Greg Hardy Crime
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Panthers Pro Bowl defensive end Greg Hardy was found guilty Tuesday night of assaulting a female and communicating threats.
3 of 9 4 of 9 Dallas Cowboys defensive end Greg Hardy (76) looks on from the sidelines during an NFL football game against the Seattle Seahawks Sunday, Nov. 1, 2015, in Arlington, Texas. There is a difference between Ray Rice and Greg Hardy. It’s a word that begins with a “V,” ends with an “O” and has “I-D-E” in the middle. — Kevin Seifert (@SeifertESPN) April 5, 2016.
Greg Hardy Crime
Mecklenburg County Judge Rebecca Thorn-Tin sentenced Hardy to 18 months' probation. A 60-day jail sentence was suspended.
Hardy's attorney Chris Fialko said he'll appeal and Hardy has asked for a jury trial in superior court. In North Carolina that means the terms of Hardy's probation are on hold until the trial -- so he's free to travel with the team to training camp and compete in games.
A date for the jury trial hasn't been set.
Greg Hardy Crimes
The Panthers released a statement Tuesday night saying, 'We have just learned of the verdict and are respectful of the process. We do not have a comment at this time.'
Hardy and his agent Drew Rosenhaus refused to comment as they left the courtroom together.
The judge didn't buy Hardy's testimony that he was the one abused by the accuser and that he had asked her to leave his downtown apartment during a domestic dispute on May 13.
After nearly 11 hours of hearing testimony, Thorn-Tin told a somber Hardy that 'the court is entirely convinced Hardy is guilty of assault on a female and communicating threats.'
Earlier in the morning the accuser testified that she was assaulted by Hardy at his apartment after a night of drinking. She also said Hardy threatened to kill her and put his hands around her neck.
'He looked me in my eyes and he told me he was going to kill me,' said the accuser, a 24-year-old cocktail waitress in downtown Charlotte. 'I was so scared I wanted to die. When he loosened his grip slightly, I said just, `Do it. Kill me.'
The accuser said she had used cocaine on the night of the incident and had been drinking.
She described Hardy as jealous and controlling, mentioning several times that Hardy didn't allow her do some things because he often paid her rent. She said she didn't immediately give police a statement out of fear of retribution.
'He had told me in past if I took food out of his family's mouth he was going to kill me,' the accuser said.
Hardy and his business manager Sammy Curtis both testified that Hardy never hit nor threw the accuser, and didn't communicate threats. Hardy said the accuser became angry when he wouldn't have sex with her and left the room to sleep in the living room. He said the accuser then became angry and began slamming doors.
Hardy said the accuser then asked him, 'Do you want to see crazy? I'll show you crazy.'
Hardy said she threw herself into the bathtub, causing the bruises she had on her body. Hardy said she also threatened to kill herself if she left his building.
However, Thorn-Tin seemed more inclined to believe the testimony of the accuser and the prosecution's top witness, Christina Lawrence, another woman who was in Hardy's apartment at the time of the incident.
Lawrence said she was sleeping in the other room with a friend of Hardy's when she heard scuffling and fighting and what sounded like a woman being slammed into the wall and dragged across the floor. She said she also heard the accuser say, 'What are you going to do, break my arm?'
Hardy and his accuser began dating last September, but had broken up at the Pro Bowl in February. Hardy said they had had sexual relations 'five or six times' since.
Hardy's play on the field has been dynamic. He's been a key member of Carolina's second-ranked defense, finishing last season with 15 sacks. The Panthers led the league last season with 50 sacks.
In four seasons with the Panthers, Hardy has 33 sacks, 26 in the last two seasons. He signed a $13.1 million, one-year contract in March as the team's franchise player.
It's unclear at this point how the verdict will affect Hardy's long-term future with the Panthers.
The team is particularly sensitive to domestic violence issues, particularly in light of their history with wide receiver Rae Carruth. Carruth was found guilty of conspiring to murder his girlfriend, Cherica Adams, who was carrying his child. He was sentenced to 18 to 24 years in prison and remains in jail.
The domestic violence case against Carolina Panther Greg Hardy was dismissed this week. According to the Charlotte Observer, a principal reason was that the alleged victim, Hardy’s ex-girlfriend, refused to cooperate and avoided service of a subpoena. Prosecutors also told the judge that the alleged victim had reached a civil settlement with Hardy. To be clear, no one has said that the settlement agreement required the alleged victim not to cooperate. But could the agreement contain such a provision?
Not ethically. Rule 3.4 provides that a lawyer shall not “obstruct another party’s access to evidence,” and specifically, shall not “counsel or assist a witness to hide or leave the jurisdiction for the purpose of being unavailable as a witness.” Several ethics opinions clarify and amplify the rule.
Victims may agree to support dismissal or a favorable plea agreement, but may not agree to refuse to testify or to withhold evidence. RPC 225 addresses the interplay of civil and criminal proceedings. It indicates that it would be proper for Hardy’s lawyers to discuss the settlement of the alleged victim’s civil claims in conjunction with a discussion of the alleged victim’s cooperation in obtaining a plea agreement or a dismissal of the charges against Hardy. But any civil settlement could not ethically include:
- “[M]aking the settlement of the . . . civil claims contingent upon the content of the testimony of the [alleged victim] or upon the outcome of the [criminal] case.”
- Any terms that “result in a witness’s refusal to testify or the withholding of factual information from the court.” 98 FEO 2 (ruling that lawyers generally may not advise their clients to evade service of process or explain how to do so).
The idea that an alleged victim may offer some assistance in a defendant’s criminal case in exchange for a favorable civil settlement is also reflected in 98 FEO 19 (stating that a victim’s attorney ethically may “propos[e] that [a] [v]ictim will acquiesce to [a favorable] plea agreement in exchange for a confession of judgment from [a defendant]”). That opinion also contains cautionary language to the effect that a victim’s lawyer “may not imply that the lawyer has the ability to interfere with the due administration of justice and the criminal proceedings or that the client will enter into any agreement to falsify evidence.”
Victims may agree not to report crimes. Although not directly relevant, it is also worth noting 2008 FEO 15, which provides that so long as “the agreement does not constitute the criminal offense of compounding a crime and is not otherwise illegal, and does not contemplate the fabrication, concealment, or destruction of evidence, a lawyer may participate in a settlement agreement of a civil claim that includes a non-reporting provision prohibiting the plaintiff from reporting the defendant’s conduct to law enforcement authorities.” That opinion, too, reminds attorneys to avoid involvement in the obstruction of justice, saying that lawyers “must also be careful to avoid any implication that the settlement includes the client’s agreement to testify falsely or to evade a subpoena in a criminal proceeding should criminal charges subsequently be brought by the authorities. Such conduct clearly violates the prohibitions in Rule 3.4(a) and (b) on counseling or assisting another to destroy or hide evidence, testify falsely, or avoid serving as a witness.”
The bottom line. Civil settlement agreements generally may be conditioned on:
- A victim’s non-reporting of a crime
- A victim’s support for a favorable plea agreement
- A victim’s support for a dismissal
They may not be conditioned on:
- The content of a victim’s testimony
- The outcome of the criminal case
- A victim’s refusal to testify
- A victim’s evasion of service
The victim also may not receive more compensation than he or she is entitled to under applicable civil law. In other words, the victim may not use the threat of reporting a crime or opposing a plea agreement to extort a greater settlement than he or she deserves. 98 FEO 19.
Finally, when there are negotiations between an alleged victim and a defendant, the prosecutor should be notified. RPC 225 (stating that “the district attorney responsible for the case should be advised of the discussions”).