Skip to content

Greg Hardy’s accuser subpoenaed to testify against him

Greg Hardy AP

When Panthers defensive end Greg Hardy appears in court on July 15 on domestic violence charges, his accuser will be there too.

According to the Charlotte Observer, a subpoena has been issued for Nicole Holder to appear that day.

Asked is she expected Holder to testify, assistant district attorney Jamie Adams said, “I would hope so.”

Hardy faces up to 60 days in jail if convicted of the charge, which stemmed from an altercation at his apartment. Holder acccused Hardy of slamming her into a bed covered with guns, and threatening to shoot her.
Hardy’s attorneys have characterized her as the aggressor.
Her testimony will likely be vital to the case, and since the two are not married, there is no spousal privilege which prevents her from testifying.
Permalink 12 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Carolina Panthers, Home, Rumor Mill
12 Responses to “Greg Hardy’s accuser subpoenaed to testify against him”
  1. thepftpoet says: Jun 24, 2014 7:20 PM

    As a lawyer, I love jury trials.

    More fun + More Money.

  2. qdog112 says: Jun 24, 2014 8:19 PM

    With the worse governor and state legislature in America, prosecution will be handled by the “ghost of Jesse Helms.”

    He will be sporting a plaid used car salesman jacket, a Dixie flag for a tie and his famous, birth control glasses. Everything will be fair and balanced.

  3. goodtogo28 says: Jun 24, 2014 8:34 PM

    and ray rice will appear as hardy’s character witness.

  4. stoptrippn says: Jun 24, 2014 8:49 PM

    She won’t testify

  5. kappy32 says: Jun 24, 2014 8:56 PM

    @thepftpoet

    That’s if you’re lucky enough to get a client that will actually pay for a trial. I charge a flat retainer fee of $2500 per misdemeanor, and $5000 per felony. Depending on the severity of the situation & the expected time needed to spend on the case, I will cap it at $15000-$20000, especially in “charge stacking” situations. That retainer covers expenses “up until trial,” and it covers “motion practice & subsequent pretrial hearings.” Only about 50% of my criminal cases actually get to pretrial hearings, and only about 10% go to trial. When it comes to trying cases, I charge $1000 per day, and in the rare case there is money left on the retainer, I will apply that to the trial fees to offset what is owed. Unfortunately, in most cases, I can’t expect a client to come up with $5000 right then & there, on the spot. More times than not, I need to bill for the trial costs & I’m lucky if I get 1 day ($1000) before the trial starts. If the trial goes bad & the client is found guilty – regardless of his/her actual culpability – I would have a better chance of having dinner with Big Foot in Times Square; I’m just not seeing the money. In the more likely scenario where I win at trial, I have a better chance of seeing my money, but not a great chance at all. Once people feel their lawyer is no longer needed they feel they don’t have to pay you. That is even more true when they no longer have the guillotine of the justice system about to come crashing down on their neck. What is my recourse at that point? Sue the client for unpaid fees? Bring a client to arbitration? If I do that, then I fill the stereotype of a money-hungry lawyer. Word travels fast & it could hurt my ability to get new clients through referral. Forget about the fact that I busted my rear end & helped someone navigate one of the most difficult times of their lives. Once you get the label of a money-first lawyer – regardless of the veracity of that label – you can almost never shake it. I agree that trials are much more fun than basic appearances, and MUCH more fun than motion practice, but I disagree that it is more lucrative. The only time it is a profit-making venture is when you get trial fees up front from a well-off client.

  6. gobs56 says: Jun 24, 2014 10:43 PM

    @kappy32

    Wish I knew you8 months ago!

  7. jets13 says: Jun 24, 2014 10:56 PM

    @thepftpoet

    That’s if you’re lucky enough to get a client that will actually pay for a trial. I charge a flat retainer fee of $2500 per misdemeanor, and $5000 per felony. Depending on the severity of the situation & the expected time needed to spend on the case, I will cap it at $15000-$20000, especially in “charge stacking” situations. That retainer covers expenses “up until trial,” and it covers “motion practice & subsequent pretrial hearings.” Only about 50% of my criminal cases actually get to pretrial hearings, and only about 10% go to trial. When it comes to trying cases, I charge $1000 per day, and in the rare case there is money left on the retainer, I will apply that to the trial fees to offset what is owed. Unfortunately, in most cases, I can’t expect a client to come up with $5000 right then & there, on the spot. More times than not, I need to bill for the trial costs & I’m lucky if I get 1 day ($1000) before the trial starts. If the trial goes bad & the client is found guilty – regardless of his/her actual culpability – I would have a better chance of having dinner with Big Foot in Times Square; I’m just not seeing the money. In the more likely scenario where I win at trial, I have a better chance of seeing my money, but not a great chance at all. Once people feel their lawyer is no longer needed they feel they don’t have to pay you. That is even more true when they no longer have the guillotine of the justice system about to come crashing down on their neck. What is my recourse at that point? Sue the client for unpaid fees? Bring a client to arbitration? If I do that, then I fill the stereotype of a money-hungry lawyer. Word travels fast & it could hurt my ability to get new clients through referral. Forget about the fact that I busted my rear end & helped someone navigate one of the most difficult times of their lives. Once you get the label of a money-first lawyer – regardless of the veracity of that label – you can almost never shake it. I agree that trials are much more fun than basic appearances, and MUCH more fun than motion practice, but I disagree that it is more lucrative. The only time it is a profit-making venture is when you get trial fees up front from a well-off client.

    ———————————-

    Whatever he said.

  8. huskywolverine says: Jun 24, 2014 11:16 PM

    kappy32 – I’m an attorney as well, and not sure how wise it is to be posting the information you just did on a public message board. Might want to check your local bar rules on attorney marketing and other related disclosures lol.

    Just trying to help a brotha out…

  9. gpenpilot says: Jun 24, 2014 11:55 PM

    And when he becomes unavailable at some point in his career due to suspension for off the field issues no one should be suprised. Panthers have taken the risk of drafting low character high potential guys the last few years and it’s starting to show it’s face now. One of the worst teams in football right now

  10. carolina1cam says: Jun 25, 2014 4:28 AM

    Dude, you just posted that BOOK in a COMMENTS section.

  11. jgedgar70 says: Jun 25, 2014 8:36 AM

    Let’s not forget that her lawyer showed up for Hardy’s bond hearing with tales of a woman beaten down to raw hamburger meat, a weapons arsenal that would make Charlton Heston blush, and an out-of-control football player using a woman as a football all over his condo. And what was his proof? “Well, that’s what she said happened. You just have to believe us.”

    Nothing will come of this. Hardy’s “girlfriend” will be exposed as a publicity hound who will do anything (and anyone) to get on TV and get millions of dollars for doing nothing. It will end quickly, Hardy can move on to training camp and Holder will move on to trying to find some other celebrity to serve as her meal ticket.

  12. mangombia says: Jun 25, 2014 11:45 AM

    1. If she doesn’t show up, she’ll go to jail for contempt.
    2. She’ll have to testify
    3. Even if she was his wife, she’d have to testify since the spousal privilege only protects confidential communications between spouses. Hitting and choking someone are not communications. I’m not sure threatening to kill someone would constitute a confidential communication.

Leave a Reply

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