Appellate Court allows appeal in Johnson case

#53
#53
in following links and learning about possible data the defense is trying to obtain, I came across the following which is of interest:

"VERIZON IS THE ONLY ONE OF THE TOP FOUR CARRIERS THAT RETAIN TEXT MESSAGE CONTENT, HOWEVER, AND IT KEEPS THAT FOR THREE TO FIVE DAYS."

What the above means is the defense will have little to gain from this released information (IF THEY CAN GET IT) other than to show that there was communication between these accusers. It possibly will show time, location, length of calls,
but that is all.

I'm afraid we don't get to see what they were saying because they both lost their phones. How could they have known???

Sounds like pretty quick thinking if you ask me!
 
#55
#55
Is the records request for all social media including facebook, twitter, and instagram or is it just for cell phone records. Anybody know?

If it is for everything, they may still get lucky.
 
#56
#56
bamawriter said:
Given that none of us knows what is actually contained in this evidence, that's a rather bold statement.
Click to expand...

In this day in time, the year 2016, modern time, with all we know about texting, messaging, email, phone calls and social media........shouldn't all of these records be made available in all cases on both sides?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#57
#57
Volsfaninva917 said:
Why? Shouldn't ALL evidence be made available?
Click to expand...

Evidence that is burdensome to obtain and has little to no probative value shouldn't have to be produced.

I'm not saying that's the case here, because I, like everyone else in this thread, have no idea what the value of this evidence is. I'm simply saying that there are many instances where evidence is not only ruled inadmissible, but it's ruled that it doesn't even have to be produced for discovery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#59
#59
wmcovol said:
Attorneys for AJ Johnson and Michael Williams will be able to appeal the ruling preventing phone evidence from the two "victims" phones the today of the alleged rape. Defense attorneys think evidence on these phones that would show the victims intent that day was destroyed when the victims both "lost" their phones the day following the alleged attack.

KNS has stories up about this ruling. Nothing from the Tennessean.
Click to expand...

Why do they need their phones? Wouldn't the correspondence be on Johnsons and Williams phones also? Just asking
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#61
#61
GAVol said:
Not really that surprising. All the Grand Jury is looking for is probable cause that a crime may have been committed. They're not trying the case.
Click to expand...

So correct me if I'm wrong... but would this not mean that essentially, the prosecuting attorney wanted to NOT have that evidence presented because he wanted it to continue to trial and so the defense would basically have no chance to present any evidence that they are innocent?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#62
#62
WilliamDuVOL said:
So correct me if I'm wrong... but would this not mean that essentially, the prosecuting attorney wanted to NOT have that evidence presented because he wanted it to continue to trial and so the defense would basically have no chance to present any evidence that they are innocent?
Click to expand...

The State is under no obligation to present any specific evidence to the grand jury. All it has to do is present just enough that the grand jury believes that the State can meet its burden of proof that a crime was committed at trial. "Guilt" and "innocence" are not concepts that the grand jury has to wrestle with.
 
#63
#63
CragrockVol said:
The length of time data is retained appears to be different for each carrier. How Long Does Your Wireless Carrier Retain Texts, Call Logs? | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
Click to expand...

So the most the text message content is retained is 90 days by Virgin and 3-5 days by Verizon.

Also if the text message where done iPhone to iPhone (which is encrypted) the carrier would have never access to the iMessage ever (encrypted). Also there are many apps that are used that messages that once the message is deleted, it is gone forever.

That said I am willing to bet everything was deleted before the phones were lost. Unless they forgot to delete something or left something in a 'recycle bin', it is going to be hard to find anything. That said I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook Messenger is not encrypted and stored for ad revenue use by Facebook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#65
#65
Vol Karma said:
So the most the text message content is retained is 90 days by Virgin and 3-5 days by Verizon.

Also if the text message where done iPhone to iPhone (which is encrypted) the carrier would have never access to the iMessage ever (encrypted). Also there are many apps that are used that messages that once the message is deleted, it is gone forever.

That said I am willing to bet everything was deleted before the phones were lost. Unless they forgot to delete something or left something in a 'recycle bin', it is going to be hard to find anything. That said I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook Messenger is not encrypted and stored for ad revenue use by Facebook.
Click to expand...

