AJ Johnson/Michael Williams Case (merged)

[DaddyChad]

But what if the girl initially consents but changes her mind during the act?
If she says to stop and he doesn't stop, is that rape?
I would think that it is.
I would think consent ends wit the word stop.
And, where does alcohol/drug/memory impairment come in?
Just seems to me these things always come down to which party is more believable.

Everything you said is true but to prove that might be impossible IF those texts exist.

 

[gunner]

So KPD did not say if a rape kit was taken right after the incident? or if phones siezed? Thats the stuff that will convict. What they are reporting makes you wonder why they were even charged. I assume they do.

I don't assume anything. The police and DA have been very tight lipped regarding what evidence exists, and imo they should be quiet about it. Whatever evidence exist should come out at trial and not in the media.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

Everything you said is true but to prove that might be impossible IF those texts exist.

That may absolve AJ, but what about MW. I think he may be the real culprit. I think this boils down to "it ain't no fun if my homey can't have none". Hopefully they have separate trials.

 

[walkenvol]

gunner - you're obviously quite experienced in the legal system. In your experience is it likely a grand jury wouldn't move a case to a trial with the following particulars;

-2 young adults have sex after a night of drinking
-female claims sex was not consensual
-no overwhelming indisputable evidence the female is being dishonest

In no way am I inferring this is the simplistic version of the AJ case, only discussing grand juries in general.

My one experience serving on a grand jury was every case presented was moved forward with none being rejected. I left wondering why the grand jury even existed. Would be interesting to know what percentage of cases presented to grand juries were not moved forward.

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2544&context=clr

This article from the Cornell law review states "Grand juries have been abolished
in a large number of states and in England" and presents the grand jury system as strictly an asset to the prosecuters.

 

[gunner]

Do you understand the concept of circumstantial evidence. Just because he was indicted by a grand jury doesn't mean he is guilty and if he is found not guilty by a jury of his peers then you can try and rationalize his guilt all you want, he was found innocent by our system.

Was OJ Simpson found to be innocent in his criminal trial for murder after his arrest? Didn't the jury find him not guilty? Does that mean he was innocent?

He was later found guilty when sued in civil court for wrongful death of his wife and her family was awarded a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Does that make him guilty or innocent?

Keep in mind there are two different levels of proof required in a criminal court as opposed to civil court. Civil court requires preponderance of evidence, and criminal court requires proof beyond any reasonable doubt. Beyond any reasonable doubt is a much higher standard than preponderance of evidence. Both are higher than Probable cause.

Imo a not guilty verdict means that OJ wasn't guilty as charged in his criminal case because the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to gain his conviction for murder by convincing the jury of his guilt.

That doesn't mean he was innocent as the civil court found him guilty of wrongful death because of the lower standard required in a civil proceeding.

My point is that AJ will either found guilty or not by a jury, (if he goes to trial) it's up to everyone else to decide if he's innocent or not.

 

[Weezer]

You're only defending said person because they're a Tennessee player. You wouldn't even acknowledge rape on the local scale. If you did, it's only because you live in a small town. As far as large cities go, do you read about rape daily? Probably not. They still happen daily. Do you defend all of those potential rapists? Nope. You sure don't. You playing the card about someone judging as you defend someone simply because they played for your team is bulls***. They judge without knowing the facts? You defend(judge in favor) because someone played on a stupid ass team.

Wrong. You don't know me, so don't presume to think I'm defending AJ simply because he played for the Vols. Hell, I don't even think of it as defending AJ as much as I do defending presumed innocent until found guilty. You do remember that thing called the U.S. Constitution don't you? In case you need a refresher, it's that document that spells forth our rights as citizens. My personal opinion is rape should be a death penalty crime, but before you put a man to death, or even in prison for a very long time, let the evidence come out to prove whether he's guilty or innocent. But I guess you think mere accusation is enough to prove guilt. Take your chest-thumping ignorance elsewhere.

 

[Sudden Impact]

He knew the girl, which is even more perplexing. As some have mentioned that he has text from her propositioning him for sex. I would think that would be enough to show consent.

Did he witness a crime that MW committed and allow it to happen without stopping it? So does that make AJ an accessory to a felony? He may not have done anything to stop it from getting out of control and this is where he maybe found guilty. He may not have raped her, but he may have knowingly allowed MW to commit the crime of rape by ignoring her cries for help or words of No.

