Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Update: Charges against Drew Ogletree dismissed with prejudice (merge). **Ogletree reinstated pg4 updated**


adubb84

Recommended Posts

Mod note: The last thread on this topic was locked because the discussion veered way off course. Please respect the site rules, and one another.

 

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/docs-charges-against-indianapolis-colts-te-andrew-ogletree-dismissed-with-prejudice/

Quote

 

INDIANAPOLIS — The domestic battery charges against Indianapolis Colts Tight End Andrew Ogletree have been dismissed, according to court documents filed on Tuesday in Hendricks County.

 

According to previous reports, Ogletree faced two felony charges, including one count of domestic battery committed in the presence of a child less than 16 years old, a Level 6 felony, and one count of domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury, a Level 6 felony.

 

Both charges, according to court documents, were “dismissed with prejudice” on Tuesday. According to the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School, dismissal with prejudice means that the plaintiff cannot refile the same claim again in a specific court.

 

 

It will be interesting to see how the NFL handles this moving forward, and what the Colts choose to do. Right now, Ogletree is on the exempt list. I would assume the NFL will go over whatever information is available to them, and decide whether any suspension is warranted. But 'dismissed with prejudice' might mean that there is no case to be made.

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Superman said:

Mod note: The last thread on this topic was locked because the discussion veered way off course. Please respect the site rules, and one another.

 

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/docs-charges-against-indianapolis-colts-te-andrew-ogletree-dismissed-with-prejudice/

 

It will be interesting to see how the NFL handles this moving forward, and what the Colts choose to do. Right now, Ogletree is on the exempt list. I would assume the NFL will go over whatever information is available to them, and decide whether any suspension is warranted. But 'dismissed with prejudice' might mean that there is no case to be made.

 


Not to downplay the seriousness of what allegedly happened, but for the Colts, I’d say this is very good news.   My view is AO is a diamond in the rough. 
 

Hope this post is acceptable.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s basically a he said she said but I thought the report said she had injuries. Apparently maybe she didn’t.

Yeah…I’m not going to speculate on if there was actual abuse or not. Big question now is how the Colts feel about the optics of it. I’m sure there have been numerous internal conversations for him to still be on the team this long. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utterly ridiculous for the Colts to cut him considering this ruling.  Maybe a lawsuit would follow any such action by the Colts. There is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Utterly ridiculous for the Colts to cut him considering this ruling.  Maybe a lawsuit would follow any such action by the Colts. There is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty.

I think if they were going to cut him,  they would have done it by now. 

1 minute ago, PRnum1 said:

If she had marks on her body, he probably hit her.

 

The NFL has a code of conduct and he should be fined.

He should be fined for "maybe".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Nadine changed the title to Update: Charges against Drew Ogletree dismissed with prejudice (merge)

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39659039/colts-te-drew-ogletree-domestic-violence-charges-dropped

 

Quote

 

No adverse action will be taken against Ogletree, as the dismissals are unconditional.

 

In the state's motion to dismiss, prosecutors wrote that "subsequent interviews with all of the parties involved revealed information and evidence not provided to law enforcement on the night of the alleged incident. The evidence is insufficient to prosecute this case."

 

 

In another tweet, Holder says the dismissal wasn't the result of a lack of cooperation, but from further investigation. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, dw49 said:

Utterly ridiculous for the Colts to cut him considering this ruling.  Maybe a lawsuit would follow any such action by the Colts. There is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty.


Lawsuit?    A team — any team — can cut a player at any time for any reason.   There would be zero grounds for a lawsuit.
 

 If AO is eventually cut (which I’m guessing he won’t be) he’d be claimed by another team and his career would go on. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Superman said:

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/39659039/colts-te-drew-ogletree-domestic-violence-charges-dropped

 

 

In another tweet, Holder says the dismissal wasn't the result of a lack of cooperation, but from further investigation. 

