W3=Wiretap Willie Wade

May 4, 2012
7,300
4,491
I have been following the Wade situation closer than the others, but were any of those close to as egregious as Wade's? In Wade's situation the evidence is concrete (of an attempt). Unless the recording was a hoax.
They were worse. Actual evidence of money changing hands as opposed to an illegally leaked call transcript.
 
May 4, 2012
7,300
4,491
It really is astonishing that Will Wade is still the coach at LSU. Even if they can not prove any recruit was paid, attempting to pay a recruit should be a terminable offense in my opinion.
How much did he attempt to pay ?
 
Jul 14, 2011
1,163
1,538
Concrete evidence? You mean like, wiretap recordings?
I thought ( and I could definitely be wrong about this) that the content of the wiretaps was never formally released and was dropped by yahoo. That the FBI never made the actual recordings available to the NCAA. Not saying that the content isn’t accurate, but if that was the case then can’t it be considered heresay as the yahoo reporters would not be willing to give up the source?
 
May 4, 2012
7,300
4,491
I thought ( and I could definitely be wrong about this) that the content of the wiretaps was never formally released and was dropped by yahoo. That the FBI never made the actual recordings available to the NCAA. Not saying that the content isn’t accurate, but if that was the case then can’t it be considered heresay as the yahoo reporters would not be willing to give up the source?
Who heard recordings ? Ive never seen audio available. The FBI did not use them in the actions it did pursue as they had no proof of money offered much less paid. So they were never considered evidence. The defense released it for reasons of its own, presumably to paint a picture of "everybodys doing it".
But some of you simply hate Wade and will use any stick to beat him with. You are entitled of course but you really dont look good doing it.
 
Jul 14, 2011
1,163
1,538
Who heard recordings ? Ive never seen audio available. The FBI did not use them in the actions it did pursue as they had no proof of money offered much less paid. So they were never considered evidence. The defense released it for reasons of its own, presumably to paint a picture of "everybodys doing it".
But some of you simply hate Wade and will use any stick to beat him with. You are entitled of course but you really dont look good doing it.
Hey I’m not putting hate on Wade. Not saying he did or didn’t do it. Just was trying to explain how there is no concrete evidence.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,464
58,886
I thought ( and I could definitely be wrong about this) that the content of the wiretaps was never formally released and was dropped by yahoo. That the FBI never made the actual recordings available to the NCAA. Not saying that the content isn’t accurate, but if that was the case then can’t it be considered heresay as the yahoo reporters would not be willing to give up the source?
WARNING: Very long response ahead. Use your fast forward button liberally.

I am not sure how yahoo publishing the tape's contents or whether the NCAA asked for the tapes would impact the reliability of the evidence. Frank never denied that the tape was authentic or claimed that he did not say what was reported.

The tape was offered as evidence by Emanuel "Book" Richardson, a defendant in a federal trial, over Richardson's corruption. Richardson was apparently trying to argue that "everyone does it" by showing how corrupt Wade is. The judge (correctly in my view) concluded (after the tape was played in open court) that it was not relevant to Richardson's case and excluded it. He never suggested that the tape was not competent evidence of Wade's misdeeds.

As for the question whether it is hearsay, I'll give a little tutorial on the rule against hearsay on the off chance someone might find it interesting, but tl/dr, it probably isn't hearsay, but even if it were, it would almost certainly be admissible in a case involving Wade.

Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered "for the truth of the matter asserted." So if I testified that on a day in question Mistachill said "I can't find my umbrella," the statement would (likely) not be admissible to show that Mistachill couldn't find his umbrella on that day, but would be admissible to show circumstantially that it was raining or that rain was expected that day. Complicated I know.

The general rule excluding hearsay from evidence is further complicated by the fact that hearsay is defined to exclude (among other things) statements of opposing parties (a party's out of court statements can (often? usually?) be used against them). Like Frank's admission that he is a lying, cheating bum.

Also, the rule against hearsay is riddled with exceptions. The federal rules list 25 of them. (google Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804 and 807). The last exception, 807, is that hearsay is admissible, even if no other exception applies, if the source of the statement is otherwise reliable. Here, that would be an FBI wiretap.

So, very longwinded explanation of why the rule about hearsay is utterly, completely irrelevant here, as it is in 99.999% of instances in which non-lawyers use it to dismiss information. People are convicted and sent to prison, or even death row, based solely on hearsay evidence every single day.
 
Last edited:

Mistachill

Top Member
Apr 20, 2009
17,315
28,798
WARNING: Very long response ahead. Use your fast forward button liberally.

I am not sure how yahoo publishing the tape's contents or whether the NCAA asked for the tapes would impact the reliability of the evidence. Frank never denied that the tape was authentic or claimed that he did not say what was reported.

