JJ Trial

[grizfromhel]

I'm a little rusty on my criminal law (I used to practice it), but that sounds like mistrial material if she is making statements to the jury that the defendant assaulted other women and the only basis for her conclusion is hearsay statements and rumors (after all, she most likely would not have been there so she can't testify to her personal knowledge). Heck, it's even reversible error to bring up prior criminal convictions except in special circumstances, which would generally need to be approved by the court before being stated in front of a jury.

If it is true that the victim made this kind of statement, the prosecution has a big problem.

 

[grizchamp]

Not really comparing the two trials, but I just get the feeling that 5 prosecutors and a pool of 400 potential jurors screams out that the prosecution is going for broke under watchful eyes of the DOJ on this one. Trying too hard to make a high profile "example" perhaps?

I personally never had a problem with 400 people for the pool. I felt it was reasonable given the size of Missoula and the relationship that the people have to the university and town. I think it is safe to say that while we all have hopes one way or the other, we also all hope (or at least a large majority of us do) that this is a fair trial for both parties. I also understand why the defense would want that pool to be smaller. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. At the end of the day though this trial is going to destroy lives and the hope should be for a fair and honest process out of respect for those involved.

That being said, I do agree that 5 prosecutors seems excessive and I agree with your assessment that if there were not all of these other investigations going on there wouldn't be 5 of them working this.

 

[grizchamp]

I'm a little rusty on my criminal law (I used to practice it), but that sounds like mistrial material if she is making statements to the jury that the defendant assaulted other women and the only basis for her conclusion is hearsay statements and rumors (after all, she most likely would not have been there so she can't testify to her personal knowledge). Heck, it's even reversible error to bring up prior criminal convictions except in special circumstances, which would generally need to be approved by the court before being stated in front of a jury.

If it is true that the victim made this kind of statement, the prosecution has a big problem.

And that may be why the Judge didn't allow it. I know it came up and then there was a discussion with the judge. Something Paoli wanted to introduce wasn't allowed and he followed up with a a few comments about how serious this situation is and that her words to the court and to the jury mean something. I got the feeling he was essentially saying, "This isn't a game and if you go down this road you better be prepared because is going to get really ugly for you really quick." Of course this is all from Twitter updates so I could be completely taking it out of context.

 

[Buttegrizzle]

Not really comparing the two trials, but I just get the feeling that 5 prosecutors and a pool of 400 potential jurors screams out that the prosecution is going for broke under watchful eyes of the DOJ on this one. Trying too hard to make a high profile "example" perhaps?

I personally never had a problem with 400 people for the pool. I felt it was reasonable given the size of Missoula and the relationship that the people have to the university and town. I think it is safe to say that while we all have hopes one way or the other, we also all hope (or at least a large majority of us do) that this is a fair trial for both parties. I also understand why the defense would want that pool to be smaller. They wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't. At the end of the day though this trial is going to destroy lives and the hope should be for a fair and honest process out of respect for those involved.

That being said, I do agree that 5 prosecutors seems excessive and I agree with your assessment that if there were not all of these other investigations going on there wouldn't be 5 of them working this.

I dont know if being aware of the case, or even being a Griz fan is grounds for exclusion from a pool. As a intense Griz fan I personally would have no problem dropping the dime if it was shown beyond doubt that a player did something criminal. I that case get em off the team and off the streets. This case, so far, sure doesn't have the look of the "predator thug" type as characterized by Forio and others though. I would be more worried about sifting out the femiNazis and Neanderthal misogynists first. You are very right about this whole deal wrecking many families.

 

[granitegriz]

Per the tweeting by the local media, all 5 prosecuting attorneys walked to the bench every time there was an issue with the evidence...what a circus?

"In the interview attached below, Van Valkenburg says the Missoulian "‘overplayed’ the matter of how many prosecuting attorneys will be working on the case, and that ‘it is not true that there are five attorneys assigned to the case’". Citation: http://www.makeitmissoula.com/2012/10/jordan-johnson-trial-set-for-february-8th/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Article was by Peter Christan.

Liar.... :lame:

 

[WolfpackGriz]

Anybody catch this:

eilaSzpaller ‏@KeilaSzpaller
Judge instructs Paoli to hold off on one piece of evidence until they talk after testimony today. #johnsontrial

What's that all about?

