AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

[VFL-82-JP]

Judge is allowing instructions on lesser charges. That could help the State.

Yes. It turns a true/false question into multiple choice, only one of which is "not guilty."

And not only does that mathematically increase the chances of some version of a guilty verdict, it also plays to the human tendency to seek middle ground when debating or negotiating (which is what jury deliberations usually involve).

It certainly favors the prosecution.

 

[LA Vol]

The defense could have called witnesses to refute most of the accuser's claims and it would have been very damaging. Clearly, they thought they didn't need it and wanted the jury to have the case today... but Nassios is really playing to the women in the jury. She's sidestepping facts and reason to tug on primal emotions. It's probably very powerful. Emotion vs. logic.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Wow. Just noticed something. The office of the attorney general for Knox County / 6th district gives their assistant DAs the title "general". As in "General Leslie Nassios graduated from the University of Tennessee School of Law and became licensed to practice in 1984."

That's just shockingly wrong. But apparently is more widespread than just this one office. While many references I found with a google search point out that "general" is not appropriate for use with these duties*, there are a fair few other offices that do the same thing.

Just as a Sergeant Major in the military is a sergeant, not a major, and you can tell by the plural of the title ("Sergeants Major," not "Sergeant Majors"), an Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General is an attorney, and not a general (the correct pluralization is "Attorneys General").

In both cases, the added word indicates the breadth of their duties ("major," "general") rather than a title or rank.

I'm astounded that law offices so commonly make this mistake.

Knox County Tennessee District Attorney General




*by the same token, nor are Inspectors General or Adjutants General titled as "generals." They are inspectors and adjutants.

 

[patrick]

The majority of rape cases are he said/she said. And the majority of rape trials, like the majority of all trials, end in convictions.

This is not true as far as convictions go.

 A national study estimates only 37% of reported
rapes are prosecuted.
 18% of prosecuted rape cases end in a conviction.

https://opsvaw.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/07_Rape_Prosecution.pdf (2010)

 

[LA Vol]

The defense team is excellent... but I wonder if they're second-guessing not calling some of their witnesses. It's given Nassios leeway to make claims that witnesses would have testified were false. Partygoers' and neighbors' accounts would have refuted accuser testimony about her behavior before and after the alleged rape.

 

[patrick]

Delayed 4 years for this defense. Seems like a lot of wasted time.

Not delayed by Defense - delayed while discovery issues were appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee - specifically regarding the cell phone/social media of the accuser and witness Lamb.

It is called Due Process.....

delayed - seems like a waste of time vs possibility of 60 years in prison for the defendants.

I am glad that we have due process.

 

[davethevol]

The defense team is excellent... but I wonder if they're second-guessing not calling some of their witnesses. It's given Nassios leeway to make claims that witnesses would have testified were false. Partygoers' and neighbors' accounts would have refuted accuser testimony about her behavior before and after the alleged rape.

I wonder if they had someone studying the body language of the jurors during the trial and making a decision based off something they observed.

 

[patrick]

Given that the jury has to draw some kind of inference from the destruction of the phones, do you think the defense established a solid enough case for a negative inference?

Well I can guarantee that the closing arguments by defense counsel will drive this point in the ground.

 

[patrick]

Yes. It turns a true/false question into multiple choice, only one of which is "not guilty."

And not only does that mathematically increase the chances of some version of a guilty verdict, it also plays to the human tendency to seek middle ground when debating or negotiating (which is what jury deliberations usually involve).

It certainly favors the prosecution.

another issue for appeal

 

[VFL-82-JP]

another issue for appeal

If needed, aye.

 

[bamawriter]

This is not true as far as convictions go.

 A national study estimates only 37% of reported
rapes are prosecuted.
 18% of prosecuted rape cases end in a conviction.

https://opsvaw.as.uky.edu/sites/default/files/07_Rape_Prosecution.pdf (2010)

I have to question that source. Even RAINN, which is still going to be pretty biased, has the percentage of convictions at 64% of all cases referred to prosecutors. Perhaps your link eliminates plea deals?

 

[LA Vol]

Quick closing. Not effective in shoring up witness credibility or addressing inconsistencies-- all emotion. The entire closing played on fear and UT creating a culture where "big, strong" football players feel entitled to take whatever they want without regard for people or consequences. Clearly, she wants that "animal" metaphor to stick in jurors' minds-- reiterating that AJ created a beast identity for himself and trying to establish a causal connection. It'll either resonate with female jurors or it won't.

 

[patrick]

I have to question that source. Even RAINN, which is still going to be pretty biased, has the percentage of convictions at 64% of all cases referred to prosecutors. Perhaps your link eliminates plea deals?

