Mike Adams stabbing trial features two sharply different theories

Getty Images

Back when I was practicing law for a living and doing this as a hobby that went from paying nothing to paying a little to paying enough to stick my law license in the cushions of a couch and burn it, I’d explain at the start of the trial that the opening statement is the picture on the cover of a puzzle box, and that the jury eventually will piece the puzzle together to make that very picture.

For the trial of three men accused of stabbing Steelers tackle Mike Adams, the pictures on the puzzle box couldn’t be much different.

As explained by Paula Reed Ward of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the prosecution claims that three men stabbed Adams last year during an attempted carjacking.  The defense claims that Adams was drunk and obnoxious, that he bumped into one of the men, who dropped his cell phone and shish kebab, and that a fight ensued.

The lawyers representing the defendants continue to insist that Adams is lying to protect himself at work.

“Mike Adams has a huge, multimillion-dollar motive to lie,” attorney Fred Rabner said.  “Being out at 3 o’clock in the morning, drunk, is not the Steelers’ way.”

Strengthening the defense is the fact that Adams had a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.185 percent, more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent.

Adams still ended up being stabbed, but it will be difficult to eliminate reasonable doubt on the pending charges of attempted murder, conspiracy, and attempted robbery, especially in light of Adams’ inebriation.  Not only does his alcohol content make the defendants’ theory of the case more likely but it also makes it hard to rely on Adams’ recollection of the events in question.

The defendants also claim that Adams’ story has changed along the way, which again makes it hard to eliminate reasonable doubt.

It’s still early, but the prosecution in this case is facing an uphill climb.  The best chance of a conviction could arise if one or more of the three defendants opt to take the stand, and if they can be caught in one or more lies while testifying.

11 responses to “Mike Adams stabbing trial features two sharply different theories

  1. As soon as the lawyer said “Being out drunk at 3 AM is not the Steeler’s way”, the judge slammed down his gavel and shouted “Guilty!”. Everyone in the courtroom knew the guy was lying at that point.

  2. I’m confused. Was the law license burned or the couch?

    Why would a puzzle box have more than one picture on it?

    Please don’t burn the remedial English text that was sent to you.

  3. Are they trying to prove a motive or trying to prove self-defense? Motive is never a legal defense, self-defense is but theyre going to have to do better than Adams bumping into one of them if they want to invoke self defense as a cause for attempted murder.

    If these guys get of scott free simply by the fact Adams was beyond the legal drinking limit then there is something seriously wrong with our court system. The man was stabbed.

  4. Will he be marrying the person he fought with? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  5. I’m confused. Are you saying he deserved it because he was drunk, and one of these fine gentlemen lost his shish kebab? I guess we can now stab every drunk, obnoxious person that’s out at 3 a.m. without repercussion.

  6. At what point did the DUI limit become the ‘legal limit’ for walking around?

    0.08% is set low for a reason and is easily crossed with half a dozen beers on a Friday night at the bar. Might be a little tipsy, but there’s no crime in that and it’s not the ‘legal limit’. And certainly not reason to get stabbed!

Leave a Reply

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