Jolly In Court Thursday February 18.

[Joemailman]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100215/PKR01/100215105/1058/Packers-Jolly-in-court-on-drug-charges-Thursday

Pre-trial hearing set for Thursday. At least one way or the other, the Packers should know what Jolly's near-term future looks like.

[Guiness]

Can't believe this has dragged, and it dragging on.

Someone's got a hardon for this boy.

[KYPack]

Can't believe this has dragged, and it dragging on.

Someone's got a hardon for this boy.

It's a Mexican standoff btw the prosecutors and Jolly's lawyers. He's guilty of simple possession. There is no way in hell prosecutors can convict on felony possession with intent to distribute. This could drag on for a good while yet.

The prosecutors are in a tough spot. Judge Roy Bean himself couldn't get a conviction on those charges.

[mission]

KY is right...

My buddy turned himself in two years ago (released in a week) on a TON of charges that they were trying to stick to him because his name was on a rental property where they were growing weed. He was never caught with anything and it took him weeks to figure out that there was a warrant out for his arrest (obviously he discovered the cops had "been to the house")

His partner got pulled over leaving the house with less than a pound and so they're trying to stick all those charges on my friend once he started talking and letting them know where everything came from.

He STILL doesn't have a court date and his lawyer is claiming he'll only get probation since it's a first offense.

[KYPack]

Delayed again...

HARRIS COUNTY, Tex. (WTAQ) - A pre-trial hearing for Packers defensive lineman Johnny Jolly has been postponed again. Jolly was due in a Harris County Texas court Thursday on a felony charge of possession of at least 200 grams of codeine. Originally set for January 26th, prosecutors had re-scheduled the hearing for Thursday. Jolly, a restricted free agent, now must be in court 4 days after the deadline for NFL teams to give tender offers on March 8th.


(That'd be March 12th, eh?)

Here's the rub. Jolly is stone cold guilty of simple possession.

He is just as innocent of felony possession with intent to distribute. There is NFW he had 200 grams of codeine in that container of purple.

They mis/overcharged him. Now they are trying to save face by getting him to cop to a lesser charge. If he cops, he gets suspended. His lawyers are trying to get a jury trial where they can present facts and get him off scott free. So this thing will drag out.

[Fritz]

Ah, the justice system.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I good lawyer will keep him from getting charged with possesion.

There were other occupants of the vehicle(reasonable doubt).

Ignorance of what codiene is, codiene used to be over the counter and is a sedative.

Is there any proof that he participated in ingesting it?

If he puts it off 2 or 3 more times he can then have it put off until after the season.

Cough syrup that is over the counter in Canada is nothing to worry about. Entering the NFL's substance abuse program as a first time offender is.

We will have threads about this next year. It is no problem now. I mean there is the appeal process too.

[Guiness]

If it is just about the prosecutors filing the wrong charges, are they not allowed to withdraw and re-file since there hasn't been a trial yet?

[Joemailman]

They did withdraw and refile once. That was so that they could supposedly get trained on some new equipment that measures the amount of codeine. I think KYPack has it right. They want Jolly to plead guilty to a charge. Not any evidence he's going to do that though.

[Fritz]

Couple things. First, the GBPG article said it was Jolly's attorney who wanted to delay. Why would that be?

Second, the implication in the same article is that now the Pack will more likely have to use the 2nd round tender. I'm not sure how uncertainty would force the Packers to reacher higher to keep Jolly. Anyone?

[arcilite]

Couple things. First, the GBPG article said it was Jolly's attorney who wanted to delay. Why would that be?

Second, the implication in the same article is that now the Pack will more likely have to use the 2nd round tender. I'm not sure how uncertainty would force the Packers to reacher higher to keep Jolly. Anyone?

Pretty sure you just answered your own question.

[Joemailman]

Couple things. First, the GBPG article said it was Jolly's attorney who wanted to delay. Why would that be?

Second, the implication in the same article is that now the Pack will more likely have to use the 2nd round tender. I'm not sure how uncertainty would force the Packers to reacher higher to keep Jolly. Anyone?

Uncertainty doesn't make them go higher. However, if the trial had gone through now, and Jolly had been convicted by Match 4, the near certainty that Jolly would be suspended could enable the Packers to make a lower offer and still keep him.