Data from the National Violence Against
Women Survey demonstrate the consequences of these
myths. In the nationally-representative study, only 32.1% of reported rapes by intimate partners were prosecuted, compared to 44.4% of reported
rapes by non-intimates (7).

Conviction rates for intimate rapists were also
significantly lower (36.4% to 61.9% of
p r o s e c u t e d c a s e s )....

So about 50% overall

 

[patrick]

Quick closing. Not effective in shoring up witness credibility or addressing inconsistencies-- all emotion. The entire closing played on fear and UT creating a culture where "big, strong" football players feel entitled to take whatever they want without regard for people or consequences. Clearly, she wants that "animal" metaphor to stick in jurors' minds-- reiterating that AJ created a beast identity for himself and trying to establish a causal connection. It'll either resonate with female jurors or it won't.

I find it odd that the prosecution seem to put UT Ath/Adm on trial as well as the KPD (and even fan reaction). Some of my fellow members of the bar also question this tactic.

 

[JohnD13]

If anyone on here thinks a trial or the justice system overall is about innocence or guilt, you are dead wrong. It's about winning. Doesn't matter if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

 

[vollygirl]

I have to question that source. Even RAINN, which is still going to be pretty biased, has the percentage of convictions at 64% of all cases referred to prosecutors. Perhaps your link eliminates plea deals?

What was your source for the comment that "often rape victims don't fight back"?

 

[bamawriter]

What was your source for the comment that most rape victims don't fight back?

If you're referring to this:

Rape victims often don't physically resist.

I didn't even remotely imply that "most rape victims don't fight back."

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If anyone on here thinks a trial or the justice system overall is about innocence or guilt, you are dead wrong. It's about winning. Doesn't matter if the defendant is guilty or innocent.

That's a cynical view, and often a popular one. It has been around a long, long time.

So you're not telling any of us anything we haven't heard before.

Our system (which we got from the Brits and continental Europeans) pits opposing sides against each other, both of whom are trying their best to win. Your cynicism reflects the view from their foxholes.

But from their struggles against each other, their debate, their contest, in an ideal world the truth becomes evident to the rest of us (the judge and jury) and justice is done.

Is that always the case? Heck no.

But come up with a better system. Folks have been trying for thousands of years, haven't found a better way yet.

So sure, you can say it's not about justice, just about winning and losing. But you'd be wrong from the broader, societal perspective.

 

[vollygirl]

If you're referring to this:

Rape victims often don't physically resist.

I didn't even remotely imply that "most rape victims don't fight back."

i miss quoted you and changed it.

Where was that info from?

 

[LA Vol]

I find it odd that the prosecution seem to put UT Ath/Adm on trial as well as the KPD (and even fan reaction). Some of my fellow members of the bar also question this tactic.

Agree. They're trying to tie UT into this and use the whole "culture of rape" perception to support their allegations -- probably because their case is so weak. The state has no evidence, the accuser has huge credibility issues and their best witness hammered in the nail. Reasonable doubt everywhere. Should be a quick verdict... but you never know with emotional cases.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

What was your source for the comment that "often rape victims don't fight back"?

triggered...

 

[smokeyz1]

That's a cynical view, and often a popular one. It has been around a long, long time.

So you're not telling any of us anything we haven't heard before.

Our system (which we got from the Brits and continental Europeans) pits opposing sides against each other, both of whom are trying their best to win. Your cynicism reflects the view from their foxholes.

But from their struggles against each other, their debate, their contest, in an ideal world the truth becomes evident to the rest of us (the judge and jury) and justice is done.

Is that always the case? Heck no.

But come up with a better system. Folks have been trying for thousands of years, haven't found a better way yet.

So sure, you can say it's not about justice, just about winning and losing. But you'd be wrong from the broader, societal perspective.

The Duke rape case from a few years back has definitely tainted the view of a lot of people about whether DA's are looking for justice vs. getting wins in court.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

The Duke rape case from a few years back has definitely tainted the view of a lot of people about whether DA's are looking for justice vs. getting wins in court.

Yeah, already acknowledged that, Smokeyz.

It's okay for the DAs to work toward wins. That's the key to how our judicial system is set up. They (and the defense attorneys on the other side) are supposed to try to get wins. And if both sides do their best, revealing every bit of information in their favor, the rest of us (judge and jury) will hopefully see the truth emerge as the two sides fight back and forth.

 

[JohnD13]

So sure, you can say it's not about justice, just about winning and losing. But you'd be wrong from the broader, societal perspective.

Tell that to those wrongfully convicted because the prosecutor withheld evidence or witness statements. Or the victims of crimes whose attacker got off because of similar moves by the defense attorney...

Probably not a better system out there, but this one is pretty damn flawed.

 

[wesleydmartin]

i cant believe this went to trial, what a joke....


to be clear i feel badly for all involved, but wow never should have went to trial, just off the evidence presented alone....