AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

#401
#401
VFL-82-JP said:
Think that through, and you'll see the error.

The law automatically says, "didn't do anything wrong" on AJ and William's account. The presumption of innocence does that for them.

So what bit of "story" could they possibly add that would help the jurors disbelieve the accusation?

The entire second-by-second story is already out. There are variations on the theme (was the friend in the room or not when AJ+accuser began having sex? did it start with this particular sexual activity, or that? did he put on a condom at this point, or that?), but none of that is important, at the end of the day. There is only this: do you find the accuser credible?

If you have your clients testify, now the jury also has to decide, "do you find the defendants credible?" The risk increases.

So, no, I doubt you'll ever hear any story from AJ or Williams.



p.s. Thinking about it a bit, game theory may actually conclude it's better to introduce a "defense story." Follow me on this:

If there is no defense testimony, the jury has two possible positions: she's truthful (guilty) or she's lying (innocent). 50/50 chance for the defendants.

But if the defense offers their own story, the jury can now reach four conclusions: (a) both accuser and defendants were credible (tie goes to the defense=innocent), (b) the accuser was credible, but not the defendants (guilty), (c) the defendants were credible, but not the accuser (innocent), or (d) neither the accuser nor the defendants were credible (tie goes to the defense=innocent). Which == 75% chance of an innocent ruling for the defense.

So...contrary to the old rule to never put the defendant on the stand in cases like this, maybe game theory proves that you should?

I don't know. Would love to find out whether any lawyers have ever studied defense strategy in this way.
Click to expand...

While your theory tends to be sound, the way juries work is far more uncertain. Jurors are regularly told that they cannot consider a defendant's refusal to testify as evidence of guilt, and that the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But many jurors subconsciously ignore that instruction. Subconsciously, they think if the defendant was innocent he would have testified.

Here, just looking at the testimony in the trial, the downside risk to putting AJ on the stand seems relatively low. The biggest problem a witness faces is inconsistent testimony--they say something earlier that turns out to be true and they are caught in a lie they have to explain. The closest thing here seems to be the accuser's statement that she didn't want them to be arrested. It doesn't look like they have caught AJ in anything so you really don't have a good hook to cross examine him on.

Also, remember there are three potential outcomes--guilty, not guilty, or hung jury. Two of those favor the defendants. If AJ testifies well, he doesn't have to convince 12 jurors he didn't do it. He just has to convince one or more jurors strong enough to hold out for acquittal and he walks--at least until a second trial.
 
#404
#404
BowlBrother85 said:
Wow. 3 and 1/2 years and that's all they had? I'm not in the courtroom... and have no legal background either but that sure doesn't look like much of a case.
Click to expand...

Frankly I expected more witnesses however the Prosecution can call additional witnesses in rebuttal.
 
#405
#405
bamawriter said:
I don't believe the defense has used my exact wording. But that is absolutely the case they made with the cop today.



I don't know where that is coming from. The accuser claims to have factory reset her phone the morning before the incident, but I haven't seen anything from either than said their phones didn't work the next day. All the testimony says they switched phones in January.

I'm not saying I haven't missed anything. I'm trying my best to keep up, and I'm not above making a mistake.
Click to expand...

I understood accuser testimony to be that she did factory reset before the party.
 
#407
#407
patrick said:
Frankly I expected more witnesses however the Prosecution can call additional witnesses in rebuttal.
Click to expand...

Do you find it unusual that the defense, instead of the prosecution, is calling the sexual assault nurses as witnesses?
 
#408
#408
superdave1984 said:
I don't know about this. The alleged texts happened well after the "event" therefore would not have been something KPD would have asked about at the time.

Again, we don't have all the facts. 3 people know everything that happened. At least one is lying.

EDIT: Also, we don't know what the correct procedure was at the time for KPD to follow during this investigation. Procedure may not have dictated they ask about the accuser's phone. I have no idea. But if it wasn't part of the procedure and they had seized the phones, they could have been held liable in a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Being a server admin that works in IT security (over 25 years) I can say this with 100% faith. The legal system is so far behind on technology its not funny. From top to bottom from the cops that arrest to the Courts who decide to the jails and prisons that jail and imprison.

