AJ Johnson Update [verdict: NOT guilty]

#577
#577
Not guilty means not guilty. The state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants are according to our system of crime and punishment “innocent until proven guilty”. The jury pronounces not guilty of the offense claimed. Williams and AJ were/are innocent till proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Therefore they are in the eyes of the law and the Courts, innocent of the charges brought against them. Guilt/innocence is a fine line many times. The jurisprudence in me saus that the defendants are innocent inasmuch as they were innocent till the state proved guilt. The state proved nothing except reasonable doubt as to guilt. So they are innocent. Only God can really judge now. Otherwise our system of criminal law is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#578
#578
bamawriter said:
I think Boca's point is that, were the guys to sue, they'd actually have the burden of proving the claim was false.
Click to expand...

Actually no, they would simply have to prove that the state brought a frivolous suit against them and seek for a jury to find for them. That should be doable.
 
#580
#580
bamawriter said:
I think Boca's point is that, were the guys to sue, they'd actually have the burden of proving the claim was false.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I see the context of his comment now.

Civil cases work far differently than criminal cases. It's not simply "flip the criminal case over, and now AJ has to prove the opposite."

It gets pretty complicated pretty fast, and I'm no lawyer, but civil cases work off things called "presumptions." For instance, the presumption is that you have not been materially harmed by the actions of another. If you believe you have, you have to show that. To prove it.

So that's the burden AJ would have to meet in a civil case (in very rough terms), that he was unfairly harmed by the actions of the woman (or the KPD, or the news media, or the state, or whoever he's suing), and that they should pay him damages in fair recompense.

That's not a retrying of the rape case in reverse. It's a wholly different thing. And has nothing to do with "not guilty does not mean innocent".
 
#581
#581
VFL-82-JP said:
Only possible verdicts are guilty or not guilty (but can be found guilty of lesser charges).

But there are other possible outcomes (not verdicts): a mistrial (such as a hung jury, or jury misconduct, tampering, etc) ... or dropped charges ... or a plea bargain could end the case before it goes to jury.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

When you are going through a criminal case, you might be just as excited to think about a not guilty verdict as you are to think of proving your innocence. It is very important that you take a step back so you can take a look at the differences between innocent and not guilty.

What is innocent?

Being deemed innocent means that you have been cleared of all speculation that you committed a crime. Innocence isn't really something that can be proven at a trial.

What is not guilty?

When it comes to a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove that a defendant committed a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." That last clause "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that even if the jury largely thinks that a defendant committed a crime, they must not have any doubt about it. Doubt can be inserted into a case by the defense calling the prosecution's case into question. For example, this can be done by presenting witnesses who claim the defendant was with them at a different location when the crime occurred. Being found not guilty doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent. Instead, it means that the evidence wasn't strong enough for a guilty verdict.

What's the big deal with innocent versus not guilty?

In order to be found not guilty, you have to go through the expense and stress of a trial. In some cases, even being found not guilty won't get your good name back. Being found innocent is something that can be done before trial in various ways. Asserting your innocence and then having charges dropped would be a way that you could truly note that you were innocent.

Source: FindLaw, "Actual Innocence and How It Differs From a Not Guilty Verdict," Ephrat Livni, Esq., accessed May 26, 2016
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#582
#582
patrick said:
Not guilty means not guilty. The state did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendants are according to our system of crime and punishment “innocent until proven guilty”. The jury pronounces not guilty of the offense claimed. Williams and AJ were/are innocent till proven guilty in the eyes of the law. Therefore they are in the eyes of the law and the Courts, innocent of the charges brought against them. Guilt/innocence is a fine line many times. The jurisprudence in me saus that the defendants are innocent inasmuch as they were innocent till the state proved guilt. The state proved nothing except reasonable doubt as to guilt. So they are innocent. Only God can really judge now. Otherwise our system of criminal law is over.
Click to expand...

Patrick, would like to say thanks for your comments during this week. Greatly appreciated!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#583
#583
82_VOL_83 said:
But the point remains that in reality you are either guilty or not guilty in a criminal trial if a verdict is reached. Guilty of lesser charges is still guilty. There is no innocent of all charges verdict. Boca been watching too much TV.
Click to expand...

Wrong. You are innocent until proven guilty despite criminal charges or prosecution. But I didn’t sleep at a holiday inn last night. I just went to law school and have practiced law for over 20 yrs. I’m your heart/mind them at may be an issue but it isn’t under the law. Innocent Until Proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) Guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#585
#585
82_VOL_83 said:
Actually no, they would simply have to prove that the state brought a frivolous suit against them and seek for a jury to find for them. That should be doable.
Click to expand...