Yeah I saw a tweet that said after getting more info from both parties it was dismissed. Guess we won’t know what truly happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

It’s basically a he said she said but I thought the report said she had injuries. Apparently maybe she didn’t.

It also said she attacked him initially.  I didn’t jump in the bandwagon crucifying him because only two people truly knew what happened.  Three if you count his child.  Also, after reading she smashed his phone and attacked him I decided to let it play out instead of opening my mouth.  Also, I’m a fan of his story and how he looked on the field.  Hopefully, he’s done with that woman and resumes his playing career with the Colts. It should make moving on from Mo much easier. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


Lawsuit?    A team — any team — can cut a player at any time for any reason.   There would be zero grounds for a lawsuit.
 

 If AO is eventually cut (which I’m guessing he won’t be) he’d be claimed by another team and his career would go on. 

 

Not sure that's completely true. There have been litigations that were at least started against teams for cuts that were said not to be football related . Josh Lamb would be one and Chris Klue would be another. Neither amounted to much . I'm not an attorney and perhaps I over stated my feelings . But I think I'l  nitpick , as you often do and call you out on that "blanket " statement you made .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hoose said:

That’s exoneration for Ogletree.

 

Based on some of the stuff I'm reading, it seems as close to exoneration as anyone could expect. It sounds like the full investigation uncovered evidence that was not initially considered. And it doesn't sound like the accuser suddenly decided to stop cooperating with the investigation. 

 

I won't pretend to know what happened, and I'm not passing judgment on anyone involved. But for Ogletree, this outcome is about the best he could have hoped for, from a legal standpoint and probably from a career standpoint. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hawkeyecolt said:

It also said she attacked him initially.  I didn’t jump in the bandwagon crucifying him because only two people truly knew what happened.  Three if you count his child.  Also, after reading she smashed his phone and attacked him I decided to let it play out instead of opening my mouth.  Also, I’m a fan of his story and how he looked on the field.  Hopefully, he’s done with that woman and resumes his playing career with the Colts. It should make moving on from Mo much easier. 


FWIW:    In his press conference this morning Steichen was asked about his tight room.   And he mentioned liking it and named Mo, Granson and Mallory.  
 

Im not saying that means Mo is a lock to be kept, but it would seem to be encouraging.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Not sure that's completely true. There have been litigations that were at least started against teams for cuts that were said not to be football related . Josh Lamb would be one and Chris Klue would be another. Neither amounted to much . I'm not an attorney and perhaps I over stated my feelings . But I think I'l  nitpick , as you often do and call you out on that "blanket " statement you made .


You're free to disagree….  Thats fine.  
 

But it feels like you responded to your own claim for me.   You listed two lawsuits, and added neither amounted to much.  What does that tell you?   
 

I suppose anyone can sue these days.  But the outcome is another story altogether.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Not sure that's completely true. There have been litigations that were at least started against teams for cuts that were said not to be football related . Josh Lamb would be one and Chris Klue would be another. Neither amounted to much . I'm not an attorney and perhaps I over stated my feelings . But I think I'l  nitpick , as you often do and call you out on that "blanket " statement you made .

 

I don't know how a player files against a team for releasing him, unless the team is accusing the player of some kind of violation. And that would be a tricky situation, which could include a lot of variables. Generally speaking, a team does not have to provide a reason for releasing a player. The team might be contractually obligated to pay the player, but that doesn't mean they have to keep the player on the roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An active Ogletree makes the tight end room better. Has me cheering for Bowers to be taken top 14 now. Every player that we don't need taken ahead of us is good news. 

 

I won't comment on anything charge related as I don't have much of an opinion. It's a wild world right now. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, adubb84 said:


Glad the Colts waited on a potential release before making a decision. Will be interesting to see what happens next. 

I’m sure there was a lesson learned in this for Ogletree as well.  At least I hope that’s the case 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:


You're free to disagree….  Thats fine.  
 

But it feels like you responded to your own claim for me.   You listed two lawsuits, and added neither amounted to much.  What does that tell you?   
 

