lawsuit against the league, and I don't believe they'd want their right to inflict double jeopardy challenged because they might find that their clauses in the contracts are not legitimate.

I think they'll let him back after 6 games, possibly 8, but an agreement with him would be made as the punishment is acceptable.

We are in a litigious era.

A lot of great points here V. The victim doesn't want the video released, a very reasonable request that should be determined by the court, not the NFL. And FWIW, Jacobs doesn't want the video released either, although that's hardly a surprise.

Double jeopardy is, I think, in the Constitution. Even so, I'm ok with the league taking disciplinary action. But c'mon, let's get on with it. The case is settled, it's been almost five months since the incident and we're coming into week 5 of the season. Better for all, especially the victim, to move on.

 

[Voyageur]

There are two possible alternate universes here... one in which the NFL sees the tape, and one in which they do not. Each of these two alternate universes would likely have a very different outcome.

We have no way of assessing which of the two timelines is more likely than the other. All we can do is speculate on which is more probable, but everything would be a lot more tidy if the tape were out there - or if we at least knew for sure the league would see it, and when.

One possibility that I think is very likely would be that if the league does get ahold of the tape at some point while he is suspended, however many games he has missed up to then will magically turn out to to be 1 or 2 fewer than the league actually imposes on him. If the tape is released after 4 games, they'll announce that 6 would be the appropriate penalty. And so on. If he's missed 6 games when the tape is released, and it turns out to be not really make him look all that bad, I seriously doubt this commissioner would admit he should have only been suspended for 3 or 4.

So whenever the tape is released, unless it's something really bad I would bet that he'll probably be back within a couple of weeks afterward. If it is really bad, then there's no way to really guess how long he'll miss.




But if it was introduced as evidence in a criminal case, doesn't that make it a public record? And if so, does he really have any say in the matter? Do any of the involved parties have any say?

It seems pretty certain that the plea agreement to which Jacobs agreed involved a financial payoff that met the woman's expectations, and I think it's likely that any such agreement would include an understanding by both parties that they don't release the tape on their own. But if it's a public record, under Wisconsin law I don't know if either of them can prevent it.

Anyone have an informed opinion? This board really needs to draft an attorney on Day 1 or early Day 2 next April.

Yes, if it was introduced as evidence in a criminal case. Since the case was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, the defense could conclude that it there were extenuating circumstances surrounding the incident and the video would not show those circumstances so only be a part of the larger case itself. Their claim would be that it's prejudicial against their client and the reduced charges and agreement indicate that fact is true. As such, it could be withheld at the request of the plaintiff who would be Jacobs' attorney.

There are so many twists and turns to cases like this that it often becomes blurred through the tactics of defense attorneys and prosecutors. In this case, I don't see any actions by the prosecutors siding with the NFL in trying to get the tape released, so that tells me they just might agree with the defense that the video itself is unfairly prejudicial and there's more to the story than what the NFL would be privy to getting. I don't think the NFL will win a suit to get it, and I don't believe they want to get in too deep in this situation. They'll let time push this to the back burner and give him a 6-to-8-week suspension and they will all walk away from it.

 

[tynimiller]

A lot of great points here V. The victim doesn't want the video released, a very reasonable request that should be determined by the court, not the NFL. And FWIW, Jacobs doesn't want the video released either, although that's hardly a surprise.

Double jeopardy is, I think, in the Constitution. Even so, I'm ok with the league taking disciplinary action. But c'mon, let's get on with it. The case is settled, it's been almost five months since the incident and we're coming into week 5 of the season. Better for all, especially the victim, to move on.

To be fair everything I can find is Jacobs' side asked for a temporary seal of the video, the victim's camp has been the heavy pusher of keeping it from the public, and that request was denied by Judge Marc Hammer in September. Jacob's legal team did not fight to keep the records sealed either...but both sides technically are still in windows of appealing that.

If I understand it right September 25th was when the judge temporary seal was lifted allowing or subjecting the content to records requests.
The police department has ten days to review those requests and fulfill or deny.
If the police department decides to release they have to notify both sides and that starts a 12 day appeal window. Neither side has submitted any kind of petition so we are inside likely the 12 day window to some degree...is everyone's best guess.

 

[Magooch]

What’s important also is that as I mentioned the CBA basically gives Goodell the right to progress (or not) as he sees fit.

Unless the video has been 100% sealed by the courts and is therefore legally completely inaccessible to the league (which, by all accounts is not the case - again both Jacobs and his GF requests to seal were denied) then the right or wrong the league can simply say “you’re not playing until you voluntarily turn this footage over to us”

 

[tynimiller]

What’s important also is that as I mentioned the CBA basically gives Goodell the right to progress (or not) as he sees fit.

Unless the video has been 100% sealed by the courts and is therefore legally completely inaccessible to the league (which, by all accounts is not the case - again both Jacobs and his GF requests to seal were denied) then the right or wrong the league can simply say “you’re not playing until you voluntarily turn this footage over to us”

I know if I was Goodell I likely at 6 games would release him to play pending additional review of the video. Acknowledgement and punishment of missing games, BUT also provides that additional time could be dealt as the suspension officially not names and applied .

