Appellate Court allows appeal in Johnson case

#126
#126
Kristy* said:
Come on. You're reaching. A motion is supposed to factual to the knowledge of the lawyer. And he is quoting the police report that hasn't been made public, but one that he has seen and is very familiar with. He isn't making up quotes or presenting falsities here.
Click to expand...

You should find out how motions work before drawing conclusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#132
#132
One thing for sure is that after the Vandyville News-Free Rag hatchet jobs, Jamie Satterfield's articles are a breath of fresh air.
 
#134
#134
bamawriter said:
You should find out how motions work before drawing conclusions.
Click to expand...

You mean this one?

"Rule 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.

(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name—or by the party personally, if unrepresented—and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and

(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;

(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action."

Go away.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#135
#135
It's amazing how sensitive you are about this when I'm not being rude or insulting.

Can you point out to me in what you just copied and pasted the section that says a motion contains a statement of fact(s) in evidence?

Further, if you believe that all motions contain statements of fact, then do you believe that Peyton Manning physically assaulted the chick who keeps rearing her head? After all, there's a motion that says he did.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#136
#136
Kristy* said:
You mean this one?

"Rule 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.

(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name—or by the party personally, if unrepresented—and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable.

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and

(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;

(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action."

Go away.
Click to expand...

:lolabove::thud:
Guess Bamawriter will just ROLL on after that beat down!
Notice he has 6,666 likes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#137
#137
Kristy* said:
You mean this one?

"Rule 26(g) Signing Disclosures and Discovery Requests, Responses, and Objections.

(1) Signature Required; Effect of Signature. Every disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3) and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s own name—or by the party personally, if unrepresented—and must state the signer’s address, e-mail address, and telephone number. By signing, an attorney or party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:

(A) with respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and

(B) with respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(i) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;

(ii) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and

(iii) neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action."

Go away.
Click to expand...

I "imagine" he's tweaking his legal training. :lol:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#138
#138
bamawriter said:
It's amazing how sensitive you are about this when I'm not being rude or insulting.

Can you point out to me in what you just copied and pasted the section that says a motion contains a statement of fact(s) in evidence?

Further, if you believe that all motions contain statements of fact, then do you believe that Peyton Manning physically assaulted the chick who keeps rearing her head? After all, there's a motion that says he did.
Click to expand...

HUGE DIFFERENCE, There is no motion stating that the police have a video proving any allegation in the Manning situation. This one will be easily proven or disproven but it would be an odd move to file something so easily fact checked during trial.
I'm not going to pretend I know what happened.
In he said-she said, I start at 50/50. The missing phones, rumors of texts that appear now to have existed and the grab for money have weighted my personal opinion though.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#139
#139
bamawriter said:
It's amazing how sensitive you are about this when I'm not being rude or insulting.

Can you point out to me in what you just copied and pasted the section that says a motion contains a statement of fact(s) in evidence?

Further, if you believe that all motions contain statements of fact, then do you believe that Peyton Manning physically assaulted the chick who keeps rearing her head? After all, there's a motion that says he did.
Click to expand...

Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility:

Disciplinary Rules:

"DR 1-102 [1200.3] Misconduct.

A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:

1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule.

2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.

3. Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

. . ."

With Manning, there would be no "reason" (other than sanity) to not believe your client. In this case, the lawyer is using direct quotes from the police report. Is he going to risk his credibility or disciplinary action by filing a blatantly false motion? No. You're not going to win this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#140
#140
Kristy* said:
Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility:

Disciplinary Rules:

"DR 1-102 [1200.3] Misconduct.

A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:

1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule.

2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.

3. Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

. . ."

With Manning, there would be no "reason" (other than sanity) to not believe your client. In this case, the lawyer is using direct quotes from the police report. Is he going to risk his credibility or disciplinary action by filing a blatantly false motion? No. You're not going to win this.
Click to expand...

:lolabove: You're mean!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#141
#141
chargervol said:
HUGE DIFFERENCE, There is no motion stating that the police have a video proving any allegation in the Manning situation. This one will be easily proven or disproven but it would be an odd move to file something so easily fact checked during trial.
I'm not going to pretend I know what happened.
In he said-she said, I start at 50/50. The missing phones, rumors of texts that appear now to have existed and the grab for money have weighted my personal opinion though.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you.

The issue for me is not whether or not the phones were willfully destroyed. If they were, then whether or not the conversations are ever recovered, the Defense should use the fact of their destruction at trial. My scepticism here is based on my general scepticism of all claims made by all attorneys without actual evidence being made public.

My issue is this: if the Defense is not aware of specific conversations that may have probative value, should the Appellate Court allow them to subpoena information from carriers and social media companies? And if the answer is "yes", what does that mean for all of us going forward? There is a real potential for establishing a very troublesome precedent.
 
#142
#142
Kristy* said:
Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility:

Disciplinary Rules:

"DR 1-102 [1200.3] Misconduct.

A. A lawyer or law firm shall not:

1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule.

2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another.

3. Engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

4. Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.

. . ."

With Manning, there would be no "reason" (other than sanity) to not believe your client. In this case, the lawyer is using direct quotes from the police report. Is he going to risk his credibility or disciplinary action by filing a blatantly false motion? No. You're not going to win this.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read the motion in question?

Also, I've never suggested the Defense is knowingly lying. I am saying that posters on here are jumping to conclusions that cannot actually be supported by this motion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#143
#143
bamawriter said:
I actually agree with you.

The issue for me is not whether or not the phones were willfully destroyed. If they were, then whether or not the conversations are ever recovered, the Defense should use the fact of their destruction at trial. My scepticism here is based on my general scepticism of all claims made by all attorneys without actual evidence being made public.