I suppose anyone can sue these days.  But the outcome is another story altogether.  

 

Yes ... I said I overstated my feelings. So why respond with "But it feels like you responded to your own claim for me.   You listed two lawsuits, and added neither amounted to much.  What does that tell you?

 

 I've been sued twice over ridiculous , unfounded real estate related incidents. In both cases my attorney advised me to settle. I cited 2 cases where litigation was started , one was dismissed , the other I think is still pending. So I'll stick by my belief that a team could be liable for a non football related cut. For instance , let's suppose the Colts cut a gay player and Jim Irsay in a drunken stupor said so at a bar. By your blanket statement , that player couldn't sue ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know how a player files against a team for releasing him, unless the team is accusing the player of some kind of violation. And that would be a tricky situation, which could include a lot of variables. Generally speaking, a team does not have to provide a reason for releasing a player. The team might be contractually obligated to pay the player, but that doesn't mean they have to keep the player on the roster.

 

Yes , the player would sue for monetary damages , not to stay on the roster. If a player had played well and was on his original contract and was cut following an unfounded (something he was cleared of)  incident , I think it could get challenged. It has been litigated a bit in a few cases but obviously it's a tough one to prove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

For instance , let's suppose the Colts cut a gay player and Jim Irsay in a drunken stupor said so at a bar. By your blanket statement , that player couldn't sue ? 


speaking of blanketed statements…

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ColtStrong2013 said:


speaking of blanketed statements…

 

How in the world would that be a "blanket statement." If anything it's a "specific" statement . Probably far fetched but a "blanket statement ?" Uhhhh... no

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

How in the world would that be a "blanket statement." If anything it's a "specific" statement . Probably far fetched but a "blanket statement ?" Uhhhh... no

 


my misunderstanding on what a blanket statement is.
 

probably far fetched is way underselling it. It wouldn’t happen, so it’s laughable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

Yes , the player would sue for monetary damages , not to stay on the roster. If a player had played well and was on his original contract and was cut following an unfounded (something he was cleared of)  incident , I think it could get challenged. It has been litigated a bit in a few cases but obviously it's a tough one to prove. 

 

Yeah, a player could file suit. My point is I don't think it would go anywhere because the suit would have no standing. 

 

I understand that a person might choose to settle a seemingly frivolous lawsuit for pragmatic reasons. I don't think the NFL or any individual team would respond that way. Based on my very limited understanding, there is no standing for a player to bring suit against a team if the team released the player during a legal issue, even if the player was completely exonerated. 

 

In your other example, there are other considerations, like discrimination. That would be a different story, but it doesn't seem relevant to this discussion.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm assuming there is a good chance Ballard just stays with the tight end room he has now and just gets a blocking tight end to replace Mo Cox. Which honestly that can be found in free agency. Not so sure about Bowers now. I was more into it when I thought Ogletree was done. I could be wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, krunk said:

I'm assuming there is a good chance Ballard just stays with the tight end room he has now and just gets a blocking tight end. Which honestly that can be found in free agency. Not so sure about Bowers now. I was more into it when I thought Ogletree was done. I could be wrong.


I don’t see Bowers dropping to the Colts anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Superman said:

Mod note: The last thread on this topic was locked because the discussion veered way off course. Please respect the site rules, and one another.

 

https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/docs-charges-against-indianapolis-colts-te-andrew-ogletree-dismissed-with-prejudice/

 

It will be interesting to see how the NFL handles this moving forward, and what the Colts choose to do. Right now, Ogletree is on the exempt list. I would assume the NFL will go over whatever information is available to them, and decide whether any suspension is warranted. But 'dismissed with prejudice' might mean that there is no case to be made.

 

Dismissed with prejudice means that the charges can never be refiled for this incident. Usually this means the claims were found to be either fraudulent or evidence exists in such manner to completely exonerate the alleged suspect.

