debate on McClain

[StickShift]

As things stand now, there is a very high likelihood McClain will miss some if not all of the coming season.

Not true. McClain will go to trial 6 to 9 months after he is arraigned, 1) he hasn't been arraigned yet, 2) pretty sure his high priced attorney can easily get the trial delayed past the season given that 6-9 month window.

Also, Greg Aiello came out and said the league will wait for the legal process to conclude before they hand out any punishment.

In actuality there is a very high likelihood he will play this season.

[regret]

Thanks for that info, it's a relief. Sort of. I'm definitely the type that would rather put the bull**** behind me than have it simmering on the back burner for several months, but at least we'll have our MLB this season.

[cheapshotartist]

I can care less about the off field troubles. If he broke the law then he should pay for it with whatever penalty the law says. But whether he spends time locked up or not I don't care. I see no issues with giving him chance to redeem himself after he pays for his crime (IF he is found guilty by a jury).

Bingo! It's all about what he does on the field to help the team win football games. PERIOD. So what If he is not a choir boy the only reason I even know who he is is because he plays football for the Oakland Raiders. People make mistakes in their lives and they are held responsible for their actions. The fact that you break the law does not mean you can't make a living in this country. However curtain crimes mean different punishments but when you live in a country where you have crooked politicians, cops, priest, etc why is there so much concern over what McClain is accused of doing? When I was his age I did things that If I would have been caught I would have served half of my life behind bars. Fortunately for me and my future family I got my act together and stayed out of the penitentiary. This will all work itself out eventually so time will tell. One way or the other we will have a MLB in 2012 and I hope who ever it is can make some plays and help improve our weak run defense.

Why does anybody have to? Isn't it up to the coaches to make this decision? Or do all y'all think you know more than our coaching staff?

Who is the MLB on the Raiders? In spite of all going on, who is the starting MLB?

Who is Coach making comments about, paraphrased: the guy is doing very well, leading the defense, ahead of where he should be at this point?

I know you all think you know more than the coaches and McKenzie but here's a thought: their opinion matters. It's educated. It's based on personal experience not snips from questionable Internet sources. It's The One That Counts.

Just a thought from another uneducated armchair Coach...

Come on MHR we all know that most members of RFN have more football knowledge than your average NFL HC or GM.

[Da Swami]

Just about anyone who has watched the Raiders in the last 2 years.

That said, I am well aware of consigning a player to be a "bust" after 2 seasons. I backed McFadden when the same was said after his first 2 years. Same with DHB. The expectations of a top-10 pick are very, very high. It takes time for players to get it. Some get it early and burn out. Other take 2-3 years and have long, productive careers.

I have my doubts about McClain. He was a 3-4 ILB in college. He was also playing behind one of the biggest and dominant NT's in college at the time. The Raiders defence is totally different. McClain does not have a dominant NT-type in front of him. He has 2 DT's who have been supposed to get after the QB. This leaves him exposed.

On top of that he was 'hobbled' by a sever ankle injury that he played through.

The we get the incident in Alabama.

The upside is that McClain is a student of the game. He studies hard. He puts in the effort. We have seen similar things work with McFadden and DHB. I believe the same can happen with McClain. If he can dump his idiot mates and concentrate on what he has to do, he can improve. Will he be the dominant MLB the Raiders hoped for? I doubt he will be the next Ray Lewis. But if he becomes a more dominant version of Greg Biekert, then that would be pretty good.

I didn't realize this was American Idol and fans have a say in who gets cut.

The problems he had last year were with pursuit angles and gap discipline and not getting off his blocks.

All of that can be coached and remedied.

[Da Swami]

Swami, get off you high horse a little.

A "trial de novo" is a form of appeal.

See:


There are more details on this. Google is yor friend, and all of the say a "trial de novo" is an appeal or form of appeal.

The facts around this remain the same. McClain was found guilty. He could have accepted it and done the time. He has chosen, as is his right, to fight this via a jury trial.

The first "conviction" may not have been "significant" now because he has chosen to appeal (trial de novo). He could have also accepted his "conviction" and done the time.

We all know, when arraigned, McClain gets a new trial.

