In 2001, Michael Vick rose to national fame as a star quarterback with the NFL's Atlanta Falcons-- selected in the first round of the NFL draft. Vick then had six successful seasons with the Falcons, going to the playoffs twice and being selected to three Pro Bowls. However, in 2007, Vick was implicated in an illegal dog-fighting operation in his home state of Virginia. Federal and state law enforcement authorities found evidence of an extensive dogfighting venue at Vick's sprawling rural compound and evidence of illegal interstate activities, including dog trafficking, online betting, and drug sales. Authorities also found evidence of dog torture and killings, and Vick was soon charged with breaking a host of Virginia state and federal laws.

With his NFL career in shambles, Vick faced prosecution in both venues of our dual court system, and many observers asked where Vick would first answer for his alleged crimes and would he-- could--be brought to justice twice, raising questions of double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. government took the lead in prosecuting Vick first. He was granted bail with certain conditions, including drug testing. He was indicted by a federal grand jury, meaning the government could proceed with formal charges against him. Facing such charges and the prospect of extensive evidence of his illegal activities and brutality against the dogs used in his fighting operations, what would you have recommended as Vick's defense attorney?

1. Would you have recommended that he seek a plea deal (meaning a plea negotiation) rather than take the case before a jury? Explain.
2. Given the facts of this case, what would have been the pros and cons of pursuing a jury trial?
3. What types of conditions would you impose on someone facing similar charges?