[ad_1]
Jabari Bird, Boston Celtics' guard, faces multiple charges resulting from a domestic violence incident last Friday in the Boston area apartment at Bird. Bird, who had been arrested by the Boston Police Department, had been treated for reasons not disclosed in a Boston-area hospital until his appearance at the Brighton Municipal Court on Thursday. The 24-year-old is accused of choking, kidnapping and assaulting a woman with whom he had a romantic relationship.
The alleged victim, a student who had frequented Bird, was strangled to the point of unconsciousness. Prosecutors in the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office also claim that Bird threw the alleged victim against the wall, dragged her by the ankles and blocked her multiple attempts to exit her apartment. The alleged attack took place over a period of hours, some of which hid under a bed and locked themselves in a bathroom. She was hospitalized for multiple injuries. Bird pleaded not guilty to the charges and is held in a detention cell with a $ 50,000 bail.
Although important details regarding the incident remain unknown at this time, the alleged victim, Bird, the Celtics and the NBA each have significant legal interests in what happens next.
The alleged victim
For the alleged victim, the immediate concern is healing of wounds. The specific type and extent of injuries are unknown, although the throttling load suggests neck injuries. Strangulation injuries can range from temporary cuts and bruises on the neck to more severe lesions of the voice box, trachea, main arteries and, if oxygen is cut off, to the brain. Emotional and psychological wounds are also common among victims of domestic violence.
The alleged victim will also be a crucial witness for prosecutors. He will be asked to explain what happened during the meeting with Bird and the broader context of the incident – including the history of his relationship with Bird and the circumstances that led to it. immediately preceded the alleged attack.
The willingness of the alleged victim to participate in the lawsuits brought by Bird will be an integral part of the case. Prosecutors often hesitate in domestic violence cases if the alleged victim is unwilling to testify. This is because the burden of the prosecutors is heavy: to obtain a conviction, they must convince all jurors beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. The extent to which the testimony of the alleged victim of Bird will be essential to the prosecution is unknown. In this sense, it is unclear whether there is physical and electronic evidence, such as images of surveillance cameras, videos, audio, text, and emails linking or separating Bird from the crime. Any communication between the alleged victim and Bird and between them and other persons at the time of the incident will be carefully reviewed by police and prosecutors.
Craig F. Walker / The Boston Globe via Getty Images
Jabari Bird
For Bird, the immediate concern is not his fledgling NBA career, but rather to have frank conversations with his attorneys. In order for Bird's lawyers to successfully complete a successful defense, Bird will have to provide all relevant details regarding the incident. He will also share ideas and candid stories about his relationship with the alleged victim.
Legally, Bird has something to worry about. Convictions for one of the three charges against him could cause him to spend months or even years behind bars. In addition, there are "aggravating factors", for example if Bird was armed or if the victim suffered a "serious bodily injury" (according to Massachusetts law, permanent disfigurement, loss or alteration of the body). a bodily function, organ, or a substantial risk of death), the duration of a potential prison sentence would increase considerably.
With respect to the charges, the assault and battery fall under Chapter 265 of the Massachusetts General Law, Section 13A. Prosecutors will have to prove that Bird intentionally touched the victim without his consent or did so recklessly and caused bodily harm. In the absence of aggravating factors, domestic assault and a charge of indictment constitute a crime and are punishable by up to two and a half years' imprisonment. However, the charge can be elevated to a crime if certain circumstances exist. For example, Bird could face a crime charge if the victim was seriously injured or was pregnant, or Bird violated a restraining order to stay away from the victim. In any of these scenarios, Bird could be sentenced to five years in prison.
A charge of strangulation falls under Chapter 265 of the Massachusetts General Law, Section 15. It is a crime that can result in a five-year prison sentence. If there are aggravating circumstances, including if the victim has suffered serious bodily injury or if Bird has violated a restraining order, the potential penalty would increase to 10 years in prison.
Finally, the charge of kidnapping comes under section 265 of chapter 265 of the Massachusetts General Act. By law, the term "kidnapping" has a broader definition than the way this term is generally understood. The abduction can result in the illegal abduction of a person – the conventional definition – or by the illegal detention of a person, for example not leaving anyone a leave a apartment, a bathroom or any other confined space. A conviction for kidnapping can result in a 10-year prison sentence. If aggravating circumstances were present, for example, if Bird was armed with a firearm and was causing serious bodily harm, the minimum term of imprisonment would be 25 years and the maximum would become life.