If the Raiders cut McClain citing the current conviction, they can be sued by McClain, because there is an appeal going ahead. Same goes for the NFL if they suspend McClain. If the Raiders cut McClain based on performance or someone beating him out on a position basis, that is a different story. We all know that McClain is a #8 overall pick and the best MLB on this team. The Raiders would have a hard time justifying cutting McClain based on performance at this stage.

You are basically arguing with the use of the word "appeal". That is semantics.

At the end of the day, McClain is a Raider for 2012. What he does in the 2012 season will go a long way to determine his future with the Raiders. What happens with his trial, when it somes up, will play a part. How much of of a part will be determined by his playing level in 2012.

Personally I think that McClain, if injury free, will thrive in the new defense. I also would not be suprised to see McClain found innocent in his trial or, if found guilty, he may get a suspended sentence.

In any event, it is up to McClain as to where his career goes from him. Unlike others on here that mock him (as have many with McFadden and DHB previously), I believe he will do well. How well? Step up, Rolando.

You are confused!

Trial de novo is a new trial and is not a form of appeal.

TDN is the by product of a decision on an appeal when the appellate court orders the lower court to re try the case. Hence, the term "Trial de novo" is latin for new trial. The Appellate court can grant TDN or uphold the case in formal appeals. In informal appeals, the Defendant gets a new trial but not because he "appealed". He asked for a new trial and got one just because he asked for it and not because he won an appeal.

Do you see the difference?

This appeal was not granted by an appellate court and no appellate briefs were filed contesting errors in law as is required in formal appeals. I don't need Wikipedia and it is the worst resource for legal information. The "facts" are determined by what is admissible and conform to the rules of evidence. Since this new trial will use formal rules, and the first one did not, the facts may be completely different as some may not be admissible using formal rules. The first trial used NO rules of evidence and the second requires formal rules and handcuff the Judge and jury to follow formal jury instructions and the rules of evidence. This is a brand new trial and the first trial is moot as if it never happened. No court could deny this type of appeal. Nice try Son but I am a J.D. in law and you are confused. Trial De Novo is the reward for a successful appeal and is not a form of appeal unless it is in this jurisdiction where it is granted automatically. I pointed out the procedural differences that govern what evidence can be admitted in each example. Had the first conviction been from a competent court that used formal rules, I would give the conviction more credibility. I am not merely arguing semantics. One appeal requires that the Defendant point out an error in law made by the court and one grants it for any reason the Defendant wants. In the first example, the Defendant must find an error the court made in coming to the conclusion and if one is not identified, the appeal is DENIED and the decision stands. In the second example, the Defendant needs no reason to ask for an appeal other than he wants one and can not be denied. Trial de novo is a new trial and nothing else.

In the first example, the Judge and Jury must follow Jury instructions and follow formal rules of evidence and the Judge cant do whatever he wants like in the second example.

Just semantics huh?

That was a weak attempt to make me look bad and it failed miserably. Formal APPEALS are not trials. They review cases for errors in law and can order TRIAL DE NOVO if the errors were enough to sway the decision. One can not admit new factual evidence in a formal appeal either and that's not the case in trial de novo. You think the SCOTUS tries cases? Appeals courts review cases and don't try them Son. Nice try to make me look bad but all you did was give me a chance to make you look bad.

You are the one that is relying on semantics. The court will be bound by much tighter rules in the new trial and there are profound differences.

Those aren't semantics Son.

Formal appeals are a review of the application of law to the facts and do not allow new evidence to be introduced.

You are confused.

People in this forum were using the term APPEAL to validate their claims that the first trial had merit of law and I pointed out the differences that show how worthless the first decision was.

There are huge differences but I forgot to use the term FORMAL to point out the differences.

Nice try!

I would go to Justia or use the Westlaw or Loislaw books before I relied on Wiki.

Appeals cases are not TRIED. They are done through briefs and do not require a court date unless one of the parties asks for an opportunity to do oral briefs to a 3 Judge panel who decides appeals cases.

Lame and weak.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Trial de novo is ONLY a form of an appeal in small claims cases and criminal jurisdictions that allow Commissioners to preside over cases with no formal rules.

In both those cases, TDN is granted automatically and doesnt' require court error.

Otherwise, it is just a new trial granted on appellate review using a legally recognized standard for review.

Please don't challenge me on law.

[Da Swami]

I apologize to the other members of the room for the long winded posts but when someone challenges the definition of something, a legal explanation is often lengthy.

I only do it for the benefit of those who really want to know what is going on.

