Aj Johnson Update (Kind of) <<< [NO ACTUAL UPDATE]

And when you're having to go through the appellate courts just to be able to have evidence allowed/required to be submitted, a speedy trial goes out the window.

Red flag (always) when the prosecution tries to keep information out of court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
If the DA motions to exclude evidence from court, you can be assured it's not favorable to her case. The harder the DA pushes, the more damaging she perceives it to be.

The woman received a settlement in civil court. She probably wishes the criminal case would be dismissed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
All of the texts can be recovered. They need a warrant to get the info from the phone company, but once it is allowed by the judge, the info can be found and used. Personally, it feels like this case has been f'd up from the start on the prosecution side. Time will tell.

Yes, text messages can be recovered if the phone company preserves them as evidence. In most cases, phone companies remove the data from their servers within a few days or weeks.
 
Regardless, AJ Johnson name is RUINED in the sense that there is always going to be media drama and speculation tied to him and potential NFL career. Unless case gets dismissed and an NFL team wants to take a chance. Media is gonna be all over that story if so.
 
Yes, text messages can be recovered if the phone company preserves them as evidence. In most cases, phone companies remove the data from their servers within a few days or weeks.

The defense is attempting to get more than just text messages. The pending interlocatory appeals revolves around them recovering and utilizing the alleged victims' social media history i.e. twitter, Facebook, snap chat, yik yak, etc.
 
And when you're having to go through the appellate courts just to be able to have evidence allowed/required to be submitted, a speedy trial goes out the window.

Speedy trial issues aren't as problematic when neither defendant is incarcerated pending trial
 
They would need evidence of intent on the part of the DA. I think it would be easier for the defense to just file a warrant for the text messages from the women. With them destroying their phones, they do have a good justification.

They wouldn't succeed since the DA is immune based upon governmental immunity but it's possible to sue the alleged victims for malicious prosecution among other things
 
So now it comes down to data retention. How long do the service providers retain information and what information is kept? Ever-changing privacy laws and access regulations have caused providers to redefine the amount of time that is reasonably necessary to retain data to comply with applicable laws and respond to legal process. The incident happened in November 2014, and the defense is seeking data preceding that, from multiple providers.
 
Speedy trial issues aren't as problematic when neither defendant is incarcerated pending trial

Can we talk more about how it's not a speedy trial. I open this to just see what idiot makes the speedy trial comment. It's life, deal.
 
If they have the texts and social media from the players, why do they need it from the girls?

The texts they are seeking are not from conversations between the players and the girls, they are from conversations exclusively between the girls
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The texts they are seeking are not from conversations between the players and the girls, they are from conversations exclusively between the girls

Weren't the girls also told by the police not to delete any texts and then were caught on video at the police station doing just that, and then they destroyed their phones?
 
The girls' social media chats might be revealing, or might be misleading, or both. A young woman could be raped and yet not want to acknowledge that fact--and might even pretend, for various reasons, that it was consensual when it wasn't. There is a reason a lot of rape cases never get reported at all. Of course, if they deleted messages and destroyed their phones, that suggests that may have something to hide. I've read that Johnson and his accuser had had some sort of relationship with months--not sure if that is true, but if it is it certainly might be exculpatory--but then the prosecution would be well aware of that, too, meaning there must be some significant evidence that an assault occurred. One wonders about the motivation of the accuser in this case, too--it is always hard for me to believe that anyone could go through this awful process unless indeed she feels she was violated. Who knows--but this case has dragged on.
 

VN Store



Back
Top