Fuller not guilty

Baltimore Ravens cornerback Corey Fuller did not, according to jurors, run a gambling house, even though prosecutors said he presided over games “like a pit boss.” Did the state fail to make its case, or are juries unwilling to convict people for the “victimless” crime of running a private casino?

From USA Today:

Baltimore Ravens cornerback Corey Fuller was acquitted Saturday of all three gambling and gun charges filed against him after he was accused of running high-stakes card games at his house.

The six-member jury deliberated less than two hours before rejecting two days of prosecution testimony on charges carrying a possible five-year prison sentence.

“It’s ridiculous how the state and these officers took this charge and ran with it,” Fuller said after the acquittal. “I feel sorry for the guys who have been on trial that have no money and can’t afford great lawyers.”

The prosecution failed to prove Fuller either kept a gambling house, a felony, or gambled illegally, a misdemeanor. The verdict on the felony count automatically cleared him of a related weapons charge.

“Everything he tells you has an independent, innocent, non-criminal explanation,” defense attorney Gary Roberts said in closing arguments.

But prosecutor Matt Smith told jurors that Fuller presided over the card games like “a pit boss,” armed and demanding the house cut, which was put in a shoe box on the game room floor.

“It’s not a game room,” Smith told jurors. “It’s Casino Fuller, that’s what it was.”

An undercover agent testified he saw hundreds of dollars being wagered. State law allows card players to gamble up to $10 a hand. The agent did not see Fuller gambling, but a witness testified she saw him playing a game called Georgia Skins. Jurors saw a videotape of the raid that included a profane response to police ramming Fuller’s front door.

Jury acquits Ravens’ Fuller of gambling charges

My question is, what kind of carpet was on the floor? If it looked like this:
casino carpet
then it might really been a casino.

One Response to 'Fuller not guilty'

  1. scribbler says:

    i like the carpet reference. how can anything be called "casino" with beige cut-pile?

    anyway, you bring up a good point with the jury. if they run games on the side, why would they convict anybody for the same? gambling, as with most vices, has the public face and the real face. how far any attempt to limit or legalize the gamble succeeds depends on the real convictions of those with the authority.

    but i do wonder what sort of case the prosecution would need to make in a situation like this. reasonable doubt is too easy to bring in.