KPD from what I see did no wrong period. Even the courts pretty much did things as well as could be expected.given context.

1. The alleged communications happened after the fact
2. I am pretty well these guys didn't have lawyers of the proper stature on retainer to get things done in a timely manner.


When you have a case like this especially he said she said its about how fast you get a mouthpiece on the job.Also how experienced said mouthpiece is in the exact type of case you have. If they had iPhones even if they hadn't dumped em you got issues getting that data. The FBI has issues getting data from apple from known terrorists. you think they are gonna crack open an alleged rape victims phone?

All of this aside. Ignoring the stuff in media just the things coming out in actual testimony raise the level of reasonable doubt to such a ridiculously high level im not sure why this case is even in question.

As far as Defendants testifying, anyone that thinks in this case its a good idea has never been a young black man (1 has dreads). In fact the fact that AJ's still has those dreads makes me think he hasn't had the right legal advice.

It would blow your mind the things a real trial of this sort really turns on. Its all about appearances.First impression. Does he/she look like the average jurors mental image of a person that would do this? I know many innocent people that got guilty verdicts that were instantly overturned because of crap like that. Best thing a young black defendant can ever be is never seen in a courtroom. No matter how crazy that sounds its true.
 
#413
#413
volfan_28 said:
Stop pretending! You're not a judge or a juror in this case and neither am I or anyone else on this board. We're not in a trial. We're just trying to get each other to believe what we believe because it makes us feel good.
Click to expand...

If that was your son and he had never done anything to be arrested for in his life and this happened to him and the girls had thrown their phones away like in this case, would you not question it. If they raped her, freaking cut their nads off but I can’t for the life of me understand getting rid of the phones unless you are hiding something. I think they may have committed rape and the girls knew they had stuff on their phones that made them appear to be sluts. Frankly, they sound like sluts. So they panicked and got rid of them. Makes it look suspicious but on the flip side, it doesn’t mean they are 100 percent lying about being raped either. Stupid to have taken this long. Intern jones and police seem very incompetent. Hope justice prevails and have to trust the jury. Rant over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#414
#414
patrick said:
Frankly I expected more witnesses however the Prosecution can call additional witnesses in rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I was surprised also. They seem to be hoping the accuser's testimony is all they need for a Guilty verdict.

The accuser's friend's testimony seemed to help the defense as much as the prosecution. It showed the Accuser was no saint and also showed the friend was able to leave the room when she wanted. Her testimony did paint Williams in a bad light, but she didn't file charges against him.

The other witnesses seemed to be used just to paint a picture of UT interfering with the investigation. Since all parties agree that a threesome occurred, not sure what evidence could have been covered up by AJ and Williams knowing they were going to be charged ahead of time.

I would have thought they would have some evidence from AJ and Williams phones or from her other friends that would enhance the accuser's case, but they didn't present any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#415
#415
82_VOL_83 said:
If the nurses state that it appeared consensual then the state wouldn’t call them.
Click to expand...

I doubt they are calling them to work over consent. Unless an assault is particularly violent, it's often hard to establish consent during an exam. Basically, if it looks like you had intercourse, then you might have been raped.

I'm more interested to see if the defense is calling them because the accuser said something exculpatory or there isn't any semen or other fluids that can be linked to the defendants. There has been a lot of back-and-forth over whether or not condoms were worn, so the nurses might shine some light on that.
 
#416
#416
bamawriter said:
I doubt they are calling them to work over consent. Unless an assault is particularly violent, it's often hard to establish consent during an exam. Basically, if it looks like you had intercourse, then you might have been raped.

I'm more interested to see if the defense is calling them because the accuser said something exculpatory or there isn't any semen or other fluids that can be linked to the defendants. There has been a lot of back-and-forth over whether or not condoms were worn, so the nurses might shine some light on that.
Click to expand...

