AJ Johnson/Michael Williams Case (merged)

#777
#777
GoVols1961 said:
KNOXVILLE - Tennessee linebacker A.J. Johnson will have all charges stemming from a Feb. 9 party dropped in 90 days if he fulfills terms of an agreement reached Friday.

Johnson's charge of resisting arrest was dismissed Friday. Johnson must perform 24 hours of community service, pay court costs and have good conduct to have a charge of purchasing alcohol for a person underage dropped in 90 days.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info- much appreciated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#779
#779
What is amazing is the "AJ is probably innocent and MW is guilty" line of thought.
 
#782
#782
daj2576 said:
You think that a civilian witness in a criminal case should have to cover the substantial costs of prosecution should the government lose?
Click to expand...

Not a witness. I think the person bringing charges should have to pay if they/government representation loses. I have friends that went to trial in the same way on a he said she said evidence and they were found not guilty. They had to shell out 15 to 20k to prove it. I understand you can counter with a civil case but that's more money out of pocket and more time wasted by the court system. I don't want to deter people from seeking criminal charges where they are justified but something has to be done about all of the nonsense cases as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#783
#783
thebjd said:
What is amazing is the "AJ is probably innocent and MW is guilty" line of thought.
Click to expand...

Yes a possibly it is the unanswered question that forces this to trial. It could be the reason AJ is Charged. Shotgun affect of charging everybody involved to gain a desired result.

The Prosecution must prove Means, Motive, and Opportunity.

A lot of assumptions can be made. This case if it goes to trial is going to open up a lot of cans of worms. It is a catch 22 plead out and charged with a lessor crime would still end a career. If innocent don't admit guilt but let it play out in court delays or ends career or prision time.

People who have never been in this type situation are going to have their eyes opened up at how quickly a flirtatious alcohol drama driven event can turn quickly into a slippery slope. Both young and old.

The key is the friend that refuse to press charges and headed back to Florida. I think her testimony will be critical to sorting this mess out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#784
#784
Sudden Impact said:
People who have never been in this type situation are going to have their eyes opened up at how quickly a flirtatious alcohol drama driven event can turn quickly into a slippery slope. Both young and old.
Click to expand...

How do you know anything "flirtatious" happened here?
 
#785
#785
jortfreeTN said:
I think I read around 92% of all criminal cases ended in a conviction. I would assume many of those are plead down from the original charges and not sure what that would be in a case like this.
Click to expand...


That's my point though, once indicted it is extremely rare to not get a conviction for some type of criminal conduct. I have seen the most expensive and famous defense attorneys look at cases and soon thereafter advise their client not to go to trial and plea as charged.

I'm not saying AJ and Williams will be plead out because I haven't seen the evidence that will be presented to a jury, and high profile cases such as this usually go to trial.
 
Last edited:
#787
#787
crparker21 said:
Not a witness. I think the person bringing charges should have to pay if they/government representation loses. I have friends that went to trial in the same way on a he said she said evidence and they were found not guilty. They had to shell out 15 to 20k to prove it. I understand you can counter with a civil case but that's more money out of pocket and more time wasted by the court system. I don't want to deter people from seeking criminal charges where they are justified but something has to be done about all of the nonsense cases as well.
Click to expand...

Based upon my experience, a guy knows when a girl what's to have sex with him or not, and if he's doesn't know or has any doubt, he should NOT have sex with her. Thats the basis that I have operated on my entire life, and I have never been accused of raping anyone. If your girl is drunk or stoned it's a pretty good idea to just take her home or let her sleep it off on the couch. She will have more respect for you if you respect her.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#788
#788
Titan&Volfan4life said:
I approve of this message.

We won't know anything until the trial is over and a verdict is announced.

Let this thread die until we hear a verdict from the trial.

#RiseToTheTop...VFL...GBO!!!
Click to expand...

unfortunately, as humans, we won't truly know then.

Maybe someone else knows the mans name, I didn't commit it to memory. There was a story recently on headline news of a man exonerated after 5 years. He missed his opportunity to play in the NFL but now at least has a job in the office.


Not picking sides, but even the verdict doesn't mean it actually did or did not happen.
 
#789
#789
daj2576 said:
Thank you for your well wishes.

There is no need to be offended. My comments regarding the ease of which a grand jury indicts has nothing to do with the investigatory process of law enforcement. If you separate the two from each other, it is perfectly reasonable to say that grand juries are rubber stamps that would indict a ham sandwich without compromising any work that the law enforcement officer has done to get the evidence. Getting good evidence, then, doesn't change the fact that GJ proceedings could indict a ham sandwich.

If you view the intent of the GJ proceeding as being one of several procedural safe guards to protect the citizens from government overreach, as I do, you might see that it is laughably ineffectual. How can a safeguard be effective when the standard to pass through is so low that it can be stepped over by a toddler, or when the very entity that the GJ system is designed to act as a limit upon (the government), is the only entity that gets a say in what gets presented and how it gets presented?

In other words, if the GJ is supposedly a limit on government dishonesty or malicious prosecution, there is no mechanism to actually cull the good cases from the bad. It is a rubber stamp, a box check, with very few exceptions.

If you are a good cop in TN and you have the best evidence in the world, it would be almost indistinguishable to a grand jury from a bad cop who violated the rights of the defendant and who planted evidence. I'm not suggesting that the majority of cops are bad, I don't think our forefathers would have thought that either. But I, like they, know how dangerous a tiny minority who go rogue can be to the vast majority when the government is given almost limitless power and resources. That is why the GJ was a brilliant idea but is now almost reduced to a colon that passes everything through one end and out the other without even slowing it down much.