 

[Remy]

I'm not saying he's guilty either, I'm just merely pointing out that from this point he will either be found guilty or not guilty, and to me NOT guilty doesn't mean he's innocent.

Had charges never been filed and he never was never arrested it would be much easier to make the claim that he's innocent.

Just my two cents.

Got it, in your head any Barney Fife that arrests a guy for any transgression can NEVER be innocent.In your bizzaro world a simple arrest leaves a stain in perpetuity. This gives cops & government complete control of everyone, welcome to totalitarianism.

 

[Weezer]

Your misunderstanding of the system seems to be the problem. So I will try to help to the best of my abilities. I wrote this in another post and it seems useful here too.

Here is my understanding of probable cause after over 20 years of experience in law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels.

Probable Cause is when a reasonable person is presented with the facts and circumstances regarding the alleged crime would conclude that it's more probable than not that a crime has been committed by the accused.

It is a strict legal standard that must be met before any arrest, search or seizure can occur. This is a requirement based upon the U.S. Constitution so all levels of law enforcement must adhere to this standard.

For the Grand Jury to indict they must conclude that probable causes exist that a crime was committed and who committed it. The Grand Jury is made up of common citizens who are considered to be reasonable. It does not consist of attorneys, prosecutors, or LEO's or Judges. There is a foreman who is appointed to lead them.

A law enforcement officer (LEO) can arrest someone without a warrant based solely upon probable cause. This is called a warrantless arrest and there is nothing a defense attorney can do to prevent this from happening, it's a fundamental concept of our justice system.

The arrest just like any Grand Jury indictment does NOT determine guilt, but rather that based on the facts and circumstances it is more probable than not that a crime has been committed by the person who was arrested.

However, most prosecutors prefer that a LEO not make a warrantless arrest and procede cautiously especially in high profile cases. Therefore, the prosecutor takes the case to a Grand Jury where it's the prosecutor's responsibility to present the facts and circumstances to the Grand Jury including any exculpatory evidence that may serve to exhonorate the defendant.

The Grand Jury is not intended to be a confrontational hearing but simply a fact finding event to determine probable cause. If the allegations are confirmed by the Grand Jury then the Forman returns a true bill for the indictment. Once the defendant is indicted for the crime an arrest warrant is issued and the defendant goes to jail where he is usually given a bond, and is released from jail while he awaits trial. The defendant is still presumed to be innocent until guilt is proven at trial or accepted by pleading guilty.

I hope this helps.

Yeah, I don't think I'm misunderstanding the system. I think what you're missing is that I don't think it's hard to manufacture probable cause in a GJ. There is no judge involved in the GJ. It's the prosecutor and the jurors, and there's lots more leeway on what "evidence" is allowed to be presented. If I'm not mistaken, the defense is not even allowed to participate to challenge the veracity of the "evidence". The only part I'm unsure of is the last part about the participation of the defense, but it's my understanding that's how it works. If an actual lawyer wants to correct me on that, then please do. I know we have a few on here, but apparently they've chosen not to comment.

So to act like the GJ is this sanctified all-knowing body of jurors is foolishness.

 

[gunner]

gunner - you're obviously quite experienced in the legal system. In your experience is it likely a grand jury wouldn't move a case to a trial with the following particulars;

-2 young adults have sex after a night of drinking
-female claims sex was not consensual
-no overwhelming indisputable evidence the female is being dishonest

In no way am I inferring this is the simplistic version of the AJ case, only discussing grand juries in general.

My one experience serving on a grand jury was every case presented was moved forward with none being rejected. I left wondering why the grand jury even existed. Would be interesting to know what percentage of cases presented to grand juries were not moved forward.

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2544&context=clr

This article from the Cornell law review states "Grand juries have been abolished
in a large number of states and in England" and presents the grand jury system as strictly an asset to the prosecuters.

In a high profile case such as this one would fully expect the DA to have more evidence than his word against hers. Even the best prosecutors would have a very difficult time convincing the jury that he is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. The victim would have to be Viewed as as more credible and believeable by the jury than the two defendants. I have never seen or heard of a prosecutor taking a case before a GJ and not getting an indictment. That's why many call it a "rubber stamp". At this point regarding AJ's case We just simply don't all the facts and circumstances, and we won't until the trial so it's difficult to say what will happen.