As I understand this particular field of forensic law, that's not quite right.

In cases of rape, there are often signs of violence, whether tearing from violent intercourse, or defensive wounds on the hands and arms, or other signs of trauma, such as bruising to the head or torso.

If the victim struggled or fought back, and the attacker persisted, you could often expect there to be physical evidence of that.

For instance, if one of the men picked the woman up and set her across the back of a chair against her will, you might expect bruising on her torso.

For instance, if one of the men grabbed her by the face, leaned in and told her to stop crying, you might expect to see some bruising on or about her face.

If none of those signs existed, you would expect the defense to want to get that on the record. It doesn't mean rape didn't occur, or that events didn't transpire as the accuser said, it only means that none of the signs of violent force that you might see were in evidence.

Even if the accuser never claimed violent force, I would think the defense would want this to be captured.

Kind of makes perfect sense that the defense is calling this particular witness, under those conditions. Not that it will be the hinge pin of the case, or anything close. Only that they want these kinds of activity ruled out.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#417
#417
VFL-82-JP said:
As I understand this particular field of forensic law, that's not quite true.

In cases of rape, there are often signs of violence, whether tearing from violent forms of intercourse, or defensive wounds on the hands and arms, or other signs of trauma, such as bruising to the head or torso.

If none of those signs existed, you would expect the defense to want to get that on the record. It doesn't mean rape didn't occur, it only means that none of the signs of violent force were in evidence.

Even if the accuser never claimed violent force, I would think the defense would want this to be captured.

Kind of makes perfect sense that the defense is calling this particular witness, under those conditions. Not that it will be the hinge pin of the case, or anything close. Only that they want these kinds of activity ruled out.
Click to expand...

You're right, but she didn't claim any activity that one would expect to leave much in the way of bruising. And even if you find more the usual bit of tearing, that can be explained

I just get the feeling there's more than this issue. And I say that because there are two nurses on the witness list. If all the defense is doing is getting the exam on record, they don't need two. But, if the accuser said or did something fishy during the exam, then you have a witness and some corroboration.
 
Last edited:
#418
#418
Sorry, Bamawriter, I amended my post as you were responding. Just pointing this out so folks don't think you were ignoring parts of my post.
 
#421
#421
bamawriter said:
You're right, but she didn't claim any activity that one would expect to leave much in the way of bruising. And even if you find more the usual bit of tearing, that can be explained by "black guys -> white chick."

I just get the feeling there's more than this issue. And I say that because there are two nurses on the witness list. If all the defense is doing is getting the exam on record, they don't need two. But, if the accuser said or did something fishy during the exam, then you have a witness and some corroboration.
Click to expand...

I believe the accuser did claim she was held down while they swapped positions...and it was also reported that there was a picture of the accuser's neck presented in court. The reporter claimed you could not tell if her neck was bruised or it was just a hickey.
 
#422
#422
At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is if the jurors believe her testimony. If she was believable on the the stand, the no. 1 task of the defense is to present a compelling argument as to her motivation to lie. If they don't do that, it may be a rough road for the defendants.
 
#423
#423
The medical testimony is going to be favorable to the defense or the defense wouldn't be calling these witnesses. The accuser testified that she was held down by both defendants and alleged that both defendants put hands over her mouth to keep her quiet. She also claimed she was bent over a chair and held front and back. If there had been evidence of this, the state would have presented it. If the defendants were big and strong-- much bigger and stronger than they are now, she testified-- why no marks? Why no signs of a struggle?

The incident reports state that the accuser had no visible injuries and reflect the accuser's statement that neither weapons nor force were used. So the defense is probably going to want to explore this and highlight inconsistencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#424
#424
Another part that I don’t believe....that she was sober during all of this.

And the fact that the very first thing she did was take her shoes off and sit on his bed?! Didn’t he openly have a girlfriend?

Come onnnnnnnn....someone, anyone just tell the damn truth and deal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#425
#425
Satterfield was asked on Twitter if Von Pearson would be called by defense as witness. She has not heard anything.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top