The Ravens fumbled the ball in the first instance. With $25 million invested in the player over two seasons and the entire organization wired to believe the version of the events shared by Rice and his wife, someone with a law degree should have said, “Video of what happened in the elevator exists, Ray’s lawyer in the criminal case surely has it, and we should insist that Ray produce it.”
Instead, the Ravens accepted at face value characterizes of what happened. Characterizations that ultimately were incorrect. Whispers emerged of extreme provocation from Janay Palmer Rice, culminating in the then-future Mrs. Rice spitting in Ray’s face. In the aftermath of the Rice punishment, weeks after the suspension had been resolved, one member of the Ravens organization privately advised caution when describing the contact from Ray to Janay as a punch.
Maybe that person meant to say that caution should be exercised when describing it only as a punch.
It’s no surprise that the Ravens bought Rice’s story. They wanted to believe him. They needed to believe him. And with Janay Palmer Rice apparently supporting his version of the events (in part by apologizing at a press conference for her role in the situation) and prosecutors allowing (inexplicably, in hindsight) Rice to enter a diversionary program, the Ravens opted to give Rice, otherwise a model citizen, the benefit of the doubt.
But that’s when someone with the education and experience and an understanding of the criminal justice system should have explained to the folks in the organization without those skills and abilities: (1) the importance of corroborating Rice’s version by watching the tape; and (2) the ease with which the tape could have been gotten.
Rice’s criminal defense lawyer had the tape. He was entitled to the tape as part of the discovery process in the criminal prosecution. Rice, by virtue of the fact that the lawyer works ultimately for Rice, needed only to direct the lawyer to forward the tape to Rice, so that he could in turn give it to the Ravens.
It possible that Rice or his lawyer would have resisted. And that’s where the Ravens had to be willing to say to Rice, “Ray, you’re not putting on a helmet until we see the tape.”
The NFL compounded the error by not engaging in a similar analysis. Undoubtedly influenced by the prosecution’s willingness to give Rice the rough equivalent of a pass and by the team’s convenient and self-serving acceptance of his version of the events, the NFL opted not to insist on seeing the tape.
How could the league office not have been curious about viewing a piece of video that was destined to be leaked? Assuming that such basic curiosity existed, how did the league not realize that, despite the lack of subpoena power or similar authority to obtain the tape, they needed to simply go to the man whose lawyer already had the tape?
Reply With Quote