Will Logan Young Be Convicted?

[Alanbama27]

Dixiedawg...I think that the prosecutors have used

then logic tells me it must be a duck!

your logic, which fortunately for Logan isn't admissible in court! Also, I don't know how they can try somebody and yet have literally no evidence except the testimony of a convicted felon and liar.

It is my personal opinion that one of two things will happen. Either this trial will go the distance and Logan will be found "not guilty", which is different than innocent or the prosecution will fail to meet their burden and this trial won't make it past the prosecutions case...although I doubt that. No way does this case get settled out of court since there has been no discussion of settlement to this point.

 

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Nashville Tider,with all due respect...

you need to have a heart to heart talk with Mr. & Mrs Ivy Williams and find out why he is filing a law suit against the NCAA. HINT- It is not because of spilling hot coffee on himself in NCAA headquarters!!! It is because of the foolishness that went on in NCAA HQ and the U.S. Justice Dept., UT.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

From the very outset of this case, Logan Young has proclaimed his innocence. Of course, virtually every convicted felon in the federal pen did the same thing, but so did every last one of those who were found "not guilty."

I believe the defense is betting the farm on this being a frame job, and the success of that defense will depend on how much latitude the judge allows the defense to make its case. In the worst case scenario, the judge refuses to allow the defense to force the testimony of key players, like Kramer, Fulmer, Adams and Schledwitz. In the best case scenario, the judge allows the defense to parade one witness after another before the jury, each sequestered, to paint a picture of conspiracy and foul play. I believe something in between, but leaning towards the best case scenario, is what the defense will be allowed to do. The defendant is usually allowed a lot of room to present its case, whereas the prosecution is usually restricted much more. We'll see.

At any rate, the outcome of this trial presents a "no lose" scenario for Team Gallion. If Young is acquitted, Gallion's hand is that much stronger. But even if Young is convicted, Gallion's clients can still argue that they were wrongly implicated in a plot they had no knowledge of.

Oh, the drama...

 

[Crimson-Blitz]

There is no conspiracy between the Justice Department and the NCAA.

It is a fact that a condition of Milton Kirk's probation was to cooperate with RJ and the NCAA in their investigation of Alabama. It is also a fact that on several occasions RJ threatened to sic the IRS on people who didn't cooperate with his investigation. It's also a fact that SOMEONE within the D.A.'s office was leaking information to Adams/Sled/Fulmer.

But then again, I'm afraid of black helicopters.

 

[CapitalTider]

If the man is convicted on circumstantial and heresay evidence, there won't be any shortage of outrage around here. If he is convicted with solid evidence, you'll see that posted here as well.

Plenty of people are convicted on circumstantial evidence, in murder cases it is often all the prosecution has. Plenty of death row inmates were convicted solely on "circumstantial" evidence. In fact, Scott Peterson was convicted on nothing but circumstantial evidence.

He can not be convicted on "hearsay" evidence however, since hearsay is not admissible, unless there is some legal exception. I don't think some here understand what hearsay means. The statements of a co-conspirator about the crime are not hearsay. An example of hearsay is "X told me Y did it" or "I heard X say he did it" although there could be an exception for the latter, statement against interest.

 

[bayoutider]

One question beggs to be answered, how many people in the history of college football have been sent to jail for buying a player. Please, NashvilleTider, DixieDog chime in here and give me some names or numbers.

 

[TiderinMiss]

One question beggs to be answered, how many people in the history of college football have been sent to jail for buying a player. Please, NashvilleTider, DixieDog chime in here and give me some names or numbers.

Now, you see, that's a good point.

What exactly is the charge against LY? Even if he did pay for a player, there has been no one ever been to prison for buying a player.

This whole thing is really fishy...

 

[CapitalTider]

Also, I don't know how they can try somebody and yet have literally no evidence except the testimony of a convicted felon and liar.

The testimony of a co-conspirator or co-defendant, who often is a felon (or about to be one) and generally less than honest, is used all the time in criminal cases. The fact that he reached a plea agreement with the prosecution (that is the felony you are referring to I believe) and any instances of dishonesty on his part can be used to "impeach" him as a witness, i.e. cast doubt on his credibility. This situation happens all the time in other criminal cases, if we were talking about a suspected murderer or drug dealer I doubt many on here would have the same complaints about this type of evidence.