Most people in this room are under the impression that the trial Mc Clain is up against is the final say on this matter and that is not true.

Appellate courts review cases and trial courts try cases.

This is a trial court and the decision could be subjected to appeal if the court errs and McClain's lawyer object and get a ruling from the Judge on their objection. Should the Judge allow tainted evidence to get on the record, then Mc Clain's lawyers could object and demand a ruling on their objection. The Judge has a duty to the court to rule on that objection and if he rule contrary to the law, Mc Clain's lawyers could win an appeal based on an error in law. Depending on the circumstances, that could mean yet another trial or a new decision with a remand.

There is no guarantee when this will be over.

I am very intrigued as to why the video was not admitted as I can think of no form of legal reasoning that would deny it in to evidence.

Credibility? Relevance? Materiality?

It is relevant, material and credible and provides answers.

This could play out for up to 2 years. I can see Mc Clain's lawyers getting some evidence admissibility hearings or motions in limine to stall this. That is what all defense lawyers do as memories fade, court dockets back up, witnesses die or move away and cant be found etc.

He would have plead this if his intent was to get his over with.

I cant help but wonder what he knows that we don't but I just cant get that video not being admitted out of my head.

[MileHighRaider]

Really?

I'm saying I don't think Rolando has played that well the last two years. Terrible? No. Worth a top 8 pick, big money, the trouble? Not so far. And for god's sake, if you can't express an honest opinion like that on a Raider message board, really, what the is the point!

Do you think McClain has played well?

You know very well the guy has been hampered by injuries and a less than stellar game plan on defense in which he's a MLB in a 4-3 rather than the 3-4 he played in through his college career. He's only going into his third year. Will he be a perennial pro bowler? Probably not. But will be morph into a decent to good MLB? I'd like to see what Allen and Company can do with him, yes.

And MUCH more importantly, it seems - based on his comments - that Coach feels he's being a leader on the field, practicing hard and is ahead of where he should be at this point. I'm not saying people can't have an opinion. I'm saying that they don't matter, mine included. The only ones that matter are Tarver, Allen, McKenzie and a couple assistants.

[kinz]

You know very well the guy has been hampered by injuries and a less than stellar game plan on defense in which he's a MLB in a 4-3 rather than the 3-4 he played in through his college career. He's only going into his third year. Will he be a perennial pro bowler? Probably not. But will be morph into a decent to good MLB? I'd like to see what Allen and Company can do with him, yes.

And MUCH more importantly, it seems - based on his comments - that Coach feels he's being a leader on the field, practicing hard and is ahead of where he should be at this point. I'm not saying people can't have an opinion. I'm saying that they don't matter, mine included. The only ones that matter are Tarver, Allen, McKenzie and a couple assistants.

I realize he has had injuries and also digestive troubles in the past. I hope they are cured for the future. According to Rotoworld, his contract is a very cheap 1 mil this year, then jumps up to 4 mil next, and 6 mil the one after. This in addition to his signing bonus that hits us for 4.5 mil a year.

My opinion is that he will be here this year. However, if he does not play significantly better this year than last year, I think he will be asked to take a pay cut or be cut next offseason.

I am aware that my opinion does not matter, and that it is up to the team to decide what to do. But I think you are making too much of a couple of comments by the team about McClain. Coaches usually talk up players, and their support of McClain wasn't 100%, they did say he has to improve against the pass. Actually, that is about the most negative comment I have heard the staff make toward the play of any particular player on the team. All in all, I think they see some good and some bad, and will evaluate him in earnest over the course of the season.

Your comment about him morphing into a decent to good MLB is probably the key. I too think that is very possible. But at the end of his contract, Rolando is going to be getting paid like one of the best in the game, like a perennial pro-bowler. That is the kind of "out of whack" situation McKenzie has spoken about, and shown by deed that he will act on.

[MileHighRaider]

I realize he has had injuries and also digestive troubles in the past. I hope they are cured for the future. According to Rotoworld, his contract is a very cheap 1 mil this year, then jumps up to 4 mil next, and 6 mil the one after. This in addition to his signing bonus that hits us for 4.5 mil a year.

My opinion is that he will be here this year. However, if he does not play significantly better this year than last year, I think he will be asked to take a pay cut or be cut next offseason.

