AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

#476
#476
JohnD13 said:
Tell that to those wrongfully convicted because the prosecutor withheld evidence or witness statements.
Click to expand...

Two questions:

(1) what percentage of guilty defendants go free?
(2) what percentage of innocent defendants are convicted?

I don't know the answers to these questions in advance, but I'll tell you a few things I do know:

First, most cases never go to trial. Because in the process of discovery (both sides finding out all the details), it often becomes evident to one side or the other that they don't have much of a case. When that happens, they tend to either drop the charges, or reach for a plea bargain.

In other words, a huge majority of cases "work themselves out" without ever needing a trial.

Second, our system is designed (primarily through the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) to err far more frequently on the side of the defendant than on the side of the prosecution.

Sure, there are cases of innocent people being convicted. There are likely far, far more cases of guilty people walking free. Whether the case ever went to trial or not.

Finally, there are always two sides in the discovery process. You talk about prosecutors withholding witness statements and evidence as if the defense team can't go find that evidence and those witnesses themselves.

Neither side has a monopoly on investigative rights.

One thing about our system: some folks (apparently like you) are always going to have a low opinion of prosecutors, while others are always going to have a low opinion of "scumbag defense attorneys representing criminals."

Can't stop people being biased one way or the other. But it doesn't mean they're right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#477
#477
Defense closing is very strong. Just reiterated that the accuser wiped her phone clean and got rid of it a few days after talking to a civil attorney she hired to sue UT. Said Lawn followed suit, getting rid of her phone without backing anything up right after.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#478
#478
LA Vol said:
Defense closing is very strong. Just reiterated that the accuser wiped her phone clean and got rid of it a few days after talking to a civil attorney she hired to sue UT. Said Lawn followed suit, getting rid of her phone without backing anything up right after.
Click to expand...

First I have heard/read about the phone ditching being right after meeting with the civil attorneys. Pretty damning right there.

I wonder if the only reason she didn't drop this criminal case is because once she sued UT and won $$$, she was too far in to back off. This may be why the state has put forward what seems to be a very weak case. I bet the State tried very hard to get AJ attorneys to settle out of court and they would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#479
#479
VFL-82-JP said:
Two questions:

(1) what percentage of guilty defendants go free?
(2) what percentage of innocent defendants are convicted?

I don't know the answers to these questions in advance, but I'll tell you a few things I do know:

First, most cases never go to trial. Because in the process of discovery (both sides finding out all the details), it often becomes evident to one side or the other that they don't have much of a case. When that happens, they tend to either drop the charges, or reach for a plea bargain.

In other words, a huge majority of cases "work themselves out" without ever needing a trial.

Second, our system is designed (primarily through the presumption of innocence until proven guilty) to err far more frequently on the side of the defendant than on the side of the prosecution.

Sure, there are cases of innocent people being convicted. There are likely far, far more cases of guilty people walking free. Whether the case ever went to trial or not.

Finally, there are always two sides in the discovery process. You talk about prosecutors withholding witness statements and evidence as if the defense team can't go find that evidence and those witnesses themselves.

Neither side has a monopoly on investigative rights.

One thing about our system: some folks (apparently like you) are always going to have a low opinion of prosecutors, while others are always going to have a low opinion of "scumbag defense attorneys representing criminals."

Can't stop people being biased one way or the other. But it doesn't mean they're right.
Click to expand...


I have to disagree with a couple of your points.

Everyone in our system is supposed to be concerned with seeing justice done.

The defense is also severely handicapped compared to the State as far as investigatory resources. The State has budgets in the millions if not billions of dollars on Law Enforcement, that's sole mission is to put people in jail for as long as they can. The defense has whatever investigatory resources that person can afford. That is why so many of the people found guilty that are later proven innocent are poor. They can't afford a proper defense.

Likewise, plea bargains are more often taken by the poor, because they can't afford a lengthy and costly trial.

Since it has already been mentioned, take the Duke Lacrosse case. If those had been a group of poor boys from a local neighborhood, would they have gotten as good of a defense? Good enough to get off? Could they have hired enough investigators to found out the truth about the accuser? Enough to prove their innocence?

Just a different take on some of your points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#480
#480
TN_Transplant said:
I have to disagree with a couple of your points.

Everyone in our system is supposed to be concerned with seeing justice done.

The defense is also severely handicapped compared to the State as far as investigatory resources. The State has budgets in the millions if not billions of dollars on Law Enforcement, that's sole mission is to put people in jail for as long as they can. The defense has whatever investigatory resources that person can afford. That is why so many of the people found guilty that are later proven innocent are poor. They can't afford a proper defense.

Likewise, plea bargains are more often taken by the poor, because they can't afford a lengthy and costly trial.