 

[bayoutider]

A few things that interest me in the case is who will be called to the witness stand and what will they say.

Will Earnest Botto, the supposed bag man, be called to testify? If he doesn't finger Logan where is the money trail.

Will the other NCAA coaches be called to testify? If they testify they were in the bidding war as alleged by Lang, they will be admitting major NCAA violations under oath. If they say not, then Lang is a liar. Talk about a delima for those witnesses and don't expect Pierotti or Neal to go light on the questions to them.

Finally, if Neal and Pierotti can show that bank withdrawals of the sums complimentary to those the Feds show during the time period were itentical to withdrawals previously and after said time period it lessens their case. Young doesn't have to show what he does with his money.

 

[CapitalTider]

One question beggs to be answered, how many people in the history of college football have been sent to jail for buying a player. Please, NashvilleTider, DixieDog chime in here and give me some names or numbers.

That is my whole problem with this issue--why the Justice Department is involved at all. That makes me wonder if there was any bias in deciding to press this case. To answer your question, I've never heard of one. It was generally considered common knowledge that Memphis was dirty. Since this was such a "high-profile" case they may have decided to use this case as an example to try and clean it up. If that were true, it is just more bad luck on the University's part. Maybe some UT faithful saw this as an opportunity to take Young out. While this is a good question, I don't think it has any bearing on the trial. The defense of "they were out to get me" is unlikely to work in my opinion and "entrapment" is a whole other can of worms. I could write quite a bit on that but suffice it to say that Doug Flutie throws game winning hail mary TDs at a higher percentage than the success rate of that defense.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

Now, you see, that's a good point.

What exactly is the charge against LY? Even if he did pay for a player, there has been no one ever been to prison for buying a player.

This whole thing is really fishy...

As an employee of Trevezant High School, Lynne Lang is technically a "public official." Paying a public employee to gain preferential treatment is bribery. Young is also accused of racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, and crossing state lines to commit a crime. All charges fall within federal jurisdiction.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

The notion that the NCAA just decided to clean up Memphis with a heavy hand, setting an example out of whoever was doing wrong, and it just happened it was Alabama that got caught holding the hot potato doesn't hold water. The sting was directed at Bama, why else would the SEC office warn every other team off of recruiting Means? Why weren't the other bidders held accountable in a public fashion? That would have really sent a message towards cleaning up Memphis.
If you visit Gridscape, I'm sure you'll find people arguing that Young is guilty, if he gets off it's because of an "O.J." jury. And how the Memphis DA's are fine and wonderful impartial folks. Sounds like tenncrud type posting.

 

[CapitalTider]

As an employee of Trevezant High School, Lynne Lang is technically a "public official." Paying a public employee to gain preferential treatment is bribery. Young is also accused of racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, and crossing state lines to commit a crime. All charges fall within federal jurisdiction.

You left out the structuring cash deposits or withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements which is also a federal crime. Of course all of the federal crimes stemmed from a NCAA recruiting violation (I started to say alleged, but since we copped to it, really can't say alleged). I believe it's true that no other rogue booster has been targeted like this, and presumably any such deal would be made in a similar fashion. While that fact certainly raises questions, I don't think it helps Mr. Young's case.

 

[CapitalTider]

"Meanwhile, Kirk and Lang have also moved on with their lives, rekindled their friendship and fully cooperated with the prosecution. At least Lang -- who has spent the past few years living in Michigan, but has already arrived in Memphis for the trial -- is expected to testify against Young."

http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/football/article/0,1426,MCA_478_3491558,00.html

This concerns me for Mr. Young, if Lang and Kirk have patched up their differences and Lang is going to testify against Young, it looks bad. Kirk you could discount as speculating since he was left out of the deal and had an axe to grind over it. Lang may be more believable.

"That Young made more than 50 significant cash withdrawals in the span of the indictment against him, many of which were above $9,000, all of which were less than $10,000 to avoid IRS reporting requirements."

I'm curious of the time frames of these withdrawals, if very close in time they are very suspicious. I think this raises two questions to the jury--(1) why did Mr. Young need so much cash? and (2) if the cash was needed for legitimate purposes why structure the withdrawals to avoid the reporting requirements? Sure other explanations can be offered for these withdrawals, Mr. Young liked to go gambling or visit strip clubs (I'm just speculating), but this still raises the question of why so many separate withdrawals to avoid the reporting requirement? Expect the prosecution to pound that point home.

