Steven Gerrard brawl again

[Gromit]

Last month Steven Gerrard was acquitted at Liverpool Crown Court after the jury accepted that he had hit the other bloke in self defence.

His six mates have not been so lucky, they have been handed 18 month prison sentences, suspended for a year.

The difference in the the verdicts for the same incident is
interesting. Can both verdicts be correct?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leag ues/premierleague/liverpool/5988637/Six-walk-f ree-after-Steven-Gerrard-bar-brawl.html

[Ric.ror]

I have said it before and I will say it again - if its the Liverpool captain and the jury is from Liverpool anything is possible

[fredpuli47]

Yes. The others changed their initial pleas of not guilty to guilty . They did so with the benefit of counsel. If counsel thought there was a defence to run, counsel would have run it.

[albaqwerty]

I still think he's a joey barton in the making. If he carries on like that then at some point he'll be found guilty and sentenced to 2 minutes community service.
cynic that I am, one rule for them and anther for the rest of humanity.

[fredpuli47]

Gerrard's counsel would have been very pleased that the others pleaded guilty at the start !.. If you have seven defendants contesting you get a lot more evidence of the violence and you usually have all seven giving evidence themselves.In doing that they tend to end up dragging everyone down . The jury may rapidly decide that everyone was as bad as everyone else and they were all in it together, all mates, all ready to cause and join in trouble.On his own he was virtually on a walk-over. Liverpool jury, only his bit of it all in evidence, a defence which is tenable, local hero, no previous convictions, good image... what more do you need?

[TCL-MUMPING]

They pled guilty, he pled not gulity, argued the case and won. That is why he got off and they got suspended sentences