While the discussion above suggests that Bird could face several years or even decades of prison, a more realistic assessment is that he would face much less time. On the one hand, it does not appear that Bird has a criminal record. The absence of a criminal record would mean that Bird is not considered a recidivist or a person who "did not learn his lesson" the first time. Instead, he would be considered more favorably – someone who allegedly committed a criminal error for the first time. It is also possible that there are no aggravating factors; If this turns out to be true, Bird would avoid the possibility of very long prison terms. In addition, judges may sentence the accused at the same time (sentences are executed at the same time) rather than consecutively (sentences being consecutive, which would obviously be worse for the accused). If Bird reaches an agreement with prosecutors, he could negotiate a sentence that would include a combination of participation in a diversion, probation, probation, and community service program instead of staying long behind bars. Many factors are at stake, including the quality of the lawyer. Big picture, though: the maximum length of jail time that bird faces should not be perceived as what they would actually do if they were found guilty.
That Bird is convicted is another important consideration. We must still hear his legal defense or his aspect of history (if he proposes one). People have been wrongly accused and Bird is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The fact that he is hospitalized is potentially relevant. It is unclear whether he suffered physical injuries, such as defensive wounds, or whether he is psychologically evaluated, or both. Depending on the circumstances, self-defense is a possible defense and is often invoked by the accused in assault and battery cases. That said, it should be noted that Bird does not appear to have suffered any injuries during his court appearance on Thursday. Although his suit and other clothing could have masked some types of injuries, his head, face, neck and hands were not injured and he was walking normally.
Another potential defense might reflect Bird's psychological state at the time of the incident. A defense of "insanity" would acknowledge that Bird has committed the act, but argues that, due to a compromised mental state, he had no legal liability. If his lawyers raised such a defense, they would argue that Bird could not understand the good of the harm or was unable to discern the consequences of his behavior. Such a defense is considered very difficult to prove, especially if the defendant has no clinical history of mental illness. If Bird had been hospitalized for a mental health problem since Friday, his clinical history could become relevant to his defense.
Bird issued a statement Thursday referring to a health problem. He noted that he "was moving away from the team while I was dealing with my legal and medical issues". Bird's reference to the word "medical" is another sign that he might consider using a legal defense that integrates mental health. This could also play a role in its contractual relationship with the Celtics and the NBA (see below).
Boston Celtics
The Celtics are clear players in Bird's legal situation. Bird is an employee of the franchise. Although he is one of the least known players on the team (despite the same family name as Larry Bird, legend of the Celtics), Bird's identity as a Celtics player connects him publicly – and his reputation – to the franchise. The team obviously does not want to be associated with players who beat their loved ones.
It remains to be seen whether the team decides to release Bird based on his arrest or is waiting to see if Bird is found guilty or found not guilty. The Celtics issued a statement Thursday in which they expressed their "thoughts with the victim". They also said that the organization "deplores domestic violence of any kind" and is "deeply disturbed by the allegations against Jabari Bird".
The Celtics drafted Bird in California in the second round of the 2017 NBA draft. He impressed the team with his development. Bird averaged 19 points per game last season with the Maine G-League Red Claws and then dominated the competition at the recent Summer League. Bird is very appreciated for his defense and for his well-balanced game. He is also, in all respects, a good teammate and a hard worker.
In July, the Celtics signed a two-year contract and $ 2.94 million with Bird. Only the first year, where Bird will be paid $ 1.35 million, is guaranteed. Bird's relatively modest contract reflects the small role he should play in a team that includes tremendous training from Kyrie Irving, Jaylen Brown, Gordon Hayward, Jayson Tatum and Al Horford and a deep bench. Although Bird is only a minor figure on the list, it is a list with a realistic chance of winning the NBA title. Bird's future looked bright: he is a promising young player on a team that could go all the way.
This has changed. While the Celtics continue to conduct investigations while awaiting Bird's legal process, the team may decide to sever ties with Bird. As noted above, Bird's contract is structured to secure $ 1.35 million for the 2018-19 season, while its $ 1.59 million salary for 2019-2020 is not guaranteed. If the Celtics gave up Bird now, it would be through the classic process of releasing a player. As a result, the team owes Bird its guaranteed amount ($ 1.35 million). Such an amount would continue to be charged to the team for the purposes of the salary cap and the luxury tax.
