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

[adubb84]

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

[Superman]

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.

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

10 minutes ago, adubb84 said:

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

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

[NewColtsFan]

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.  

[throwing BBZ]

 

 I sure hope he stays far away from her. If he doesn't, lol.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[adubb84]

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. 

[dw49]

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.

[ADnum1]

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

 

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

[jvan1973]

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".  

[Patrick Miller]

Uh yeah the dude shouldn’t be fined for something he didn’t do.

[indyagent17]

This is interesting, everyone wanted him crucified, cut from the team and publicly humiliated. I’m so sick of people jumping the gun like this until all the facts come out and it’s been adjudicated. I’m glad for Drew. This world is getting crazy.

[GoColts8818]

Not the Colts news I had on my bingo card today but I’ll take it.

[Superman]

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. 

[NewColtsFan]

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. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

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.

[Hoose]

45 minutes 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.

Absurd. Dismissed with prejudice means there is no case and it can’t be refiled. Over and done. That’s exoneration for Ogletree. He should be reinstated and allowed to rejoin the team. 
 

[Hawkeyecolt]

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. 

[dw49]

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 .

[Superman]

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. 

[NewColtsFan]

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.  

[NewColtsFan]

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.  

[Superman]

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.

[ColtStrong2013]

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. 

[colts89]

Good for him. The court of public opinion had him guilty the second the news hit the interwebs, but that isn't anything new.

[ArmchairQB]

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 

[dw49]

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 ? 

[dw49]

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. 

[ColtStrong2013]

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…

[dw49]

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

 

[ColtStrong2013]

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.

[Superman]

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.

[krunk]

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.

[JediXMan]

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.

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, JediXMan said:

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

as I said above- this would be a good thing for us. 

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, JediXMan said:

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

I do

[csmopar]

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. 

[csmopar]

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. 

[ADnum1]

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 ?