Tom Curran of NBC/PFT reported last week that a grand jury quietly has convened in Manhattan regarding the felony gun charges pending against free-agent receiver Plaxico Burress.
Buried in Monday’s New York Post item regarding the case is a jaw-dropping nugget.
Lawyer Benjamin Burress hasn’t ruled out allowing Burress to testify before the grand jury.
It’s a hugely risky move, something few if any criminal defendants ever try. Burress would waive his constitutional rights against self incrimination, in the hopes that the grand jurors will revolt against the letter of the law and let Burress walk given that: (1) the gun was licensed in another state; (2) there was no intent to
violate the law; and (3) no one — other than Burress — was hit by the
bullet.
From Brafman’s perspective, his client would get two cracks at persuading a jury to disregard its oath to uphold and apply the law — once before the grand jury and then before the “petit” jury that will ultimately determine the guilt or innocence of Burress.
The fact that Brafman is even considering letting Burress talk to the grand jury demonstrates the desperation of the defense case. Indeed, there’s no way out of this thing. As Jay Glazer of FOX pointed out in December, Brafman had hoped to let the initial uproar die down and then work out a deal in April or thereabouts.
But since Burress didn’t take the best deal that was offered by the prosecution, and in light of Brafman’s antagonistic rhetoric, the powers-that-be have now decided to take what appears to be an incredibly strong case to the jury.
Then again, the case against O.J. Simpson appeared to be incredibly strong, too. And the possibility that Brafman, like Johnnie Cochran nearly 14 years ago, can get a jury to focus on something other than the facts and the law is the only hope that Burress currently has.
Couldn’t Burress just autograph some footballs and jerseys or something and be done with it?
This seems like a lot to put a celebrity through.
I hope his lawyer gives him a full bodt pat down prior to his deposition, cuz this dope is actually dumb enough to show up to testify, carrying a loaded, unlicensed, concealed hand gun in the waist band of his drawers
“Lawyer Benjamin Burress?”
Who the hell is that guy?
its ok. plax will get his gun back, a bullet proof vest so he cant kill himself, and a bulletproof football so he an practice strapped up. along with a … lets say 1 preseason game suspension.
“…can get a jury to focus on something other than the facts and the law…”
You mean like fairness? C’mon, shooting yourself in the leg is its own punishment, I don’t care what the law says. Saying a guy has to do jail time for an accident in which he hurt himself is just incredibly vindictive.
So is this Benjamin Burress character related to Plaxico? What is this my cousin Vinny?
Get it straight Florio, Brafman is the lawyer, and Burress is the guilty party.
Maybe someone in that nightclub once used the N-word at some point in their past, which, naturally, would exonerate Plaxico completely.
Lawyer Benjamin Burress hasn’t ruled out allowing Burress to testify before the grand jury.
Brafman…
Interesting strategy – he’s going to explain to a bunch of reasonable people that he walked into a club full of people, with a loaded handgun, but that’s OK because he really didn’t mean for it to go off? Good luck with that, Plax.
Well as the law is practiced in NY, they pick and choose who may get a concealed carry aka which famous or powerful person they want to get on their good side. So yes a jury can ignore a “law” when that law has always been corrupt and illegal (violating the equal protection clause of the US constitution)
If Burress does testify, I think it would be a good thing. He didn’t do anything wrong. His intent for the gun was for his own protection. He just happen to shoot himself with it. No biggie. Get this over with as soon as possible. The Bucs need him to be ready to play by week 1.
just like in the oj trial, brafman’s going to pull a glove out his ass,just like johnny cochrane did.
ryanmc says:
July 27, 2009 3:55 PM
“…can get a jury to focus on something other than the facts and the law…”
“You mean like fairness? C’mon, shooting yourself in the leg is its own punishment, I don’t care what the law says. Saying a guy has to do jail time for an accident in which he hurt himself is just incredibly vindictive.”
That is a ridiculous thing to say. The gun fell out of his sweatpants and went off. This brings up two unavoidable questions: (1) why was Burress in sweatpants at a club? (2) what if the gun had gone off and injured someone else?
The answer to the first question: I have no idea why the DB could not even get dress to go to the club. maybe if he had spent five minutes putting on some appropriate clothes the whole thing might have been avoided. What a dope.
The answer to the second question: he could have faced up to manslaughter charges if it had killed someone and a shit-load lot more jail time.
He is an idiot who need some time in jail to reflect on just how important the details are in life.
BernardPollardIsAnAss says: “what if the gun had gone off and injured someone else?”
Well, it didn’t. No point punishing people for stuff that could have happened but didn’t. Hey, what if you’d run over a child driving to work this morning? Maybe we should charge you with vehicular homicide just because it could have happened?
Maybe YOU need time to reflect on how accidents happen in life, and compounding those accidents by putting a guy in prison when nobody was harmed but himself is pretty ridiculous.
I hope he gets the full mandatory sentence. Punks like Burress running around with illegal handguns are the scourge of city neighborhoods. If he were just a typical everyday run-of-the-mill illegal gun-toting street punk without a high priced lawyer then he would get the mandatory sentence. What kind of message would it send to let him get off with anything less.
Make an example of him. He’s high profile…all the better. It would be a very visible and strong message to all the other illegal gun-toting punks out there. That law is there for a reason. Punks with illegal guns killing people.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Why bother with all this unregistered firearms business? People are just “walking around” with the guns in most cases. They are not hurting anyone. And in the off chance the person carrying the gun is negligent and it goes off we should not worry about it unless it kills or injures someone other than the idiot carrying it. Just think of all the money towns and cities could save if they stopped worrying about crimes where no one was injured by the act itself. Gee, that would be great. Seems logical… to a moron. Carrying a firearm in violation of the law is not an accident. It is a poor decision. Being negligent and dropping it on the floor is not an accident. It is a willful failure to properly handle the weapon as it should be handled and it shows a completely lack of common sense and disregarded for safety. If you are going to be negligent in carrying the weapon in the band of your gym clothes you should expect something like this to happen. He’s just lucky he did not injure or kill someone because then he would be broke and in the pokey. Two years for the douche bag! Hip, hip, hooray!
FYI: there is no law against driving a car. There is a law against carrying an unregistered firearm. If one were driving recklessly (an prohibited activity) they could in fact be ticketed or worse, just like Burress being punished for carrying an unlawful firearm. He, unfortunately, will suffer a stiffer penalty due to some public policy issues related to crime and firearms. I did not say he should be charged with manslaughter idiot. I said he could have been if it had killed someone. Pay attention.
The FL license had expired.
ryanmc,
And one more thing… there is plenty of point in punishing him for discharging a weapon in a club, especially since he was not aiming it. Let’s get back to your car analogy. How about a guy ghost riding a car down the street. Say it goes a whole mile before it veers off the road and crashes into the same stupid guys house. It also narrowly misses several children and adults on the street as it goes. Do you suppose the person who set that in motion should not be punished since all it “actually” did was damage his own property in the end? Do you really not get the concepts of negligence and recklessness as they relate to public safety? Of course the car “driver” should be punished. Potential for public harm when you are dealing with dangerous elements like a gun, and acting stupidly, are certainly grounds to punish someone.
Everything will be fine. Brafman knows that whenever things look bleak he can always use the Chewbacca defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18w6RLHiRMs