 

[GrizMusician]

Anybody catch this:

eilaSzpaller ‏@KeilaSzpaller
Judge instructs Paoli to hold off on one piece of evidence until they talk after testimony today. #johnsontrial

What's that all about?

Idk but its BS IMO...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sportin' Life]

I'm a little rusty on my criminal law (I used to practice it), but that sounds like mistrial material if she is making statements to the jury that the defendant assaulted other women and the only basis for her conclusion is hearsay statements and rumors (after all, she most likely would not have been there so she can't testify to her personal knowledge). Heck, it's even reversible error to bring up prior criminal convictions except in special circumstances, which would generally need to be approved by the court before being stated in front of a jury.

If it is true that the victim made this kind of statement, the prosecution has a big problem.

If that is true, isn't it upon the defense to immediately object to the testimony? It isn't upon the witnesses to know what type of testimony is allowable, but rather the attorneys. A little rusty for sure.

 

[ranco]

After reading the Trial by Twitter posts, I can't imagine a single juror could convict. Her testimony does nothing but prove reasonable doubt. the case may not make it past the prosecutor's case in chief.

 

[grizfromhel]

Sportin Life---- if she blurts out a statement to the jury, sure the defense attorney can object, but the damage has already been done. The court can admonish the jury to not consider the prejudicial statement, but how realistic is that? Usually highly prejudicial statements that get made to the jury become grounds for mistrial, or in the event of conviction, reversible error. Not that rusty, wiseass.

 

[griz4life]

Anybody catch this:

eilaSzpaller ‏@KeilaSzpaller
Judge instructs Paoli to hold off on one piece of evidence until they talk after testimony today. #johnsontrial

What's that all about?

Idk but its BS IMO...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Could just be that it was late in the afternoon and Townsend chose to use the jury's and attorneys' time wisely. If you argue this before the jury comes in in the morning, it probably doesn't count against your 1440 minutes of case time, just a guess. The judge would also limit the jury's exposure to something that might not be allowed.

 

[bigsky33]

Yes, I am a Cat fan but I think this trial is really sad for both parties and their families. I have read the tweets so far in this trial. I have to say so far to me, she did a great job of coming back at Paoli with her answers. I disagree with a lot of posters on here saying that her testimony today will mean an aquittal for JJ. Paoli did not dispell that there was force used in my opinion. There is still a long way to go in this trial. This is only my opinion. This is not something I post about being a partisan Cat fan. I approach this seriously as a citizen trying to find the truth

 

[ranco]

What??? she apparently testified (if you believe twitter) that JJ wasn't hard and she assisted him in getting hard. that's not rape, kind of the opposite of rape.

 

[Umista]

This poor girl is a fetal like human in a cute body. Poor judgement, poor acting before the sex in question and it looks like Johnson gets a minimum hung jury at this point. Prosecutors are over acting as they were dealt a very poor hand........ and politics made them carry this debacle way to far.

Many young men yet to testify for Jordy and that might just put Johnson into the win by a bunch headline after the verdict is read. Girl could have used a good coach and she (coach) might have kept her out of such a mess. Unstable sounding and acting with way to much coaching by the prosecutors on what she should claim is going to ruin their case.

Johnson has more than a 70% chance of winning this thing and I admit we are only in the first quarter!

Yes, it is a damn shame, we have a good coach fired and she could have used a good one.

 

[grizcountry420]

From the tweets it sounded like she was very well coached and was reading everything from script.. Its definitely going to be an interesting trial..

 

[bigsky33]

Do you not think JJ will be well coached when he takes the stand. I give credit to juries that they will ferret out the truth and reach the right verdict.

 

[GRZFTBL]

Do you not think JJ will be well coached when he takes the stand. I give credit to juries that they will ferret out the truth and reach the right verdict.

He won't take the stand, will he?

 

[funny water]

Do you not think JJ will be well coached when he takes the stand. I give credit to juries that they will ferret out the truth and reach the right verdict.

He won't take the stand, will he?

Based on the court room tweets there will be no need for JJ to take the stand.... Accuser was very contradictory.... #beyondareasonabledoubt....

 

[bigsky33]

I thought I heard Paoli say he would take the stand. Maybe I am wrong!

 

[grizchamp]

What??? she apparently testified (if you believe twitter) that JJ wasn't hard and she assisted him in getting hard. that's not rape, kind of the opposite of rape.

I followed most of the day and didn't see that. Not saying you are incorrect, but are you sure that was someone at the court reporting or was it just someone throwing in their opinion.