Skip to content

On further review, Burress might have a glimmer of hope

A curious dynamic has unfolded over the past few months in the case
involving Giants receiver Plaxico Burress.  A strong sense has arises that the
case against Burress is open and shut.

But is it? 

Because it’s been nearly eight months since Plaxico Burress took a
loaded Glock into a Manhattan nightclub and then accidentally sent one
of its bullets through the flesh of his thigh, we decided to go back to
square one and revisit the specific laws that apply in this case.

And we’re glad we did.  Because it appears that Burress might have a
better chance at avoiding a conviction that we previously believed.

We’re in the process of banging out a comprehensive analysis, which either will be posted here or sent to SportingNews.com as a replacement for the column I sent in yesterday under the assumption that Burress will be indicted.

I still wouldn’t bet against an indictment, but the odds aren’t quite as steep as I previously believed.

Permalink 23 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Legal, New York Giants, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
23 Responses to “On further review, Burress might have a glimmer of hope”
  1. jermely says: Jul 30, 2009 9:47 AM

    http://twitter.com/Adam_Schefter
    According to him, DHB deal, done..

  2. Smarter Than Florio says: Jul 30, 2009 9:51 AM

    “A strong sense has arises”? Ok…
    Mike – haven’t you been among those indicating that the case against Plaxico is open and shut?

  3. mp21ways says: Jul 30, 2009 9:56 AM

    Will the words “criminal intent” be prominent in your comprehensive analysis?

  4. Mattmanus says: Jul 30, 2009 9:58 AM

    Do tell

  5. penguininbondage says: Jul 30, 2009 10:22 AM

    Kill all the lawyers!
    I cannot believe that a case a simple as this can be screwed up. The fact is, and the key word being”IS” He testified in front of a grand jury that essentially he admitted guilt. There was no veil of immunity implied or promised. Peirce wil be next or he will plea and testify against Plaxico.
    Christ i’m sounding like a lawyer, where’s my pills and scotch.

  6. unkl fil says: Jul 30, 2009 10:23 AM

    He may have hope but still doesn’t have brains!

  7. Agamemnon says: Jul 30, 2009 10:29 AM

    “Are you saying one in a hundred?”
    “More like one in a million.”
    “So you’re saying there’s a chance…”
    Or something very close to this.
    On the other hand, I thought Favre going to the Vikes was a certainty too. Maybe the world really has flipped.

  8. goose08 says: Jul 30, 2009 10:41 AM

    Florio’s got a raging clue…

  9. Guardian says: Jul 30, 2009 10:56 AM

    How do you break a law that is unconstitutional??? LEAVE BURRESS ALONE!!!!

  10. Citizen Strange says: Jul 30, 2009 10:59 AM

    Finally, it looks like an arrogant, self-centered, milllioinaire athlete just might catch a break for once!

  11. simple_simon1 says: Jul 30, 2009 11:01 AM

    Sorry to say this people, and I do loving coming to the USA, but your country has some crazy laws!
    Now, I can’t stand Burress. But yesterday, for the first time on NFL network, I heard that the gun actually is registered, just not in NY.
    Even though Plax should have some brains and not, you know, go to a club with a loaded gun in his pants, try to cover it up after he shoots himself and use an alias at the hospital, lets be serious here. The only reason there is an issue is because the loaded gun wasn’t registered. But it simply wasn’t registered in NY, it was in Florida.
    This is the craziest thing I’ve heard of for a while. Are you telling me that the gov’t expects a person to register a gun in every state separately? This is insane. Of coarse, there would be no problem if people just dummied up and didn’t feel like they had to go to a club which was “dangerous” enough to have to carry a firearm in the first place but still.

  12. samh says: Jul 30, 2009 11:12 AM

    Florio
    That viewpoint has “arises” because you’ve repeatedly made the case that based on your extensive legal knowledge the case is open and shut.
    Guardian: how is the law unconstitutional?

  13. DC_Bengals_Fan says: Jul 30, 2009 11:17 AM

    If the facts of the case aren’t in doubt, and those facts alone define the law (ie, concealed carry of an unregistered gun), and the law has a mandatory sentence…
    …then if the grand jury doesn’t indict, they should be replaced. Period.

  14. Paul_R. says: Jul 30, 2009 11:21 AM

    “A strong sense has arises that the case against Burress is open and shut.”
    “arises”?
    “Because it appears that Burress might have a better chance at avoiding a conviction that we previously believed.”
    “that”?
    “We’ll in the process of banging out a comprehensive analysis”
    Mike, are you sure you don’t need a proofreader?

  15. Guardian says: Jul 30, 2009 11:22 AM

    don’t ever register your guns….. Just makes it easier for the gov’t to find you and take them away. Agreed Plax was stupid for having chambered and he should know better than to bother going to the club. With that kind of cash bring the club to you…..

  16. VoxVeritas says: Jul 30, 2009 11:35 AM

    “The only reason there is an issue is because the loaded gun wasn’t registered. But it simply wasn’t registered in NY, it was in Florida.”
    Nope. The Florida registration expired. Therefore it was not registered.
    “Are you telling me that the gov’t expects a person to register a gun in every state separately?”
    The federal government doesn’t require registration at all. That would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. Some state governments do require it.

  17. tacious says: Jul 30, 2009 11:39 AM

    Guardian & Simple_Simon1… what’s so “crazy” or “unconstituitional” about not being able to carry a concealed weapon into a nightclub?
    Also, this is an issue because it’s illegal to carry a concealed weapon in NY, not b/c it was/ wasn’t registered!

  18. Fan_Of_ Four says: Jul 30, 2009 11:50 AM

    I wonder if Green Bay Packer Al Harris wants to see Burress go to jail after Burress assaulted him in the NFC Championship Game two years ago ?

  19. frox says: Jul 30, 2009 12:10 PM

    You have got to be kidding me! For 8 months now Florio has gone on and one about how the law requires a mandatory 3.5 year sentence and now, as the grand jury considers it, he changes his mind? Wasn’t the time to read the statute when he shot himself and you were popping off about how he was clearly guilty? This is almost as bad the as the Bradshaw incident (and possibly worse since many of the readers rely on Florio’s expertise as a lawyer!!).

  20. Guardian says: Jul 30, 2009 12:23 PM

    The 2nd amendment is pretty clear.
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    This is the only permit necessary. It is not illegal to be stupid and carry a glock that is chambered. Gun Control laws are nothing more than an way for politicians to score political points with an ignorant electorate.

  21. Professor says: Jul 30, 2009 12:36 PM

    I can’t stand so-called “Packer fans” who do nothing but bitch and constantly talk sh*t about the team they “cheer for”.
    Talk about a fair weather fan. Jesus

  22. VoxVeritas says: Jul 30, 2009 12:38 PM

    “The 2nd amendment is pretty clear.”
    So is the Supreme Court, in multiple rulings that the Second Amendment applies only to infringement by the federal government.
    “This is the only permit necessary.”
    Tell it to the judge.

  23. Guardian says: Jul 30, 2009 1:19 PM

    Judges are able to be wrong. The Federal Government is a product of the States. Not the other way around. This means that the 2nd amendment is a product of the states meaning it encompasses everyone.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!