The tape was offered in evidence by Emanuel "Book" Richardson, a defendant in a federal trial, over Richardson's corruption. Richardson was apparently trying to argue that "everyone does it" by showing how corrupt Wade is. The judge (correctly in my view) concluded (after the tape was played in open court) that it was not relevant to Richardson's case and excluded it. He never suggested that the tape was not competent evidence of Wade's misdeeds.

As for the question whether it is hearsay, I'll give a little tutorial on the rule against hearsay on the off chance someone might find it interesting, but tl/dr, it probably isn't hearsay, but even if it were, it would almost certainly be admissible in a case involving Wade.

Hearsay is defined as an out of court statement offered "for the truth of the matter asserted." So if I testified that on a day in question Mistachill said "I can't find my umbrella," the statement would (likely) not be admissible to show that Mistachill couldn't find his umbrella on that day, but would be admissible to show that it was raining or that rain was expected that day. Complicated I know.

The general rule excluding hearsay from evidence is further complicated by the fact that hearsay is defined to exclude (among other things) statements of opposing parties (a party's out of court statements can (often? usually?) be used against them. Like Frank's admission that he is a lying, cheating bum.

Also, the rule against hearsay is riddled with exceptions. The federal rules list 25 of them. (google Federal Rules of Evidence 803, 804 and 807). The last exception, 807, is that hearsay is admissible, even if no other exception applies, if the source of the statement is otherwise reliable. Here, that would be an FBI wiretap.

So, very longwinded explanation of why the rule about hearsay is utterly, completely irrelevant here, as it is in 99.999% of instances in which non-lawyers use it to dismiss information. People are convicted and sent to prison, or even death row, based solely on hearsay evidence every single day.
Except I could be using the umbrella to block the sun if I were fair-skinned had worries about skin cancer.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,464
58,886
Except I could be using the umbrella to block the sun if I were fair-skinned had worries about skin cancer.
You could! And you would be permitted to argue that that is why you were looking for your umbrella!

People confuse admissibility with the weight of the proof. The statement I made up above wold be some circumstantial evidence that it was raining on that day, but it would not be evidence so strong as to preclude any contrary contention (very few trials involve evidence of that sort). If Marina Oswald had told the FBI that Lee cussed about JFK every day and said repeatedly "some day I am going to kill that guy," it would have been admissible at Lee's trial, but would not have prevented Lee from arguing that he was just blowing off steam or was bitching about his neighbor Jerry Franklin Kaplan.
 
Jul 14, 2011
1,163
1,538
WARNING: Very long response ahead. Use your fast forward button liberally.

I am not sure how yahoo publishing the tape's contents or whether the NCAA asked for the tapes would impact the reliability of the evidence. Frank never denied that the tape was authentic or claimed that he did not say what was reported.

The tape was offered as evidence by Emanuel "Book" Richardson, a defendant in a federal trial, over Richardson's corruption. Richardson was apparently trying to argue that "everyone does it" by showing how corrupt Wade is. The judge (correctly in my view) concluded (after the tape was played in open court) that it was not relevant to Richardson's case and excluded it. He never suggested that the tape was not competent evidence of Wade's misdeeds.
I guess I could write an article somewhere and state that I heard a tape of Mollen stating "I gave Nick Sherod a bigass offer to go to UofR". Therefore the NCAA must determine him ineligible because that is concrete evidence now? I don't know what the conversations between the NCAA and FBI are and what was confirmed. For all we know they could have asked about the tapes to which the FBI stated there were tapes but then couldn't comment on the content. IANAL so I could be totally wrong on all accounts but I could see how the NCAA wouldnt want to make a ruling because they know a tape is our there between Wade and the other guy and it the content has been reported but not confirmed by Yahoo. The only reason I said that I could see how NCAA considers it hearsay is because they are not getting the content straight from the source. In this case they are relying on what the Yahoo reporter was told by a source inside the courtroom who heard the tape.
 

N Mollen

Top Member
Insider
Jun 5, 2012
19,464
58,886
I guess I could write an article somewhere and state that I heard a tape of Mollen stating "I gave Nick Sherod a bigass offer to go to UofR". Therefore the NCAA must determine him ineligible because that is concrete evidence now? I don't know what the conversations between the NCAA and FBI are and what was confirmed. For all we know they could have asked about the tapes to which the FBI stated there were tapes but then couldn't comment on the content. IANAL so I could be totally wrong on all accounts but I could see how the NCAA wouldnt want to make a ruling because they know a tape is our there between Wade and the other guy and it the content has been reported but not confirmed by Yahoo. The only reason I said that I could see how NCAA considers it hearsay is because they are not getting the content straight from the source. In this case they are relying on what the Yahoo reporter was told by a source inside the courtroom who heard the tape.
I don't understand your response. The tape was played in court. It isn't a case of relying on something a yahoo reporter claims to have heard.