Since it has already been mentioned, take the Duke Lacrosse case. If those had been a group of poor boys from a local neighborhood, would they have gotten as good of a defense? Good enough to get off? Could they have hired enough investigators to found out the truth about the accuser? Enough to prove their innocence?

Just a different take on some of your points.
Click to expand...

Valid points. Can't argue against any of them. :hi:

Well, just the first one, and only partially. Yes, every member of the bar is supposed to be focused on justice. On the other hand, as judges often tell young lawyers asking to be relieved of their duties in a particular case, their part in seeking justice is to represent their client as best they possibly can, and let the rest work itself out. In other words, they must try to win and trust the system to provide the justice.
 
Last edited:
#482
#482
smokeyz1 said:
First I have heard/read about the phone ditching being right after meeting with the civil attorneys. Pretty damning right there.

I wonder if the only reason she didn't drop this criminal case is because once she sued UT and won $$$, she was too far in to back off. This may be why the state has put forward what seems to be a very weak case. I bet the State tried very hard to get AJ attorneys to settle out of court and they would not.
Click to expand...


First I'd heard of it, too. Once she was in the civil suit, she was locked in to her story. She was deposed and the inconsistencies were piling up. Witness statements don't support her claims. I don't understand why the DA didn't drop the case. IMO, timing had a lot to do with it. The Title IX case made it a hot button issue and this case was the headliner. Maybe the state thinks they can get an emotional verdict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#485
#485
LA Vol said:
First I'd heard of it, too. Once she was in the civil suit, she was locked in to her story. She was deposed and the inconsistencies were piling up. Witness statements don't support her claims. I don't understand why the DA didn't drop the case. IMO, timing had a lot to do with it. The Title IX case made it a hot button issue and this case was the headliner. Maybe the state thinks they can get an emotional verdict.
Click to expand...

It does look like it is going to be based on whether emotion or evidence wins over the jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#486
#486
After reading all the courtroom updates on this case... who else thinks most of us would never have heard of this "incident" if not for Drae Bowles? I don't think the accuser would have ever claimed rape if she had not run into Drae after she left AJ's apartment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#487
#487
LA Vol said:
First I'd heard of it, too. Once she was in the civil suit, she was locked in to her story. She was deposed and the inconsistencies were piling up. Witness statements don't support her claims. I don't understand why the DA didn't drop the case. IMO, timing had a lot to do with it. The Title IX case made it a hot button issue and this case was the headliner. Maybe the state thinks they can get an emotional verdict.
Click to expand...

I had read a while back that her family is incredibly connected and that’s why this went to trial. Daddy wanted “justice.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#488
#488
davethevol said:
I had read a while back that her family is incredibly connected and that’s why this went to trial. Daddy wanted “justice.”
Click to expand...

Justice implies having evidence that will convince the jury that something against the law happened.

Based on what I have read, I wasn't in the courtroom, there doesn't appear to be much of that at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#489
#489
davethevol said:
I had read a while back that her family is incredibly connected and that’s why this went to trial. Daddy wanted “justice.”
Click to expand...



She was dating one guy while having sex with another, she participated in sex with a guy with others watching and she destroyed her cell phone to protect her messages.....and Daddy wants justice??????
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#490
#490
wmcovol said:
She was dating one guy while having sex with another, she participated in sex with a guy with others watching and she destroyed her cell phone to protect her messages.....and Daddy wants justice??????
Click to expand...

Obviously not the story she told her daddy I would think..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#491
#491
I'd be embarrassed if I were the girls too. But regret doesn't mean you get to ruin someone else's life.

I lived in athlete dorms in college, not UTK. Trains were common among a certain contingent. None of this surprises me, including the regret and the concept of trying to save face once the issue is public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#492
#492
"There is no greater privilege as a citizen than to lift the veil of a false accusation from another citizen."

That's a really good line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#493
#493
BlueHalo said:
I'd be embarrassed if I were the girls too. But regret doesn't mean you get to ruin someone else's life.

I lived in athlete dorms in college, not UTK. Trains were common among a certain contingent. None of this surprises me, including the regret and the concept of trying to save face once the issue is public.
Click to expand...

Geez, I'd be embarrassed if I were the girls dads.
 
#494
#494
BlueHalo said:
I'd be embarrassed if I were the girls too. But regret doesn't mean you get to ruin someone else's life.

I lived in athlete dorms in college, not UTK. Trains were common among a certain contingent. None of this surprises me, including the regret and the concept of trying to save face once the issue is public.
Click to expand...

Was it the drunk contingent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#497
#497
Judge sent jury to deliberations today. Let's see if they get a quick verdict or if he sends them home in an hour or so.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top