 

[Poppa San]

A lot of great points here V. The victim doesn't want the video released, a very reasonable request that should be determined by the court, not the NFL. And FWIW, Jacobs doesn't want the video released either, although that's hardly a surprise.

Double jeopardy is, I think, in the Constitution. Even so, I'm ok with the league taking disciplinary action. But c'mon, let's get on with it. The case is settled, it's been almost five months since the incident and we're coming into week 5 of the season. Better for all, especially the victim, to move on.

Double jeopardy has no bearing on the employer - employee relationship. Also one can lose a criminal case and still be held liable in a civil case using the facts unearthed during the criminal (or congressional hearing) case.

 

[El Guapo]

Double jeopardy has no bearing on the employer - employee relationship. Also one can lose a criminal case and still be held liable in a civil case using the facts unearthed during the criminal (or congressional hearing) case.

This is 100% correct. Double jeopardy applies to the law only - not the law mixed with your employer.

Your employer can impose their own discipline as long as it is in line with applicable employment laws, or in this case likely the CBA.

 

[OldSchool101]

But if it was introduced as evidence in a criminal case, doesn't that make it a public record? And if so, does he really have any say in the matter? Do any of the involved parties have any say?

That’s a very good point.

Here’s where I am not happy with this sector of the NFL right now. Here’s a case where the Victim the NFL claims to support through their own version of punishment is potentially being dragged through the mud against her own wishes. I think sometimes in our own overzealousness to want to “do the right thing”? We forget about what it means to protect those that are continually affected, such as the victim herself. Why in the world would we choose to fight the victims’ wishes?

This no longer feels like “doing the right thing” by a victim to promote safety. It feels more like wanting a pound of flesh through the flexing of muscles.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

Jacobs deserves to be disciplined but honestly why does a video make a difference. The affidavits and evidence in court should be what it is. Pearce Jr of the falcons got 8 games for stalking, RAMMING a car into his ex girlfriend NBA players car. Resisting and all that. I get he pled to lesser charges but plenty of evidence of that.

Zero chance Jacobs did anything worse than that. And if the NFL suspends him for more they should have to explain.

 

[Thirteen Below]

Jacobs deserves to be disciplined but honestly why does a video make a difference. The affidavits and evidence in court should be what it is.

It's human nature; when making important decisions about a controversial event, people make more informed decisions when they can actually see what happened. Reading about something, and actually watching it happen are two very different things, and in my experience people make much better decisions when they know as much as possible about the details of an event.

If this thing had gone to trial, the tape would have been a very important part of the decisionmaking process for the jurors, and for the same reasons it would be a valuable part of the decisionmaking process for the league.

 

[AGreen2AJones]

It's human nature; when making important decisions about a controversial event, people make more informed decisions when they can actually see what happened. Reading about something, and actually watching it happen are two very different things, and in my experience people make much better decisions when they know as much as possible about the details of an event.

If this thing had gone to trial, the tape would have been a very important part of the decisionmaking process for the jurors, and for the same reasons it would be a valuable part of the decisionmaking process for the league.

It's a fair point, but just seems like are we arguing there's degrees of domestic violence depending on what the video shows us? I guess so. But certainly not defending Josh, however it's just interesting to see that human nature play. Pierce Jr from the Falcons I'm sure a video of him ramming his ex with a car and finding the cops would have probably resulted in more of a severe penalty. I just want to see how the NFL would justify a longer suspension for Jacobs than that. I mean you are talking assault with a deadly weapon.

 

[tynimiller]

It's a fair point, but just seems like are we arguing there's degrees of domestic violence depending on what the video shows us? I guess so. But certainly not defending Josh, however it's just interesting to see that human nature play. Pierce Jr from the Falcons I'm sure a video of him ramming his ex with a car and finding the cops would have probably resulted in more of a severe penalty. I just want to see how the NFL would justify a longer suspension for Jacobs than that. I mean you are talking assault with a deadly weapon.

There are absolutely different degrees of domestic violence that actually occur...of which all might meet the legal definition of the same crime.

 

[Magooch]

As I've said before the NFL wants to avoid a Ray Rice situation again. It's more or less a case where they only get one bite at the apple, so to speak, so they have to "get it right" with their first judgment.

With that in mind from the league's perspective it makes WAY more sense to have Jacobs sit longer "not suspended" and then issue a short term suspension or a "time served" type thing rather than make a decision before the video is produced/viewed and even risk the possibility of appearing like they under-punished him. By all accounts it SOUNDS like there's not anything particularly earth-shattering in the video but from the league's position there's just no reason to risk it whatsoever.

And again it's important to note that as far as the League and CBA are concerned Jacobs is not currently "suspended". So if/when the league hands down a verdict, it may very well be the case that Jacobs misses more than 8 games but is only "suspended" for say 4 of those games and is able to immediately return.