 

simply dismissing the charges would allow for them to be brought back later. This is what I’d expect to see if the victim recants. 
 

however, they rarely dismiss with prejudice in a recanted situation. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I don't know how a player files against a team for releasing him, unless the team is accusing the player of some kind of violation. And that would be a tricky situation, which could include a lot of variables. Generally speaking, a team does not have to provide a reason for releasing a player. The team might be contractually obligated to pay the player, but that doesn't mean they have to keep the player on the roster.

No but with the way the charges were dismissed, it gives him more leverage in a civil case of false arrest, or even suing the police and  woman involved for slander or defamation. Not saying he would or should and I’m not a lawyer,  but in my time with law enforcement , I’ve seen many times where suspects with dismissed with prejudice situations sue and win under those grounds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, csmopar said:

Dismissed with prejudice means that the charges can never be refiled for this incident. Usually this means the claims were found to be either fraudulent or evidence exists in such manner to completely exonerate the alleged suspect.

 

simply dismissing the charges would allow for them to be brought back later. This is what I’d expect to see if the victim recants. 
 

however, they rarely dismiss with prejudice in a recanted situation. 

Is it possible that the case was dismissed simply because the victim did not want to further pursue charges ?

 

This is often what happens with battered women.  They initially file charges when they are first beaten then later dismiss the charges as they don't want to spoil their meal ticket and fall back into line.

 

I wonder if there were pictures of the bruises and marks ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Untouchables have to be Haliburton, Turner, Siakam, Nembhard, and McConnell. Nesmith and Toppin, even maybe Mathurin in a deal with those guys could bring another all-star here. All 3 are young and good.
    • There's a lot of questions on what this team will look like next year. A lot of people are returning, but some could be used in trades if we go after, say, Paul George)   Returning Depth Chart:(under contract) PG: Haliburton, McConnell  SG: Nembhard, Mathurin, Sheppard  SF: Nesmith, Brown PF: Walker C: Turner, Jackson     Free Agents: Pascal Siakam(most likely to stay, but cost a lot $40m+) ** Doug McDermott(would like back at 2yr $10m range) James Johnson(vet min) Jalen Smith (player) - might elect to see if he can get more than $5.4m on open market  Obi Toppin (restricted)- could be expensive to retain/ potential S+T possibilities  Oscar Tshiebwe (restricted)(vet min) Quenton Jackson (restricted)(vet min) Isaiah Wong (restricted)(vet min)         So here is where the problem lays. Indy is small market, I think there is almost no chance we will go into the tax. So here is how that is looking.   1st Apron Tax Cap Space:(including $5.4m PO for Smith) $64m   **Siakam - Siakam should start around $42.6 million and could be 5yrs, $247.1m or 4yrs, $190.8 million.(This was based off of $142m, think they are looking at $141m now so could lower a bit. Not much.   So Pascal will probably most likely cost around $42.6m next season     That brings our 1st Apron Space to: $21.4m   Toppin (RFA tender $8-$10m)(more than likely will receive an offer bigger than that) Tshiebwe, Wong + Jackson - $5.6m   Down to $5.8-$7.8m in 1st Apron Space: (2 open roster spots)   McDermott? - $5m? Johnson? - $2m?     Going to be interesting, and is fast approaching.     Trade Pieces: Siakam (S+T, if can't agree on contract?) Toppin(S+T) Smith (if he picks up PO) Nesmith We also have (3) 2nd round picks and future 1st.
    • With me, I look at average life expectancy at 80 years old. Once someone turns 80 the clock really ticks. My mom is 71 and she still gets around like a 50 yr old. Tough day after the news of Bill Walton. 
    • Daniel Scott is my sentimental pick. Mt deceased son's name was Scott with middle name of Daniel. So in memory of Scott Daniel my pick is Daniel Scott.
    • Yeah he was only 71 but I just heard he had cancer, I had no idea. This is a day ruiner. He was such a big name for the sport of basketball. I am having trouble believing this. 
  • Members

×
×
  • Create New...