I am aware that my opinion does not matter, and that it is up to the team to decide what to do. But I think you are making too much of a couple of comments by the team about McClain. Coaches usually talk up players, and their support of McClain wasn't 100%, they did say he has to improve against the pass. Actually, that is about the most negative comment I have heard the staff make toward the play of any particular player on the team. All in all, I think they see some good and some bad, and will evaluate him in earnest over the course of the season.

Your comment about him morphing into a decent to good MLB is probably the key. I too think that is very possible. But at the end of his contract, Rolando is going to be getting paid like one of the best in the game, like a perennial pro-bowler. That is the kind of "out of whack" situation McKenzie has spoken about, and shown by deed that he will act on.

I think we're basically saying the same thing. Let his play on the field, as with any player, determine his destiny. Comments in these threads about cutting him in spite of the ongoing litigation are, in my opinion, whack. He's still the best MLB on our team and there aren't a whole lot of alternatives out there, even if we had some cap room - which we don't. The court won't play out, IMHO, until late in the year or perhaps next spring. In the meantime, let's focus on football this year and depending on whether he's suspended zero, two or 16 games - plus his performance in the interim - we (the team) can decide whether he's a Raider in 2013.

I hope he performs extremely well, his off-field disturbances end, and his penalties are minor. I'd like to see him turn into that Pro Bowl linebacker we haven't had in far too long. But that's largely in his hands at this point.

[RAIDKEN]

Id just let it play out. No big loss or gain either way.

I when it is all said and done.....it is a bigger deal than "no big loss or gain either way". I know McClain is a hell of a lot better than what he has shown so far. I think there are a lot of factors that play into his "dismal" seasons. For one which everyone obviously knows, is that damn whack Chuck B scheme. I don't think any linebacker would be a top 10 linebacker in that damn scheme. Two...injuries. If he doesn't make big strides within the next two years, that's when cutting ties becomes an option. Also.....obviously Ro needs to be educated on how to stay away from situations where altercations like that and others could potentially happen.

[djh_raider]

I didn't realize this was American Idol and fans have a say in who gets cut.

The problems he had last year were with pursuit angles and gap discipline and not getting off his blocks.

All of that can be coached and remedied.

You asked a question and I answered it for you in my opening sentence. I didn't say they were right.

If you read past my first sentence you would see that I disagreed with those that are already calling for McClain to go. I cited the recent examples of McFadden and DHB, where fans were calling for them to be cut/traded and to be patient.

The problems that McClain had in 2011 that you have said were the due, in a large part, to his ankle injury. You are right, this can be coached (apart from the ankle injury).

I still have high hopes for McClain. I also have concerns about how well he can adjust to being a 4-3 MLB. And, so far, he has not made that adjustment. I hope he can.

Not sure why you are attacking the meddsenger but anywhoo....

[djh_raider]

You are confused!

Trial de novo is a new trial and is not a form of appeal.

TDN is the by product of a decision on an appeal when the appellate court orders the lower court to re try the case. Hence, the term "Trial de novo" is latin for new trial. The Appellate court can grant TDN or uphold the case in formal appeals. In informal appeals, the Defendant gets a new trial but not because he "appealed". He asked for a new trial and got one just because he asked for it and not because he won an appeal.

Do you see the difference?

This appeal was not granted by an appellate court and no appellate briefs were filed contesting errors in law as is required in formal appeals. I don't need Wikipedia and it is the worst resource for legal information. The "facts" are determined by what is admissible and conform to the rules of evidence. Since this new trial will use formal rules, and the first one did not, the facts may be completely different as some may not be admissible using formal rules. The first trial used NO rules of evidence and the second requires formal rules and handcuff the Judge and jury to follow formal jury instructions and the rules of evidence. This is a brand new trial and the first trial is moot as if it never happened. No court could deny this type of appeal. Nice try Son but I am a J.D. in law and you are confused. Trial De Novo is the reward for a successful appeal and is not a form of appeal unless it is in this jurisdiction where it is granted automatically. I pointed out the procedural differences that govern what evidence can be admitted in each example. Had the first conviction been from a competent court that used formal rules, I would give the conviction more credibility. I am not merely arguing semantics. One appeal requires that the Defendant point out an error in law made by the court and one grants it for any reason the Defendant wants. In the first example, the Defendant must find an error the court made in coming to the conclusion and if one is not identified, the appeal is DENIED and the decision stands. In the second example, the Defendant needs no reason to ask for an appeal other than he wants one and can not be denied. Trial de novo is a new trial and nothing else.