As far as Grand Juries are concerned when I worked in Florida as a LEO, I would write a criminal complaint establishing that a crime has been committed and probable cause of who committed it. The defendant was arrested based upon the proable cause. The State Attorney's office would review the complaint and file formal charges or not. Mostly always charges would be filed. If the prosecutor agreed that there was probable cause, he would file and draft an information based upon the facts in the criminal complaint and file it with the clerk of the court. After arrest the defendant would get his initial court appearance where a bond would be set or not. I can't recall anyone being indicted by a grand jury, but I'm somewhat confident a prosecutor in FL has the ability to use a GJ if he so decides.

In the federal system, all that I have experienced is that the defendant must waive his right to be indicted by a GJ in order to change his plea to guilty and be charged by a criminal information.

I can't say with complete certainity regarding the rights of a defendant to a GJ in Tennessee or if the DA can just direct file charges as I was never a LEO in the state system in Tennessee. But, every felony criminal case that I was part in Tennessee as a fed the defendants were indicted by a GJ in Tennessee. That question is best to be answered by an experienced criminal attorney.

I hope this helps.

 

[Rudy123]

A.J. Johnson, former Tennessee Volunteers linebacker, turns himself in on rape charge - ESPN

Like I have said in the past, these guys need to get a girlfriend while on campus and not have casual sex with a girl that they met at a party after the football game.
A girlfriend is not likely to claim rape on you.
The player from Kentucky had a girl claim rape on him this season. The 2nd string q.b. from Florida had a girl claim rape on him this season. J. Winston had a girl claim rape on him last season.
The list goes on and on!

 

[kohlrums]

I think many will feel sorry for the victim no matter who it is, we just need to determine who the victim is in this case and the courts will now settle this.

Who is the victim? could easily be AJ or MW, could be her, could be the team and fans.

Right now we are all victims of this act. We all hope for the best but there will be clear winners and losers in this case. Prepare for the worse, pray for the best.

Regardless of the outcome lives will be changed.

We-that fans-are not victims here. Not when someone was possibly raped. For Christ sakes. The only victims are the people involved and their families.

 

[gunner]

Yeah, I don't think I'm misunderstanding the system. I think what you're missing is that I don't think it's hard to manufacture probable cause in a GJ. There is no judge involved in the GJ. It's the prosecutor and the jurors, and there's lots more leeway on what "evidence" is allowed to be presented. If I'm not mistaken, the defense is not even allowed to participate to challenge the veracity of the "evidence". The only part I'm unsure of is the last part about the participation of the defense, but it's my understanding that's how it works. If an actual lawyer wants to correct me on that, then please do. I know we have a few on here, but apparently they've chosen not to comment.

So to act like the GJ is this sanctified all-knowing body of jurors is foolishness.

Thats what's great about this country your entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

I hope we can agree to disagree.

 

[YankeeVol]

I think too many people don't understand the legal system

I'm not surprised.

 

[MFL]

I don't assume anything. The police and DA have been very tight lipped regarding what evidence exists, and imo they should be quiet about it. Whatever evidence exist should come out at trial and not in the media.

That's why folks are spinning wheels trying to make a case. We will know after the jury talks and that want be until after the judge dismisses them. This thread is for those that love controversy with others.:lolabove:

 

[ddubb76]

I think many will feel sorry for the victim no matter who it is, we just need to determine who the victim is in this case and the courts will now settle this.

Who is the victim? could easily be AJ or MW, could be her, could be the team and fans.

Right now we are all victims of this act. We all hope for the best but there will be clear winners and losers in this case. Prepare for the worse, pray for the best.

Regardless of the outcome lives will be changed.

Unfortunately, today's justice system will not clarify the true victim. It will be how good of lawyers or how bad. Lady justice has expensive habits and unfortunately only the people involved will ever know the truth.

 

[gunner]

Explain to me how what you said fundamentally differs from what you think I said, especially if youre not being obtuse on purpose.