 

[CapitalTider]

The sting was directed at Bama, why else would the SEC office warn every other team off of recruiting Means? Why weren't the other bidders held accountable in a public fashion? That would have really sent a message towards cleaning up Memphis.

The problem is, while all of the SEC conspiracy theories are interesting, they are irrelevant to Young's case. Either he bribed a public official, using money generated from legitimate businesses and structured cash withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements or he did not. Neither the University of Alabama, the SEC nor the NCAA are any party to this proceeding. Whether the Univ. of Alabama committed NCAA violations or not is not an issue in this proceeding. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought the point of this thread was whether people thought Young would be convicted or not, not whether Alabama committed NCAA violations or were set up by the SEC and UT boosters.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

If Young has been set up here as some argue, then that becomes relevant in his trial.
Of course, fulmer is on record saying Young was Coach Bryant's bagman over the years. Now we have a grad from ut's law school presiding over this case. No conflict there...

But hey! Everything's on the up & up.

 

[CapitalTider]

If Young has been set up here as some argue, then that becomes relevant in his trial.

How is it relevant to Young's trial? Unless they are planning on arguing entrapment, which means he has to admit to actually committing the crime first, then I fail to see how it can be relevant.

Just because the judge or the prosecutor happen to be UT grads doesn't mean anything. I went to law school at UA with plenty of people who were AU, UT or UF fans. If one of them were the attorney or judge people might argue that they had a bias for UA, when they actually hate UA. UA is one of two ABA certified law schools in the state. I think TN has two UT and Vanderbilt.

 

[Chukker Veteran]

Let's just imagine one possibility here...Say a wealthy ut grad decides to cause Bama some grief. He decides to dupe two high school coaches into thinking they were taking a bribe from a Bama booster, when the cash actually came from a ut booster. And then we have a ut grad acting as the judge, making decisions about what will be allowed into the trial and what won't. No problem there...
I'm sure that (ut grad) judge is totally impartial. Every bit as impartial as the DA's office in Memphis has been.

 

[GulfCoastTider]

You left out the structuring cash deposits or withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements which is also a federal crime. Of course all of the federal crimes stemmed from a NCAA recruiting violation (I started to say alleged, but since we copped to it, really can't say alleged). I believe it's true that no other rogue booster has been targeted like this, and presumably any such deal would be made in a similar fashion. While that fact certainly raises questions, I don't think it helps Mr. Young's case.

The "structuring" charge is probably going to be the hardest to prove. Federal law says that currency transactions of $10,000 or more must be reported. Withdrawing $9,999.99 is complying with federal law. As is spending that money on strippers, casino trips, and large bar tabs. Going back to the bank, and withdrawing another $9,999.99 is another transaction that complies with the law.

If Godwin can prove that repeated, fully compliant transactions add up to a criminal act, then we're all in big trouble. It's analogous to repeatedly driving 69 miles an hour in a 70 zone, and being charged with attempting to avoid a speeding ticket!

What I think is going to be most interesting is the degree of latitude that the judge allows the defense. If they get all the maneuvering room they ask for, then Team Gallion is literally going to cackle in delight.

 

[CapitalTider]

If Godwin can prove that repeated, fully compliant transactions add up to a criminal act, then we're all in big trouble. It's analogous to repeatedly driving 69 miles an hour in a 70 zone, and being charged with attempting to avoid a speeding ticket!

While I agree that this charge will be hard to prove, the rest of the above statement is incorrect. On the tax end (since this is partially an IRS provision), the Service routinely restructures transactions or combines multiple transactions when there is an intent to avoid application of a provision or evade tax or reporting. Two judicial doctrines that have been around almost as long as the current income tax are the "step transactions doctrine" and "substance over form." Your speeding example fails because the violation is different and there is no anti-avoidance provision in speed limits. The $10,000 limit is not an absolute and not only examined at the transaction level, like the speed limit. Making two $5,000 withdrawals to evade the reporting requirement is specified as being criminal, whereas driving 69MPH in a 70MPH zone to avoid a speeding ticket is not. Apples and watermelons.

26 USC Sec. 6050I(F)(1) provides "No person shall for purposes of evading the reporting requirements of this section--(C) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more trades or businesses."