However, depending on how the legal process unfolds, the Celtics could possibly interpret the "guaranteed" part of Bird's contract as no longer warranted. First, pursuant to Article 16 of the Uniform Player Agreement, an NBA team has the right to terminate a player's contract ifto conform his personal conduct to standards of good citizenship, good moral character (defined here as meaning not to engage in acts of moral turpitude, whether or not such acts constitute a crime) and good sportsmanship."Paragraph 16 states that the termination process requires the player to be placed in derogation; if unclaimed, all the obligations of the team to pay the player compensation "will cease on the date of termination. "A player whose contract is terminated under this procedure has the right to challenge it before a grievance arbitrator, who is neutral. Exhibit 2 of the Uniform Actor Code of Conduct also states that the base salary will not be paid if a player is found guilty, pleads guilty or does not contest any crime.
Given that Bird is probably the "15th man" on the team and given the worrisome aspects of the charge, the team could refuse to give him the benefit of the doubt. As a signal that the team could move in this direction, the Celtics have developed on Tuesday the guardian free agent Marcus Georges-Hunt. On the other hand, the team may want to learn more facts – including Bird's explanation, if he has one – before letting Bird go and thus avoiding the perception of rush to judgment.
In addition, the last time the Celtics accused a player of domestic violence, the team kept him. In 2013, the Celtics suspended striker Jared Sullinger – who had been charged with assault and battery and intimidating a witness after he allegedly tackled his girlfriend on a bed and on the floor – for a match. An important difference: the Celtics punished Sullinger only after the charges were dropped and only after Sullinger acknowledged a misjudgment; With Bird, the Celtics can look for a faster resolution. In addition, the world is different in 2018 than in 2013. The #MeToo movement has raised public awareness of the abuse of women by violent men and has consequently led employers to become less tolerant of employees accused of such abuse. wrongdoing.
Rather than cutting Bird – which would have the undesirable consequence of him paying a lot of money as soon as he is accused of horrible driving – the Celtics seem inclined to monitor Bird's interaction with the policy of spousal violence of the NBA and the National Basketball Players Association. . In accordance with Article 16 and Exhibit F of the collective agreement (see below), the common policy has priority over any team policy. In other words, unless the Celtics want to pay $ 1.35 million to a man accused of brutally beating a young woman, the team has to wait to see how the NBA and the NBPA investigate and judge Bird. Celtics' statement expresses this point of view: "In accordance with the domestic violence policy of the NBA employment contract, such matters are dealt with by the league office and not by the team. authorities to assist in their ongoing investigations. In addition, if the NBA punishes Bird, the clause "a penalty" detailed in the CBA will be executed: Under Article VI, the NBA and a team do not discipline a player for the same act or conduct.
NBA
The NBA and NBPA have negotiated a common policy on domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse. The policy, which came into force in July 2017, appears in Exhibit F of the collective agreement. It states that acts of domestic violence "are prohibited at any time and regardless of where they occur". The policy defines "domestic violence" as encompassing many types of violence and threats of violence, includingany act of violence committed or attempted by a party in an intimate or family relationship with another party in that relationship. Such an act may include physical aggression or battery, sexual assault, harassment or other forms of physical or psychological abuse. It may also be behavior that intimidates, manipulates, humiliates, isolates, scares, terrorizes, coerced, threatens, injures or places another person in fear of bodily harm."
The policy also charges a "policy committee" with significant powers, including the creation of a "treatment and accountability plan" for an actor involved in domestic violence. Such a plan may require the player to undergo psychological tests and other assessments and to participate in counseling sessions. A player's failure to abide by the plan may result in fines and suspensions. Regarding the composition of the policy committee, it is made up of two NBA members, two from the NBPA and three independent experts specializing in domestic violence, sexual assault and / or child abuse. The decisions of the committee are made by a majority of votes and are final, binding and without appeal.