How? The state did not bring a suit. They tried criminal charges. They'd have to sue for malicious prosecution, and that would require proving that the crime didn't occur.
 
#586
#586
bamawriter said:
After closing arguments, I figured this was headed toward acquital. The defense schooled the state today.
Click to expand...

You weren’t especially vociferous in posting that...opposed to championing the prosecution strategy before closing. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#587
#587
Not arguing with you guys just offering my understanding and interpretation of criminal law and procedure. Innocent until proven guilty means just that. A cpl lives have been wrecked because of this which should be a lesson to the younger generation - believe me promiscuity was an issue in this case a huge issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bugsme, SmokinBob, TN_Transplant and 4 others
#588
#588
patrick said:
Wrong. You are innocent until proven guilty despite criminal charges or prosecution. But I didn’t sleep at a holiday inn last night. I just went to law school and have practiced law for over 20 yrs. I’m your heart/mind them at may be an issue but it isn’t under the law. Innocent Until Proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) Guilty.
Click to expand...

Boca, I'm gonna go with Patrick's word over your (out of context) quote of an internet article.

If you read the source article in full, you saw that the writer is using "innocence" in the layman way, not as a legal term (even though he is apparently a lawyer himself).

In other words, he didn't mean what you think he meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#590
#590
VFL-82-JP said:
Thanks, I see the context of his comment now.

Civil cases work far differently than criminal cases. It's not simply "flip the criminal case over, and now AJ has to prove the opposite."

It gets pretty complicated pretty fast, and I'm no lawyer, but civil cases work off things called "presumptions." For instance, the presumption is that you have not been materially harmed by the actions of another. If you believe you have, you have to show that. To prove it.

So that's the burden AJ would have to meet in a civil case (in very rough terms), that he was unfairly harmed by the actions of the woman (or the KPD, or the news media, or the state, or whoever he's suing), and that they should pay him damages in fair recompense.

That's not a retrying of the rape case in reverse. It's a wholly different thing. And has nothing to do with "not guilty does not mean innocent".
Click to expand...

The burden is lower. But they would still have to show, by a prepoderance of the evidence, that they didn't rape the girl and that the authorities had at least a callous disregard for the truth.
 
#592
#592
VFL-82-JP said:
Boca, I'm gonna go with Patrick's word over your (out of context) quote of an internet article.

If you read the source article in full, you saw that the writer is using "innocence" in the layman way, not as a legal term (even though he is apparently a lawyer himself).

In other words, he didn't mean what you think he meant.
Click to expand...

And I’m not quoting from an article. To be fair the “Bar” as a whole hold different opinions on this specific issue - not guilty vs innocence. As I have stated herein, innocent til proven guilty means innocent if case is not proven to jury.

Is the issue debatable- sure. But the debate will not end here. Far too many contradictions in state’s case for a conviction.
 
#594
#594
bamawriter said:
The burden is lower. But they would still have to show, by a prepoderance of the evidence, that they didn't rape the girl and that the authorities had at least a callous disregard for the truth.
Click to expand...

And that burden is much much lower.
 
#595
#595
bamawriter said:
The burden is lower. But they would still have to show, by a prepoderance of the evidence, that they didn't rape the girl and that the authorities had at least a callous disregard for the truth.
Click to expand...

Virtually impossible to sustain such a case against the state. However the accuser is a whole other issue.
 
#596
#596
bamawriter said:
How? The state did not bring a suit. They tried criminal charges. They'd have to sue for malicious prosecution, and that would require proving that the crime didn't occur.
Click to expand...

And without access to the girls phone records and data would be almost impossible at this point
 
#597
#597
Boca Vol said:
They were found "not guilty", not "innocent."

There is a difference. It sucks but that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

People walk around all day free from worry or jail and are not “ innocent “ . They were charged with a crime ,, the court decides if they are or “ not guilty “ of the crime . They were found to be “not guilty “and should be able to recoup any and all money lost having to defend themselves and projected losses they would have made during that time due to be being falsely accused after being proven “ Not Guilty “ . That’s just seems fair and reasonable to me .
 
#598
#598
butchna said:
You weren’t especially vociferous in posting that...opposed to championing the prosecution strategy before closing. :)
Click to expand...

Never should have reached trial.
I mean, who is the jury to judge, having air conditioning and whatnot.




Right Bama? 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#599
#599
And once I’m done suing everybody, I’ll go find Drae Bowles and whip his @$$.

Because at the end of the day, this has everything to do with him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top