Deshaun Watson grand jury wanted to hear from only one alleged victim

USA TODAY Sports

The grand jury considering the nine criminal complaints against Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson ultimately decided not to charge him in any case. According to Jenny Vrentas and Kevin Draper of the New York Times, the grand jury ultimately heard testimony from only one of the alleged victims.

Per the Times, “several” of the women were present and ready to testify. A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that five of the women were there.

According to PFT’s source, the prosecutor presented evidence regarding all nine claims to the grand jury. The grand jury ultimately wanted to hear directly from one of them.

Two of the cases presented a higher potential of an indictment. None of the nine resulted in the grand jury charging Watson.

Watson’s camp had been quietly optimistic that the allegations against, even if accepted as true, did not amount to crimes. The grand jury apparently agreed.

As we’ve previously explained, indictments often hinge on the zeal applied by the prosecutor. If the prosecutor wants to indict a suspect, it’s not hard to do — since the defendant has no representation in the process. If the prosecutor doesn’t want to indict a suspect, it’s also not hard to do. The prosecutor controls what is and isn’t presented, and a skilled prosecutor can nudge a grand jury in a desired direction.

So why wouldn’t the prosecutor in this case not want an indictment of Watson? Possibly, she truly believed no crimes had been committed. It’s also possible that she believed she would not be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, even if she believed that Watson had crossed the line.

There’s a fundamental difference between factual guilt and legal guilt. Plenty of people are factually guilty, but the court system can’t prove that they are legally guilty. As to Watson, the criminal process has ended. On the civil side, 22 cases remain. In one or more of those cases, a jury eventually could conclude that he violated the legal rights of the women who are suing him, under the much lower legal standard of preponderance of the evidence.

32 responses to “Deshaun Watson grand jury wanted to hear from only one alleged victim

  1. Possibly, she truly believed no crimes had been committed. It’s also possible that she believed she would not be able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial,
    +++++
    I can think of a third possibility. It involves charitable contributions.

  2. And yet another failure of the justice system, We have nine people ready to testify, but no we only will take testimony from one. Shame, Shame.

  3. Watson and his team believed this was a money grab from the beginning. On the other side the ambulance chasing lawyer was out recruiting more victims to force them to settle. They refused and here we are today.

  4. Money grab from day 1 !!! Watson will be playing in the NFL by week 7 this upcoming season.

  5. To me, it sounds like the grand jury fumbled the ball. All nine victims deserved to be heard before a decision was rendered. But, really, this doesn’t vindicate Watson. It doesn’t prove or disprove any potential guilt. There’s still a long list of women who’ve made credible accusations. Even if those women ultimately accept payouts (which is the only real option in a civil case, either out of court settlements or a judge/jury awarding settlements), it still doesn’t say anything about whether Watson is guilty or not.

  6. myvietnamwasfightingtheclap says:
    March 11, 2022 at 8:07 pm

    The Law determines fact, ya numbskull.

    ——————————————————————————

    Criminal cases determine facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Florio’s description was absolutely correct.

  7. jjfootball says:
    March 11, 2022 at 7:32 pm
    One person?
    ——————————————————————————————————————
    From why I’ve read, the jury reviewed all the packets submitted as evidence over a six hour time period. They only had questions on one, which is why they only called one person to hear testimony before deciding not to indict.

  8. myvietnamwasfightingtheclap says: “The Law determines fact, ya numbskull.” In criminal cases, being found not guilty doesn’t mean innocence. It just means you weren’t found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of a judge and/or jury. In this case, there wasn’t a trial, just a grand jury who only wanted to hear from 11% of the alleged victims. Maybe they didn’t find her credible, and maybe they would have found the others more credible, but I think they were in a hurry to get it over with (having served on juries, sometimes that happens). Again, lack of indictment doesn’t mean he’s factually guilty or factually innocent.

  9. Sadly, far too many men miss the nuance that lack of an indictment does NOT mean innocent.
    They will, instead, see this as a simple money grab and blame the women, which will only perpetuate the reality that women have to face abuse and assault on a regular basis, and with no repurcussions for the men who do it.

  10. The difference between criminal standard of guilt and civil standards of liability is what doomed OJ.

  11. “As to Watson, the criminal process has ended”.
    Most likely, tho one could reconvene.

  12. For those that don’t get factual guilt and legal guilt…. O.J. Simpson and George Zimmerman ring a bell?

  13. Couldn’t this encourage to Watson to quickly settle all out of court and be done with it all, and able to play?

  14. There is no such thing as non legal guilt. Guilty is a court term. The rest is just blather.

  15. One individual had 20+ different massage therapist’s all submitt similar claims and there wasn’t enough to pursue a criminal case? Logic says, who in their right mind needs that many massage therapists in the first place? Doesn’t that scream ‘pattern of behavior’? I hope those civil suits bleed him for a lot.

  16. A couple of observations. First, believe it or not, a prosecutor’s job is not to convict, but to seek the truth. Some who are eyeing bigger and better political things will try to get more convictions or to prosecute the more public cases, even if they know they won’t get a conviction.

    To me, and from everything I’ve read that is actually factual to this point, it indeed has seemed far more likely that “the allegations against, even if accepted as true, did not amount to crimes.”

    In other words, it’s been a money grab all along, and the grand jury did was it was supposed to do – examine the evidence presented and determine whether any of the cases should go forward to trial. I think we should respect their determinations. After all, they were in a much better place than any of us to actually make them based on facts, as opposed to suppositions.

  17. celtyislove says:
    March 11, 2022 at 8:44 pm

    To me, it sounds like the grand jury fumbled the ball. All nine victims deserved to be heard before a decision was rendered.

    ———————————————————————————

    They were heard. The prosecution talked to all of them. They presented their case to the grand jury. The grand jury decided they wanted to hear more from one of the women. They did.

  18. Lol this place went full witch hunt… meanwhile, reality is it’s not even worth a real courts time. Yikes.

  19. He hasn’t played in two years. The NFL can still punish him. He seems to be a diva who may refuse to play if he feels slighted. He’s clearly a little sketchy.

    Yet teams are willing to mortgage their future on Watson, despite his baggage than get Jimmy Garrapolo for free. Conclusion: Jimmy G is terrible.

  20. Good lawyers are great when you need them… they got OJ Off when he was clearly guilty.

  21. According to Jenny Vrentas and Kevin Draper of the New York Times, the grand jury ultimately heard testimony from only one of the alleged victims
    ================================

    Sure looks like the Grand Jury had their minds made up before hearing from even one of the victims and wanting to hear from only one when there was 5 others, things that make you go “HMMMMMMMMM”!

    I wonder who got to the Grand Jury, it’s crystal clear someone did! There should be an investigation into this. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see something stinks to high heaven about this whole deal and the way it went down!

    So it looks like Watson’s legal troubles are over but not the civil ones, I think $2mil each should keep this from going to the courts which require a much lower level of proof!
    Remember OJ beat the criminal charges but he couldn’t beat the civil charges.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.