I admit, I am no expert. Im just a final year law student, with several years of experience both as a clerk and intern in and around the Tennessee criminal system (federal as well, but that knowledge doesn't directly apply here).

I read your comments that painted the GJ process in a very disparaging light, by concluding that a ham sandwich can be indicted. I have been through the process many times as a witness, and I have been asked numerous questions by jurors about the case. Needless, to say I have a lot of respect for the process.

I work in the federal system and let me tell you it's NOT easy to get a case to indictment. In my district as is the case in many, it must be approved all the way up to the US Attorney himself where the entire case is reviewed by him before an indictment is scheduled. They want the cases so airtight that even a law student could prosecute it, no offense to law students.

So to say a ham sandwich could be indicted to me is very offensive when I know how much work must be done just to get it to a GJ.

Good luck with your endeavors and your career. I have found mine to be very rewarding and frustrating at times too. But, I still love the job!

 

[Sudden Impact]

We-that fans-are not victims here. Not when someone was possibly raped. For Christ sakes. The only victims are the people involved and their families.

Fans not the best word to use. The Vol Family better. Prossibly Raped? More like Probably. This was a selfish act and a self inflicted wound by all three.

 

[MFL]

Diversion from the Vanderbilt players who were found guilty of rape.

I get the Tennessean . Use to get the Banner but they went under years ago. I watched the Vandy case in it's entirety. The Tennessean held no punches. They were relentless on the accused. All over front page a number of times. You might say they hate Vandy. :good!:

 

[gunner]

I get the Tennessean . Use to get the Banner but they went under years ago. I watched the Vandy case in it's entirety. The Tennessean held no punches. They were relentless on the accused. All over front page a number of times. You might say they hate Vandy. :good!:

They probably are more concerned with selling papers than hate. Most media outlets will disparage thier own mother if they thought it would sell more or gain them critical acclaim.

 

[overseasorange2]

I read your comments that painted the GJ process in a very disparaging light, by concluding that a ham sandwich can be indicted. I have been through the process many times as a witness, and I have been asked numerous questions by jurors about the case. Needless, to say I have a lot of respect for the process.

I work in the federal system and let me tell you it's NOT easy to get a case to indictment. In my district as is the case in many, it must be approved all the way up to the US Attorney himself where the entire case is reviewed by him before an indictment is scheduled. They want the cases so airtight that even a law student could prosecute it, no offense to law students.

So to say a ham sandwich could be indicted to me is very offensive when I know how much work must be done just to get it to a GJ.

Good luck with your endeavors and your career. I have found mine to be very rewarding and frustrating at times too. But, I still love the job!

I agree, it apparently is much easier for a weiner.

 

[Rudy123]

That's what I thought, your not really sure.

We don't know all the facts and circumstances involved all we know is that probable cause that a crime has been committed has been established by the prosecution.

That doesn't mean he's guilty, but rather it's more likely than not that a crime has been committed by those named in the indictment. It's the prosecution job to prove it. If they don't prove it in the eyes of jury then he is found NOT Guilty.

Nationally, how many cases go to court and the person if found innocent?
The only one that comes to mind for me is the O.J. case.
In my mind, there is a 90% chance that A.J. will be convicted and it won't even go to trial until about 18 months from now.
His potential for an NFL career is OVER, even if acquitted, he will have been away from football for 2 years.

 

[wmcovol]

My honest opinion on this is CBJ handled it correctly but should have had a tighter leash on current players repping the "4-5 Fingers" in pics for the tax slayer bowl. I know the team loved the guy but if a rape investigation is on going Butch should of told the players to keep all opinions to themselves.

I suspect these football players know more about the alleged assault than the grand jury. The Grand Jury only knows one side of the story.

 

[GAVol]

Nationally, how many cases go to court and the person if found innocent?
The only one that comes to mind for me is the O.J. case.
In my mind, there is a 90% chance that A.J. will be convicted and it won't even go to trial until about 18 months from now.
His potential for an NFL career is OVER, even if acquitted, he will have been away from football for 2 years.

charges don't get filed on a whim, But silly to assign guilt or innocence at this point. We know very few details.

 

[Sudden Impact]

I suspect these football players know more about the alleged assault than the grand jury. The Grand Jury only knows one side of the story.

Agree and that is the major flaw in the System.