[Smidgeon]

So who's his lawyer? Who has ownership of the case? In other words, who's going to get his Jolly off? :mrgreen:

[Patler]

Couple things. First, the GBPG article said it was Jolly's attorney who wanted to delay. Why would that be?

Second, the implication in the same article is that now the Pack will more likely have to use the 2nd round tender. I'm not sure how uncertainty would force the Packers to reacher higher to keep Jolly. Anyone?

Uncertainty doesn't make them go higher. However, if the trial had gone through now, and Jolly had been convicted by Match 4, the near certainty that Jolly would be suspended could enable the Packers to make a lower offer and still keep him.

I think this is an example of a writer over-analyzing the situation. Low-balling Jolly's tender would likely backfire under any scenario. There are 31 other teams, and you can bet some DL-starved GM would be more than happy to "give Jolly a second chance" even if they knew he had a 4 game suspension coming at the start of the season.

Some GM's have admitted that recreational drug use doesn't turn them off, it's too common to allow it to bother them. Their concern is the player being so dumb as to get caught. Jolly has already been caught. Whether or not he will be suspended won't mean that much to them, IF they like him as a player, and IF they think he can help them the last 12 games.

[Joemailman]

I agree if it is just 4 games. Is that a given? Doesn't Goodell have more options than he used to have in handing out discipline?

[pbmax]

I agree if it is just 4 games. Is that a given? Doesn't Goodell have more options than he used to have in handing out discipline?
If it falls under the Drug and Alcohol Policy, then his hands are tied to the prescribed schedule everyone is familiar with. If it was strictly a criminal or civil matter that did not fall under the other policy, then Goodell would have more latitude under the Personal Conduct Policy.

[Iron Mike]

I think the Williamses should have to serve their suspension first. :evil:

[CaliforniaCheez]

I agree if it is just 4 games. Is that a given? Doesn't Goodell have more options than he used to have in handing out discipline?
If it falls under the Drug and Alcohol Policy, then his hands are tied to the prescribed schedule everyone is familiar with. If it was strictly a criminal or civil matter that did not fall under the other policy, then Goodell would have more latitude under the Personal Conduct Policy.

1) It can't fall under the substance abuse policy. a)Codeine is not a banned substance like steroid masking agents. b) As a first time offender there is no suspension. C) There is no evidence Jolly ingested any.

2) The dropping of the charges and other things that come up at trial will be grounds for appeal. Appeals take a lot of time.

3) The commissioner may choose to review the matte under the Personal Conduct policy. Since there was no driving, no weapon(a commisioner favorite), no injuries and not a lot of bad press, he could possibly impose a fine or suspension (1 to 4 games) or both.

Let's not get too worried about it.

[pbmax]

I agree if it is just 4 games. Is that a given? Doesn't Goodell have more options than he used to have in handing out discipline?
If it falls under the Drug and Alcohol Policy, then his hands are tied to the prescribed schedule everyone is familiar with. If it was strictly a criminal or civil matter that did not fall under the other policy, then Goodell would have more latitude under the Personal Conduct Policy.

1) It can't fall under the substance abuse policy. a)Codeine is not a banned substance like steroid masking agents. b) As a first time offender there is no suspension. C) There is no evidence Jolly ingested any.

2) The dropping of the charges and other things that come up at trial will be grounds for appeal. Appeals take a lot of time.

3) The commissioner may choose to review the matte under the Personal Conduct policy. Since there was no driving, no weapon(a commisioner favorite), no injuries and not a lot of bad press, he could possibly impose a fine or suspension (1 to 4 games) or both.

Let's not get too worried about it.
Possession of codeine without a prescription and in a bottle of Dr. Pepper (or whatever pop/soda) would be enough I think to land him in the Drug Policy. Players have landed there after being caught for possession before, without a drug test.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Not for a first offence.

[pbmax]

Not for a first offence.
A first offense does put him under the auspices of the Drug Policy. If it his first referral (incident) then there would be no suspension, just testing, treatment and a behavior protocol to follow.

But since we never know what stage a player is in (if any) until there is a 4 game suspension announced with no explanation, we do not know if he has already been entered into the program.

[packrulz]

That DA in Texas isn't giving up:
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100325/PKR01/303250171/1058/Packers--Jolly-set-for-trial-in-Houston-drug-case

[Freak Out]

Jolly is an idiot.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/packers.html