Appellate Court allows appeal in Johnson case

[norrislakevol]

Why do they need their phones? Wouldn't the correspondence be on Johnsons and Williams phones also? Just asking

Not if the two girls were texting back and forth with one another. What if they were texting back and forth about setting the guys up?

 

[Kristy*]

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.

Agree. The evidence should be made available to the prosecution and defense and later determined if it's pertinent. There should never be a reason to hide any evidence that could prove innocence or guilt.

 

[norrislakevol]

"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."



"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."

Going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to 12 people that a rape occurred. I know if I was a juror and heard that the two accusers magically lost their cell phones at the same time there is no way BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I could convict these two.

 

[WilliamDuVOL]

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.

Well that technically does answer my question, as I was making sure I understood correctly.

So at this point the defense can do nothing other than sit back and get proverbially crucified by the prosecuting attorney.

 

[bamawriter]

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.

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm speaking in general terms, as I don't have any knowledge of the evidence in question.

I'm assuming the defense has some reason to believe that these conversations occurred, and as such, no stone should be left unturned in trying to acquire them. If the defense is simply hoping that there might be some social media conversations that have probative value, then chances are that their request won't get much traction.

 

[Kristy*]

Going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to 12 people that a rape occurred. I know if I was a juror and heard that the two accusers magically lost their cell phones at the same time there is no way BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I could convict these two.

Unfortunately, they may not hear that part. I've still not seen anything that would prove a non-consensual encounter occurred. Here's to hoping for a competent jury.

 

[bamawriter]

Going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to 12 people that a rape occurred. I know if I was a juror and heard that the two accusers magically lost their cell phones at the same time there is no way BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I could convict these two.

Is there a link to this? I keep seeing it posted, but the reports I've read about this appeal don't say anything about lost cellphones.

 

[bamawriter]

Well that technically does answer my question, as I was making sure I understood correctly.

So at this point the defense can do nothing other than sit back and get proverbially crucified by the prosecuting attorney.

Basically. The defense isn't even in the room. But the State isn't laying out its entire case to the grand jury.

 

[WilliamDuVOL]

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm speaking in general terms, as I don't have any knowledge of the evidence in question.

I'm assuming the defense has some reason to believe that these conversations occurred, and as such, no stone should be left unturned in trying to acquire them. If the defense is simply hoping that there might be some social media conversations that have probative value, then chances are that their request won't get much traction.

That's fair. I do believe, based on the statements made by the defense attorney, that they have reason to believe there is a case to be made for their innocence in those messages.

 

[WilliamDuVOL]

Basically. The defense isn't even in the room. But the State isn't laying out its entire case to the grand jury.

It's been a long time coming, but it certainly seems in many places we've gone to a system of guilty until proven innocent, especially in the court of public opinion thanks to our sensationalistic, idiotic media, many of the members of which would sell their own mother or soul for the story of a lifetime.

 

[flatiron]

Why do they need their phones? Wouldn't the correspondence be on Johnsons and Williams phones also? Just asking

Conversations between the alleged victim and witnesses wouldn't be

 

[flatiron]

Is there a link to this? I keep seeing it posted, but the reports I've read about this appeal don't say anything about lost cellphones.

I think it was reported back in August by the Sentinel

 

[Aerie Vol]

Going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to 12 people that a rape occurred. I know if I was a juror and heard that the two accusers magically lost their cell phones at the same time there is no way BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I could convict these two.

I've sat on a jury several times and I've had to send men to jail. I've also set men free whom I was pretty sure were guilty but the state blew it and failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, the "lost cellphones" is an absolute get out of jail free card. Instant acquittal.

If AJ and Williams are guilty of rape, the victim(s?) and the state better get busy in a hurry finding the phones or providing access to the social media from them or this case is lost - and should be. Way too many humans in jail because they "probably" did it.

AV

 

[smokey90]

I'm very bad with legal stuff. Does this mean they will be able to use it or it will be appealed to yet another judge?

It means that an appellate judge will decided if it is used at trial. Preference is to allow evidence if not unduly prejudicial.

 

[walkenvol]

I've sat on a jury several times

Does this make you more or less believable vs staying in a Holiday Inn last night?

 

[Joefoxx]

Somehow I had managed to not know about the two cell phones being "lost" the following day. My faith is absolutely restored in AJ. This is an everlovin' load of crap. Simultaneous "loss" of cell phones is not typical behavior of a victim. It's possible the ladies are still, in fact, victims, but my belief in that just went way down.

AV

Wonder if Drae lost his also?

 

[wmcovol]

Wonder if Drae lost his also?

No, I dont think Bowles phone would show his girl talking "smack" with Johnson or her telling her friends about it. Bowles must have been one of the few players on the team that didn't know his girl was after AJ.....

 

[Joefoxx]

No, I dont think Bowles phone would show his girl talking "smack" with Johnson or her telling her friends about it. Bowles must have been one of the few players on the team that didn't know his girl was after AJ.....

I thought that she may have told Drae a rape had occurred.

 

[sechamp2012]

So why even use a grand jury if they are not going to look at more than this?

I was so naïve about Grand Jury until I served on one Over 3 months we heard 103 case and like someone said you are just hearing from the one making the charge. Each case I would estimate lasted 5 minutes and we indicted 102 of 103. On the last day the Judge came in and Thanked us for serving and then went on to admonish us for not indicting the one case where we failed to indict. In other words it's a rubber stamp waste of tax dollar money. Probably good intentions in the beginning.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Where is AJ's phone on all of this?

 

[Remy]

Deleting it doesn't mean it can't be retrieved.

Exactly, most people do not know most texting on mobile phones uses SMS, short message service, which these days most mobile networks uses SS7 signaling to actually send and deliver the SMS/messages to/from devices. These SS7 signaling messages are kept for much longer than a few days. Most kids use their carriers device texting capability. They don't have time patience or need to use encrypting apps. Business government and Daesh/ISIS types do however.

 

[AM64]

Hmmm, I figured Anita would be all over this like flies on s***. Maybe she just had the day off or something?

Nah, she probably needed something to settle her nerves after getting the news. She'll be back as soon as the hangover lets up.

 

[AM64]

Because of a lack of legal precedent for such things in a case like this.

If it's good enough to track down a potential terrorist, it should be good enough to help someone defend himself in a courtroom.

 

[AM64]

To not allow this evidence in the first place is just an injustice for all parties involved.

If you think that is bad, consider this from the Knoxville News Sentinel

"The state already obtained the digital communications of Johnson, Williams and a key defense witness — current UT wide receiver Jonathan Johnson. The defense sought the same for not only the accuser but key state witnesses. The social media providers balked and hired an attorney."

That implies it is appropriate and important to have the defendant's digital records, but a different story for the defendant. Why would one side be admissible but not the other if using those records is "new territory". Also very interesting that the KPD or DA would think to get the defendants' digital records but never thought about the accuser's phones.

 

[AM64]

Going to be very difficult for the prosecution to prove to 12 people that a rape occurred. I know if I was a juror and heard that the two accusers magically lost their cell phones at the same time there is no way BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that I could convict these two.

I was on a jury for a criminal trial that ran just over a week. We were sequestered to ensure that we got no outside information. During the trial we wore ruts from the jury box to the jury room. You might be amazed at how much a jury doesn't hear. The game is all about what one side can present and what it can prevent the other side from presenting; it is all about winning - not about finding out what happened. It's very possible a jury would never hear about the missing phones.