My issue is this: if the Defense is not aware of specific conversations that may have probative value, should the Appellate Court allow them to subpoena information from carriers and social media companies? And if the answer is "yes", what does that mean for all of us going forward? There is a real potential for establishing a very troublesome precedent.
Click to expand...

I understand where you are coming from here. And I will be very curious to see how it plays out. It's interesting that police can use social media, texts, etc. to secure a subpoena. That information can be used in court by the prosecution. In this case, there is supposedly proof that the accuser was pursuing relations with Johnson. There is also a strong suggestion that the accuser then "loses" potential evidence. The accuser further refuses to cooperate in the retrieval of any of her correspondence. Maybe there is enough cause to warrant siding with the defense in this case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#144
#144
Kristy* said:
I understand where you are coming from here. And I will be very curious to see how it plays out. It's interesting that police can use social media, texts, etc. to secure a subpoena. That information can be used in court by the prosecution. In this case, there is supposedly proof that the accuser was pursuing relations with Johnson. There is also a strong suggestion that the accuser then "loses" potential evidence. The accuser further refuses to cooperate in the retrieval of any of her correspondence. Maybe there is enough cause to warrant siding with the defense in this case.
Click to expand...

Kristy
Fair, quick, intelligent, loves the Vols and extremely knowledgeable about them.
"If I wasn't married!" I would sit in the corner, too intimidated to say a word. Probably because I add an image of Selma Hayek and Beyoncé :)

Just teasing!
But on a serious note, if I ever find a way to get wife this passionate and informed about UT - Good times.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#145
#145
Kristy* said:
I understand where you are coming from here. And I will be very curious to see how it plays out. It's interesting that police can use social media, texts, etc. to secure a subpoena. That information can be used in court by the prosecution. In this case, there is supposedly proof that the accuser was pursuing relations with Johnson. There is also a strong suggestion that the accuser then "loses" potential evidence. The accuser further refuses to cooperate in the retrieval of any of her correspondence. Maybe there is enough cause to warrant siding with the defense in this case.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything in this post.

I've looked for a copy of the appeal itself and haven't found it. The Sentinel quotes a portion from the appeal (I quoted it earlier ITT), and it has a whole lot of "mights". It simply raises the question in my mind: do they know exactly what they're looking for or are they fishing? If it's the former, then depending on what it is we could be looking at anything up to and including the case getting tossed. If it's the latter, then I would have real concerns about precedent.
 
Last edited:
#146
#146
bamawriter said:
I agree with everything in this post.

I've looked for a copy of the appeal itself and haven't found it. The Sentinel quotes a portion from the appeal (I quoted it earlier ITT), and it has a whole lot of "mights". It simply raises the question in my mind: do they know exactly what they're looking for or are they fishing? If it's the former, then depending on what it is we could be looking at anything up to and including the case getting tossed. If it's the latter, then I would have real concerns about precedent.
Click to expand...

According to WRCB TV in Chattanooga The News Sentinel has filed a lawsuit to force the court to unseal the evidence against AJ Johnson and Michael Williams. "The News Sentinel argues that the records and exhibits were sealed by Criminal Court Judge Bob McGee without any petition or order to do so." Maybe that explains why this all seems so short on fact and long on conjecture.

Knoxville News Sentinel files lawsuit to unseal UT rape document - WRCBtv.com | Chattanooga News, Weather & Sports

News Sentinel files lawsuit to unseal UT rape documents
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#148
#148
bamawriter said:
I actually agree with you.

The issue for me is not whether or not the phones were willfully destroyed. If they were, then whether or not the conversations are ever recovered, the Defense should use the fact of their destruction at trial. My scepticism here is based on my general scepticism of all claims made by all attorneys without actual evidence being made public.

My issue is this: if the Defense is not aware of specific conversations that may have probative value, should the Appellate Court allow them to subpoena information from carriers and social media companies? And if the answer is "yes", what does that mean for all of us going forward? There is a real potential for establishing a very troublesome precedent.
Click to expand...

A troublesome precedent - of course. I guess it brings up a couple of cautions. Probably not a good idea to live your life on social media because nothing is locked away in a closet. What seems like a good idea at one point in time may not sound so smart later - especially when you can't hide or undo it. Probably puts a dent in unfettered exhibitionism and an overwhelming belief that you are important to the rest of the world, but everything has a price. Secondly, knowing the popularity of social media and that some people couldn't exist without it, you probably better be squeaky clean when you accuse someone of a wrong because "contributory" has a nasty bite in legal cases.
 
#149
#149
bamawriter said:
Defense claims accuser in UT rape case hiding evidence
Click to expand...

"The defense is going to have to prove that this motion is more than a fishing expedition in order to get some traction on their appeal."

"Fishing expedition?" Many fishermen choose their locations wisely, including known probabilities of condition, experience and word from others.

Based on your article, it appears there's nothing more to prove at the moment -- "The fight for that information...prompted Judge Bob McGee to delay Williams’ trial indefinitely."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#150
#150
UT-Rex said:
"The defense is going to have to prove that this motion is more than a fishing expedition in order to get some traction on their appeal."

"Fishing expedition?" Many fishermen choose their locations wisely, including known probabilities of condition, experience and word from others.

Based on your article, it appears there's nothing more to prove at the moment -- "The fight for that information...prompted Judge Bob McGee to delay Williams’ trial indefinitely."
Click to expand...

When there's something fishy going on I believe a fishing expedition is warranted. They may just catch the big one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top