In the first example, the Judge and Jury must follow Jury instructions and follow formal rules of evidence and the Judge cant do whatever he wants like in the second example.

Just semantics huh?

That was a weak attempt to make me look bad and it failed miserably. Formal APPEALS are not trials. They review cases for errors in law and can order TRIAL DE NOVO if the errors were enough to sway the decision. One can not admit new factual evidence in a formal appeal either and that's not the case in trial de novo. You think the SCOTUS tries cases? Appeals courts review cases and don't try them Son. Nice try to make me look bad but all you did was give me a chance to make you look bad.

You are the one that is relying on semantics. The court will be bound by much tighter rules in the new trial and there are profound differences.

Those aren't semantics Son.

Formal appeals are a review of the application of law to the facts and do not allow new evidence to be introduced.

You are confused.

People in this forum were using the term APPEAL to validate their claims that the first trial had merit of law and I pointed out the differences that show how worthless the first decision was.

There are huge differences but I forgot to use the term FORMAL to point out the differences.

Nice try!

I would go to Justia or use the Westlaw or Loislaw books before I relied on Wiki.

Appeals cases are not TRIED. They are done through briefs and do not require a court date unless one of the parties asks for an opportunity to do oral briefs to a 3 Judge panel who decides appeals cases.

Lame and weak.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Trial de novo is ONLY a form of an appeal in small claims cases and criminal jurisdictions that allow Commissioners to preside over cases with no formal rules.

In both those cases, TDN is granted automatically and doesnt' require court error.

Otherwise, it is just a new trial granted on appellate review using a legally recognized standard for review.

Please don't challenge me on law.

Swami, in this post and in your later post, you have just proved why a lot of people say "the law is an ass" and the people that work in it are the "holes".

We do not come here to be lectured on the nuances on the law, and for us outside the USA, we so not need to be lectured on American law.

We do not need to know the nuances and the legalese. In lay man's tems McClain is appealing his verdict. There media stated as much. When looking up over the internet, it is referred to as an appeal.

I do not need you to do a granstanding courtroom performance telling me I a "lame and weak" and I have "no idea what I am talking about".

Finally, never, ever, call me son. My Father died 2 years ago, and you are definitely not him speaking to me. How old are you, btw? That could turn out funny.)

This is a Raiders football discussion board. If you want to throw around your legalese terms, go to a site where you can chat to your pompous mates. We are here to talk about football.

Finally, why would I want to challenge you on "law". You may know a bit about US law, but you show a lack of respect for me and fellow posters on here. Do that to my face and I will put you on your ass.

[dezcruel]

Swami, in this post and in your later post, you have just proved why a lot of people say "the law is an ass" and the people that work in it are the "holes".

We do not come here to be lectured on the nuances on the law, and for us outside the USA, we so not need to be lectured on American law.

We do not need to know the nuances and the legalese. In lay man's tems McClain is appealing his verdict. There media stated as much. When looking up over the internet, it is referred to as an appeal.

I do not need you to do a granstanding courtroom performance telling me I a "lame and weak" and I have "no idea what I am talking about".

Finally, never, ever, call me son. My Father died 2 years ago, and you are definitely not him speaking to me. How old are you, btw? That could turn out funny.)

This is a Raiders football discussion board. If you want to throw around your legalese terms, go to a site where you can chat to your pompous mates. We are here to talk about football.

Finally, why would I want to challenge you on "law". You may know a bit about US law, but you show a lack of respect for me and fellow posters on here. Do that to my face and I will put you on your ass.

Haha!!Another satisfied customer,LOL!!

[raiderArt]

Trial de novo? Was that the back-up band for Club Nouveau or something?

[JUSTWINBABY9111]

What happened, lol? I'm happy to hear that an NFL big wig says they will not take any action until the legal **** is out of the way. That is good news! If he can stay healthy we can see if he is the real deal sooner rather than later (suspension). We can see if he can stay out of trouble. We do not have to go to the bench for a MLB. This is great news to me. He hasn't done enough to get ousted (says Reggie). If he's found guilty we shall see. If he gets in trouble again, or brings negative attention we shall see. Until then, go Raiders.