In addition to the policy committee that could examine Bird's situation, the NBA itself can, almost certainly, investigate the allegations against Bird. The NBA survey may include the use of third party resources such as outside legal counsel, external investigators and other people with relevant expertise. In accordance with the policy, Bird is expected to cooperate fully with the NBA unless it is reasonably confident that this would compromise his defense in criminal proceedings. The cooperation would imply that Bird agrees to be interviewed by NBA investigators with a representative of the NBPA present; If Bird refuses without reason, he would be immediately suspended. Bird's lawyers may oppose the NBA interview for fear that the transcript of the interview will be vulnerable to a subpoena by prosecutors.
Meanwhile, NBA investigators will likely attempt to speak with the alleged victim and other witnesses. The policy makes it clear that if Bird attempted to enter into an agreement with the alleged victim (s) – such as paying for their silence – the NBA would interpret this type of transaction as uncooperative conduct and grounds for suspension.
During the investigation, Commissioner Adam Silver may decide to place Bird on what is called an "administrative leave". Such leave is equivalent to a paid suspension. In assessing whether it is appropriate to put Bird on leave, Silver will weigh the fact that Bird has already arrested and charged. This means that law enforcement authorities believe that Bird is guilty and that the charges are therefore more credible than if they resulted only in a civil lawsuit or another charge.
Silver will also consider the seriousness of the allegations, the extent of injuries sustained by the alleged victim, potential damage to the NBA's reputation if Bird was allowed to continue playing and other factors deemed relevant. by Silver. If Bird is put on administrative leave, he would continue to be paid by the Celtics and receive other employment-related benefits, such as health care and accumulated pension. Bird and the Celtics would also be allowed to ask permission from the NBA for Bird to participate in training and training on leave. However, since Bird will soon be pursued, the Celtics could avoid this option and stay away from Bird. In theory, Bird could challenge having been on paid administrative leave by filing a grievance with the league's grievance adjudicator. Such a challenge would likely fail because the Commissioner would have the full power to put Bird on leave.
If the league's investigation leads Silver to find that Bird has violated the common domestic violence policy, Silver could fine, suspend or ban Bird from the NBA. Admittedly, a ban would be improbable, especially since the policy mentions that repeat offenders are subject to enhanced discipline and that there is no known record of Bird as a repeat offender with the NBA. In determining Bird's punishment, Silver would take into account aggravating and mitigating factors. These factors would include the use of violence, the use of weapons during the assault, evidence of self-defense, acceptance of responsibility, and Bird's cooperation in the investigation. Bird should also be aware that any conviction, plea of guilty or lack of plea would constitute a definitive violation of the common policy on domestic violence. If Bird is suspended after being put on administrative leave, his leave time will be credited to the suspension as long as he will remit to the NBA the applicable portion of his salary that he has received on leave.
Although each incident of domestic violence is unique and not necessarily comparable, it should be noted that in February, the NBA suspended the Willie Reed center for six matches as part of the common policy against domestic violence. Reed, who played for the Detroit Pistons at the time, was suspended due to his arrest in 2017 for battery failure. The arrest follows an incident in which Reed was accused of wringing his wife's arm, grabbing her by the hair and knocking her to the ground during an argument during which she told her that she wanted to divorce. Reed solved the problem by entering a pre-trial intervention program. The NBA determined that a six-game suspension was appropriate because of "the outcome of the criminal case, the voluntary participation of Reed in [and] the program imposed by the court, among other factors.
Reed, 28, was the first player suspended under the common policy. The NBPA initially lodged a grievance regarding Reed's suspension, probably for the sake of precedent, but quickly abandoned the challenge. Reed served only part of the suspension before being traded by the Pistons to the Chicago Bulls and immediately gave up. If he joined an NBA squad, he would have to stay five games.
The potentially complicating role of mental health
As noted above, Bird may have been hospitalized in the last week for mental health reasons. If this is true, a separate CBA clause, Article XXII, would become relevant. Article XXII concerns the health and well-being of players. It dictates procedures related to players' mental health and their ability to play. It is too early to predict if and how Article XXII could be related to Bird's situation, but that is another reason for the Celtics and the NBA to act with caution.
The crossover you will keep abreast of developments in the field of birds.
Michael McCann is the legal analyst of SI. He is also Associate Dean of the University of New Hampshire School of Law and is the Editor and Co-Author of The Oxford Textbook of American Sports Law and Judicial Justice: The Story of My Battle Against the NCAA.
[ad_2]
Source link