Finally it should be noted that there are differences between grand juries in each state and between the federal government and the states. Trying to compare one to the others beyond broad generalities can be misleading to the casual observer.
Click to expand...

Of all of the posters on Volnation you're one of the few that actually knows what they're talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#790
#790
gunner said:
Have you every testified or been involved in a federal grand jury in any way? If so, I would be interested in hearing about your experience.
Click to expand...

I cannot comment on any of my personal experiences with the federal grand jury system. Specific discussions would tend to encroach on the confidences of my employer and his clients. Even if I could, my experience there is very narrow and wouldn't be a good indication of the whole but the stories would be fun to tell.

I could give broad academic feelings on the matter but those don't change much from what has already been discussed.

I can tell you that I have friends and colleagues who practice criminal law at the state and local levels, and they will tell you that federal prosecutors don't tend to 'play around.' Read that however you will.
 
#792
#792
oregonvol said:
How do you know anything "flirtatious" happened here?
Click to expand...

I have no clue.

Only SWAGs (Sophisticated Wild Ass Guesses) and hearsay.

What we do know is that AJ had girlfriend and had another friend on the side who had a friend from Florida that did not press charges and left for home rather abruptly.

Also MW was involved and if you read the indictment it reads like porn script.
 
#793
#793
daj2576 said:
I cannot comment on any of my personal experiences with the federal grand jury system. Specific discussions would tend to encroach on the confidences of my employer and his clients. Even if I could, my experience there is very narrow and wouldn't be a good indication of the whole but the stories would be fun to tell.

I could give broad academic feelings on the matter but those don't change much from what has already been discussed.

I can tell you that I have friends and colleagues who practice criminal law at the state and local levels, and they will tell you that federal prosecutors don't tend to 'play around.' Read that however you will.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight.

I'm moving forward, we have beat this to death.
 
#796
#796
crparker21 said:
Not a witness. I think the person bringing charges should have to pay if they/government representation loses. I have friends that went to trial in the same way on a he said she said evidence and they were found not guilty. They had to shell out 15 to 20k to prove it. I understand you can counter with a civil case but that's more money out of pocket and more time wasted by the court system. I don't want to deter people from seeking criminal charges where they are justified but something has to be done about all of the nonsense cases as well.
Click to expand...

If you are talking about a criminal trial, as here, the entity bringing the charges is the State. The victim is generally only a witness for the government. In some cases, the victim has no control over the state pursuing charges.

A recent hobby of mine has been researching the literature surrounding false rape and/or domestic abuse claims. Part of that is looking at the different ideas promulgated to alleviate false claims. I haven't read, nor have I been able to come up with, an idea that isn't so over bearing and punitive as to likely chill some victims from coming forward.

I don't know how to solve it, but for the wrongly accused the system is broken, and for the real victim who gets no justice, the system is also broken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#797
#797
daj2576 said:
If you are talking about a criminal trial, as here, the entity bringing the charges is the State. The victim is generally only a witness for the government. In some cases, the victim has no control over the state pursuing charges.

A recent hobby of mine has been researching the literature surrounding false rape and/or domestic abuse claims. Part of that is looking at the different ideas promulgated to alleviate false claims. I haven't read, nor have I been able to come up with, an idea that isn't so over bearing and punitive as to likely chill some victims from coming forward.

I don't know how to solve it, but for the wrongly accused the system is broken, and for the real victim who gets no justice, the system is also broken.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying and sometimes that is the case, but in this case the state would not be pursuing charges if the girl did not make a claim of rape. As I said I believe whoever at fault should be held accountable. If it is rape aj should be punished to full extent. If it is a false claim the girl shouldn't be able to walk away without punishment.
 
#798
#798
crparker21 said:
I understand what you are saying and sometimes that is the case, but in this case the state would not be pursuing charges if the girl did not make a claim of rape. As I said I believe whoever at fault should be held accountable. If it is rape aj should be punished to full extent. If it is a false claim the girl shouldn't be able to walk away without punishment.
Click to expand...

Proving it is a false claim is just as iffy as proving rape and its quite likely and probable that neither can be proven. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean he didn't in fact do it, it means that there was insufficient proof to convict. However, I do agree with you in cases that can clearly be proven to be false accusations.
 
#799
#799
crparker21 said:
I understand what you are saying and sometimes that is the case, but in this case the state would not be pursuing charges if the girl did not make a claim of rape. As I said I believe whoever at fault should be held accountable. If it is rape aj should be punished to full extent. If it is a false claim the girl shouldn't be able to walk away without punishment.
Click to expand...

I see.

That makes sense, and there options at the disposal of the prosecutor such as contempt charges. I can only think of a few cases that I have read about where the prosecutor decided to pursue those.

Remember that prosecutors are elected making them political creatures. The public could view a prosecution of a 'victim' for lying as the prosecutor's own failure in vetting and investigating the case.

If you are already worried about the effect of false rape allegations, don't ever read "A Rush to Injustice" about the Duke lacrosse team.
 
#800
#800
Madscientistvol said:
Proving it is a false claim is just as iffy as proving rape and its quite likely and probable that neither can be proven. A not guilty verdict doesn't mean he didn't in fact do it, it means that there was insufficient proof to convict. However, I do agree with you in cases that can clearly be proven to be false accusations.
Click to expand...

The very bedrock of our criminal justice system is the arch ideal that the defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if not proven guilty, one should be viewed as innocent.

There is no onus on the defendant to prove innocence, only on the government to prove guilt.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top