IN other words Jacobs may very well end up missing more time than Pearce Jr but unless the video is really bad he will almost certainly get a shorter "suspension" if that makes sense

 

[Magooch]

Maybe also think of it like this:

Scenario A: Jacobs starts the season on commissioner's list, paid leave. The League files a request for the security footage but they don't receive the footage until sometime in Week 12. The league reviews the footage and finds that it doesn't show anything too egregious and they give Jacobs a three-game suspension. He gets to keep the wages he collected from Weeks 1-12 and just has to pay back three weeks' worth of checks. He is able to return to play immediately in Week 13, having already completed his suspension.

Scenario B: Jacobs starts the season on the commissioner's list, paid leave. The league files a request for the security footage but local PD doesn't provide it for them and Jacobs himself refuses to provide video. The league decides to make a decision without the video footage, and based on just the court proceedings, pleas, charges, etc, they give Jacobs a 4-game suspension. Having already missed four games he is able to return to play immediately. A few weeks later there's some chatter about the video footage leaking out. TMZ gets ahold of it and it spreads like wildfire. It's really graphic and violent and it turns out that Jacobs and his camp had paid off the victim to try and lower the charges and keep quiet about the issue. The league can't suspend him twice for the same offense (this is precedent) so they're stuck with their hands tied. There's massive blowback against the league in the media.

Now I think "Scenario A" or something like it is FAR more likely. And I would readily acknowledge that "Scenario B" seems awfully unlikely and is wholly speculative. There's no reason for me to believe that's close to the truth. BUT that's besides the point - the point is that "A" is a perfectly acceptable outcome from the league's perspective. They have no issues whatsoever if it plays out like "A". On the other hand, however unlikely it is, "B" is an absolute nightmare worst-case-scenario outcome for the league. That's the scenario that they want to avoid at all costs, and the current CBA gives Goodell full power to do everything he can to avoid that kind of scenario. If they think that there is even the tiniest possibility that something like "B" would come to pass, they're going to err on the safe side.

I think that's pretty much the basics of it. I'm not saying I agree with every aspect of the approach, nor am I really trying to issue any judgment (good or bad, one way or the other) on Jacobs or the case itself at that point, but just talking about the practicalities of it all. The bottom line is that from the league's perspective it's about risk management and they have zero incentive to take on any more risks than is absolutely necessary with this case.

 

[BrokenArrow]

Frankly, unless this was a clear-cut self-defense situation, I don't want him on the team. That's about all I have to say on the subject.

 

[tynimiller]

Frankly, unless this was a clear-cut self-defense situation, I don't want him on the team. That's about all I have to say on the subject.

I have far too many law enforcement friends and have watched or witnessed various degrees of domestic violence that I cannot myself at least cast any solid judgement upon him other than knowing he was a ******* and I’m assuming to a degree physically impacted her in a manner which she did not ask or desire for in anyway.

The ONLY reason to do that to someone you are stronger than or in a position of power over in my opinion is fear for your life or lives of others.

BUT we all have zero context or visual knowledge of what occurred.

Does anyone out of curiosity know if much is known of any injury description which is detailed? Again this doesn’t diminish the fact something happened but it could greatly impact my thoughts on Jacobs….i could easily support Gute publicly cutting him asap if facts beyond the initial filing paperwork were known.

 

[BrokenArrow]

I have far too many law enforcement friends and have watched or witnessed various degrees of domestic violence that I cannot myself at least cast any solid judgement upon him other than knowing he was a ******* and I’m assuming to a degree physically impacted her in a manner which she did not ask or desire for in anyway.

The ONLY reason to do that to someone you are stronger than or in a position of power over in my opinion is fear for your life or lives of others.

BUT we all have zero context or visual knowledge of what occurred.

Does anyone out of curiosity know if much is known of any injury description which is detailed? Again this doesn’t diminish the fact something happened but it could greatly impact my thoughts on Jacobs….i could easily support Gute publicly cutting him asap if facts beyond the initial filing paperwork were known.

Unfortunately, if Jacobs does not want the footage to be made public, there's probably a not-so-good reason for that. If I knew I had acted purely in self-defense, I would want it to be seen.

 

[OldSchool101]

Unfortunately, if Jacobs does not want the footage to be made public, there's probably a not-so-good reason for that. If I knew I had acted purely in self-defense, I would want it to be seen.

See I’ve never heard this. Do you have a source?

 

[Magooch]

See I’ve never heard this. Do you have a source?

Immediately after sentencing Jacobs’ counsel requested all discovery materials including the surveillance footage be sealed. Source

 

[OldSchool101]

Immediately after sentencing Jacobs’ counsel requested all discovery materials including the surveillance footage be sealed. Source

Interesting thanks.

 

[OldSchool101]

So I’ve solved the mystery.

Since it’s an obvious admission of guilt to request footage be sealed. Josh is only 50% at fault. Thus, he should only serve 50% of any suspension handed out.

The Defendant should also refund 50% of any $$ awarded in this case. After all 2 wrongs don’t cancel each other or make a right.

 

[tynimiller]

Unfortunately, if Jacobs does not want the footage to be made public, there's probably a not-so-good reason for that. If I knew I had acted purely in self-defense, I would want it to be seen.

Again this narrative is only half true. Her side requested the judge seal it.

Judge denies request to seal video of altercation in Josh Jacobs case

A status conference is scheduled in the case at 11 a.m.

fox11online.com