Deleting it doesn't mean it can't be retrieved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#66
#66
tallvolball98 said:
Why do they need their phones? Wouldn't the correspondence be on Johnsons and Williams phones also? Just asking
Click to expand...

It's about much more than just those messages.
Their "hook up" wasn't meant to be public so AJ most likely deleted as well.
But from what I understand, they are wanting what was said to her friends before and after, in texts. private messages, Facebook, chat , etc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#67
#67
chargervol said:
It's about much more than just those messages.
Their "hook up" wasn't meant to be public so AJ most likely deleted as well.
But from what I understand, they are wanting what was said to her friends before and after, in texts. private messages, Facebook, chat , etc...
Click to expand...
Ok
 
#69
#69
volfan102455 said:
Deleting it doesn't mean it can't be retrieved.
Click to expand...

In a lot of cases it can't be retrieved. For example it is impossible to retrieved an iMessage (iPhone to iPhone text). The only exception is if the person accidentally saved it to the iCloud. That said even if you did that, deleted it, save to the iCloud again, it would overwrite it. Also companies like Sprint do not even save normal text messages. They are just gone when they are deleted off the device.

Now as I said Facebook (or other social media) is a different story. So who knows what they are going after, but if it is text message it looks to be hard to get.
 
Last edited:
#70
#70
chargervol said:
But from what I understand, they are wanting what was said to her friends before and after, in texts. private messages, Facebook, chat , etc...
Click to expand...

That's my understanding as well. It's a tricky situation, beyond the fact that social media is, in many ways, new ground for the courts.

Another facet to consider is that, unless she named the defendant(s) specifically, then any conversation she had about her sexual activities is likely going to be tossed out because of the Rape Shield laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#71
#71
bamawriter said:
Another facet to consider is that, unless she named the defendant(s) specifically, then any conversation she had about her sexual activities is likely going to be tossed out because of the Rape Shield laws.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about before this incident sexual activities? Because they should be thrown out, and they shouldn't matter.
 
#72
#72
Vol Karma said:
Are you talking about before this incident sexual activities? Because they should be thrown out, and they shouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

Before or after. The only way her conversations will be admissible is if they reference the defendants.
 
#73
#73
bamawriter said:
Evidence that is burdensome to obtain and has little to no probative value shouldn't have to be produced.

I'm not saying that's the case here, because I, like everyone else in this thread, have no idea what the value of this evidence is. I'm simply saying that there are many instances where evidence is not only ruled inadmissible, but it's ruled that it doesn't even have to be produced for discovery.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that if it were mine, or someone I love's skin on the line in a case like this, and whichever one of us was looking at our life being COMPLETELY ruined and over if we lost... I'd really hope that it wasn't too "burdensome" to provide evidence we felt could save one of us from spending years in prison.

It just doesn't seem right. If you tell me the burden is on me to prove my innocence, I want access to ANYTHING I think can show it.

Telling someone it's too burdensome to obtain potentially critical evidence just seems like an absolute miscarriage of justice, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#74
#74
ru4real-really? said:
Is the records request for all social media including facebook, twitter, and instagram or is it just for cell phone records. Anybody know?

If it is for everything, they may still get lucky.
Click to expand...

"The attorneys for the two former players insist what the accuser and the three witnesses — female friends of hers — said in texts, on Facebook, Snapchat, Yik Yak and the like are key to proving the former football players have been falsely accused."

tallvolball98 said:
Why do they need their phones? Wouldn't the correspondence be on Johnsons and Williams phones also? Just asking
Click to expand...

"The ex-Vols contend the encounter was consensual, and that their accuser claimed rape to protect her reputation. Evidence revealed so far indicates Johnson and his accuser had been flirting for months and that the then 19-year-old woman willingly went to Johnson's bedroom to meet him."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#75
#75
bamawriter said:
Evidence that is burdensome to obtain and has little to no probative value shouldn't have to be produced.

I'm not saying that's the case here, because I, like everyone else in this thread, have no idea what the value of this evidence is. I'm simply saying that there are many instances where evidence is not only ruled inadmissible, but it's ruled that it doesn't even have to be produced for discovery.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We are talking about two young men who are facing PRISON. You don't send someone to prison unless you are 100 percent sure. I doesn't matter if it is a pain in the ass or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top