An Oregon-based source reported to me Sunday that the case involving a Univ. of Oregon student’s allegation that he had personal items stolen from his fraternity house room on Jan. 24 by Oregon quarterback Jeremiah Masoli has gone to a grand jury.
In a correspondence, my source claimed: “The grand jury has this in front of them. It will be difficult to charge Masoli, though it appears he probably was involved.”
I’ve no more detail than that at this time. With the grand jury allegedly pondering the allegations, perhaps the status of the case will soon be clarified.
The other Oregon football player involved in the alleged theft, Garrett Embry, has since been kicked off the team. My source did not provide information on Embry’s situation.
8:14 pm on February 14th, 2010
How could he not be charged if he had something to do with it??? Embry was kicked off the team before this happened but it doesn’t have any berring on on if either of them is to be charged on this.
3:24 am on February 15th, 2010
this guy is a thug. any coach with an iota of discipline would have kicked him out by now. i think this will simply get swept under the rug and masoli will be playing this season.
10:20 am on February 15th, 2010
Plea bargain for Embry is what nails Ma-stoli
11:35 am on February 15th, 2010
Thug? Bad Actor? Entitlement issues? All likely. Star quarterback? Likely. Indictment? Hmm? Not likely. NIKE runs Oregon athletics so why not ask Bob Knight first and be done with it.
12:05 pm on February 15th, 2010
Bob Knight? He doesn’t coach at Oregon. I think you meant Phil Knight.
2:23 pm on February 15th, 2010
So he’s in front of a grand jury, and the police never even named him as a suspect? You better check your source..
2:46 pm on February 15th, 2010
That sounds like a rather biased source to me. ” It will be difficult to charge Masoli, though it appears he probably was involved.” If the court could show he was involved, why would they have difficulty convicting him?
This sounds like some U of O haters looking for an explanation as to why nothing will come of this.
3:53 pm on February 15th, 2010
Grand jury testimony is usually not made public, so the information in front of the grand jury is not out in the public domain just yet. If he is charged it will be a major issue. I hope ESPN picks up on the story. I haven’t heard of anything other than on this site and a few small oregon papers/blogs.
4:04 pm on February 15th, 2010
We all called him Bob in middle school, but yes today Phil Knight.
10:55 pm on February 15th, 2010
HE isn’t in front of a grand jury. “The grand jury has this in front of them” means they are trying to indict him. That means the DA thinks there is enough proof to charge and arrest him, but they are having the people indict him instead. They present proof to the grand jury to see whether they think there is probable cause. If they say yes, they’ll make the arrest/charge him.
Indictments are usually secret until the arrest is made because you don’t want the accused to know he’s about to get arrested.
7:24 pm on February 16th, 2010
Court holiday yesterday… how did it go to the grand jury?
6:36 pm on February 17th, 2010
Just think if true, two of the top 10 heisman hopefuls will be off the team. That is crazy for two guys in the same backfield to be face possible charges. James is going for sure, and if indicted, then Masoli was be removed too.
Not looking too good for UO.
1:38 am on February 18th, 2010
Watching court TV, it is often said that any attorney can get a potato charged in front of a grand jury.
The defendant is asked questions by the prosecuting attorney only. All the evidence against the defendant is presented no counter claims of innocents is allowed.
The goal is to see is there enough evidence for a “possible” conviction
12:48 pm on February 20th, 2010
When an indictment has been presented to a grand jury, the accused is actually not typically even part of the proceeding. If they are, their attorney cannot be present in the courtroom, and the evidentiary standards are not the same as during trial - things like hearsay are often admissible in the grand jury proceeding that would be suppressed or excluded at trial.
Bottom line - JM has not been indicted by a grand jury, nobody on here really knows whether a grand jury has even been convened and presented with an indictment, and even if he is indicted by a grand jury, it appears unlikely that he will be convicted of any crimes other than possibly trespassing in relation to this incident.
I’m not licensed to practice in Oregon, but I’m quite familiar with general criminal procedure concepts, and its shocking how much misinformation and speculation based on twitter posts the alleged incident has caused. Let the legal system run its course - at this point there is absolutely nothing besides an accusation (which in my opinion appears questionable) and a bunch of rumors.
4:51 pm on February 20th, 2010
Sam, unless you have seen the evidence how in the world would you know that he’s unlikely to be convicted of any crimes?
Also, regarding whether a grand jury has been convened - would you like to bet? The process started February 11.
Sure, there are lots of rumors and misinformed twitter posts flying around, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t LOTS of evidence you don’t know about.
Just wait and see.
10:08 am on March 1st, 2010
so where are we at with this. This is from 2 weeks ago