Mike Scott Theory

[hazer]

6 minutes ago, hazer said:

"Hey..........wasn't me." ~ Eddie Murphy

"I looked right into yo face!"

"Hey...........................wasn't me."

[lethalweapon3]

Every Squawker deserves at least a J.D. after surviving this summer.

~lw3

[hawkman]

How can Mike plead not guilty in court when the police already have him confessing on video that everything was his? Won't the prosecution just present the tape as evidence???

[sturt]

16 minutes ago, hawkman said:

How can Mike plead not guilty in court when the police already have him confessing on video that everything was his? Won't the prosecution just present the tape as evidence???

"Your honor, I was just covering for my little brother."

But even if that isn't how it goes down in court, that's plausibly the conversation with the prosecutor in order to get the best possible plea deal.

In hindsight, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by pleading not guilty. To my mind, he mainly needs to ensure that he doesn't have to serve any time so that he can earn a paycheck overseas. But, the sooner he can make a plea deal happen, the better, really, b/c he should really want to be officially back on the NBA market as early in the free agent season as possible in 2018 to maximize whatever contract he can get then.

[sturt]

38 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

Every Squawker deserves at least a J.D. after surviving this summer.

~lw3

J.D.... hmmmmm.... you mean juris doctorate or Jack Daniels? If the latter.... just one?

[HawkItus]

Hawks forward Mike Scott pleads not guilty to felony drug charges

 11:44 a.m. Tuesday, July 12, 2016 | Filed in: Hawks

COMMENTS 1

HAWKS

042916 BOSTON: Hawks Mike Scott (left) gets five from Thabo Sefolosha after getting a defensive turn over against Celtics Isaiah Thomas during the third period in Game 6 of an NBA basketball first-round playoff series at TD Garden on Thursday, April 28, 2016, in Boston. Curtis Compton / ccompton@ajc.com

Gracie: Sharing chores can be sexier

Free access to myAJC for AJC subscribers.

EXPLORE

SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS

Want more news? Sign upfor free newsletters to get more of the AJC delivered to your inbox.

 

Hawks forward Mike Scott pled not guilty to a pair of felony drug charges on Tuesday.

Scott was formally charged with felony possession of marijuana and possession of a Schedule 1 drug by the Banks County district attorney’s office stemming from his arrest in July 2015. The four-year NBA player waived his arraignment and thus was not present at the Banks County courthouse.

Scott could face up to 25 years in prison after he and his younger brother Antonn were stopped along I-85 in Homer last summer. After the two were pulled over for following other vehicles too closely, police found 35.2 grams of marijuana and 10.9 grams of Schedule I drug MDMA, commonly referred to as Molly.

AJC

Atlanta Hawks

The charge concerning the MDMA carries a sentence of up to 15 years, while the marijuana charge carries a sentence of up to 10 years, according to Georgia statutes.

Per the incident report, Scott took full responsibility for the drugs in the car and said his brother had no prior knowledge of the material. The report also stated Antonn spoke to police and said he did not use drugs but knew his brother used marijuana.

Scott was drafted by the Hawks in the second round of the 2012 NBA draft. In his latest season, he averaged 6.2 points and 2.7 rebounds over 75 games. His $3.3 million salary for the upcoming 2016-2017 season becomes guaranteed Sunday.

A source close to the situation said Scott’s case would not be heard until sometime in the fall. The Hawks have declined to comment on Scott’s legal situation.

[HawkItus]

43 minutes ago, hawkman said:

How can Mike plead not guilty in court when the police already have him confessing on video that everything was his? Won't the prosecution just present the tape as evidence???

Because it was not a formal plea.   Even a signed confession can be withdrawn and a good lawyer can have it removed as evidence in the case.   Defense attorneys are magic.

[Guest]

 

[sturt]

Second most interesting part of the story where us fans are concerned shows up in the last paragraph.... expecting a fall trial date, assuming a plea deal doesn't occur earlier.

I've really only been in court very much as a CASA volunteer, so those are family court actions. So maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the judge wouldn't go ahead and set a trial date right then. Can anyone advise?

[sturt]

5 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Because it was not a formal plea.   Even a signed confession can be withdrawn and a good lawyer can have it removed as evidence in the case.   Defense attorneys are magic.

What differentiates a formal plea from an informal one, and, maybe associated with that(?), why does it matter that he waived arraignment?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

What differentiates a formal plea from an informal one, and, maybe associated with that(?), why does it matter that he waived arraignment?

I'm no lawyer, that's @AHF  but a formal plea occurs in court after the charges have been read by the judge.   What he said to the police is just that 'what he said to the police'

[HawkItus]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

What differentiates a formal plea from an informal one, and, maybe associated with that(?), why does it matter that he waived arraignment?

A formal plea is made in front of the judge/court.  It is recorded in the official record.  He waived arraignment which is a part of the due process he is allowed.   He chose not to be present for a formal hearing of the charges against him. and vocalizing his not guilty plea.  It isn't a big deal.

[sturt]

I'm still lost.... why does it matter.... it's still entered into the court record that he's pleading not guilty for the sake of the court knowing how to proceed (ie, with setting a trial date), no?

[HawkItus]

1 minute ago, sturt said:

I'm still lost.... why does it matter.... it's still entered into the court record that he's pleading not guilty for the sake of the court knowing how to proceed (ie, with setting a trial date), no?

It really doesn't matter for rich guys or those who have obtained representation.   For those who are indigent they will need to have a court appointed attorney.  The arraignment lets the court post pone the process until one can be appointed.  Plus, sometimes(rarely) people plead guilty at the arraignment.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, sturt said:

I'm still lost.... why does it matter.... it's still entered into the court record that he's pleading not guilty for the sake of the court knowing how to proceed (ie, with setting a trial date), no?

I'm confused as to why you are lost.

[thecampster]

My guess is because it gives him leverage going toward trial in negotiating a plea deal. If  you plea early, there is no incentive to the state to avoid a trial.  The more money the state has to throw at it, the more incentive to lower the charges in exchange for a changed plea.  He can change his plea deep into the process with no negative consequences to himself.

[Lurker]

If Mike Scott's case is going to actually be heard this year, then WHY on earth are the Hawks keeping him? If it isn't heard until next year, it'd make sense to keep him, but if he is getting it heard this year, he should be cut loose to deal with his legal stuff.

[HawkItus]

4 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If Mike Scott's case is going to actually be heard this year, then WHY on earth are the Hawks keeping him? If it isn't heard until next year, it'd make sense to keep him, but if he is getting it heard this year, he should be cut loose to deal with his legal stuff.

Dude that is someone at the clerks office speaking.  Ask the defense attorney to find out when it really might go to trial.   This could be at least a year away.

[sturt]

8 minutes ago, HawkItus said:

Dude that is someone at the clerks office speaking.  Ask the defense attorney to find out when it really might go to trial.   This could be at least a year away.

Point well-taken... I suppose, though, it really is all depending on the judge's attitude toward the defense's requests for delays... true?

[sturt]

19 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If Mike Scott's case is going to actually be heard this year, then WHY on earth are the Hawks keeping him? If it isn't heard until next year, it'd make sense to keep him, but if he is getting it heard this year, he should be cut loose to deal with his legal stuff.

Here's another possible reason the Hawks wouldn't want to release him, mentioned in an earlier post... if he's under contract if/when the NBA voids  his contract, we alone hold a reinstatement exception to sign him at his current salary when he returns, ostensibly at age 30... and the later in the year this goes on, the more likely that that could potentially come into play, as cap space and exceptions space become more scarce.