-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
JJ Charged With Rape
- Thread starter GrizBacker04
- Start date
tnt said:
I do not believe he will accept a plea to a lesser charge unless it has extremely good terms for him. I believe his actions, by enrolling in school this fall, fighting UM with regard to the honor court, and in the criminal proceeding, reflect that he's willing to fight this to the end. You are correct that a not guilty verdict will not restore him, but neither will a plea to a lesser charge. This is about weighing risks, and personally I think the prosecution's risk of losing is greater if this goes to trial than JJ's risk of losing. As such, the prosecution has a greater incentive to plea, and this gives JJ more leverage. JJ (and his attorneys) may or may not feel it is enough to push for a complete dismissal, but I do think that it is enough to push for a plea that is extremely favorable to him.
UMGriz75 said:
You might go back to 1985, of course you have to gather more information than what a quick google will give you, a history of peace activism would help. But the substance was a Luthern Minister from Missoula lead an Easter Sunday service outside the gates of Malmstrom AFB also attendance were number of U of M journalism students. At the end of the service they crossed the white line painted on the road outside tghe residential area to protest Nuclear Weapons. They were arrested Noel provided counsel. In one of the rare instances where "protest" was not dismissed, the protesters were given federal sentences of 6 mos to a year suspended. The preacher was sent to Leavenworth to service his time. You may believe Noel wouldn't make the comment but he has. Prolly a joke unless of course you were the preacher. It should never have gone to court to "make the point" All that aside your comment "even noel" sort sums it up...... (You should have seen the simple real estate assumption he did while in private practice in Hot Springs)
UMGriz75
Well-known member
A diversion agreement would be only the second worse option to a plea agreement.tnt said:
For the rest of his life thereafter, JJ would always be answering the question, "isn't it true that at one time you voluntarily entered into a sexual offender treatment program?"
No way.
UMGriz75 said:
That's not quite the way it works in fact not even often the way it works. (Unless of course they ARE a sexual offender) And who would be asking he question being as with diversion there is no record. Whether you believe it or not gor 95% of players, they are anonymous six months after they graduate.
tnt said:
Ok TNT, humor us all. While continueing to pretend that you know something about the legal system, assume you are representing JJ and that you actually read the accusor's affidavit. Pretend you are aware of the contents of JJ's motion to dismiss and the facts setforth therein. What charge would you advise JJ to plead "diversion" to? What sentence terms would you recommend he accept? And, lastly, WTF is a "diversion plea." I've never heard of such a thing in Montana.
ranco said:
Thats too bad, Montana is one of few states that even allows pre-plea diversion.
Were I JJ's attorney I would have done everything I could have to avoid where we are at and maybe he did. Although all I have seen is a charging document which is far less detailed than the prosecution case, If I were JJ's attorney, I would have noted a few things that would have concerned me. Listening to JJ's VERY detailed recounting of the evening, I would have stayed concerned. For his good, I would have gotten him immediatly out of state for diversion program evaluation (and maybe he did)Depending on the outcome of that evaluation I would have taken the next steps and maybe these are. Were I concerned about a he said she said where the tie goes to the she especially with some physical evidence, I would have made as much of my case as public as I could to impune the accuser as much as I could, because much of the He said evidence may never see the inside of the court room. There is always the possibility there is a bunch MORE she said out there. But I would do everything to avoid a trial. I also know that out side of missoula in afew years NO one would care who my client was. If I could complete sanitize my clients records through diversion even if he had to sit in a circle for a year singing Kum bayah, and learning anger management, I would do it. I would make it perfectly clear I care less about making g a political statement and standing up to whoever, including those persecuting" the football program" if it involved kissing fklorios ass on the court house steps, I'd do it (I'd bill for lip transplant however) I would do everything to sanitize my clients record as much as possible knowing a trial would NOT do it. Then I would get him the hell out of town. He has 2 years of football 60 more years of living.
grizfromhel
Well-known member
As usual it's hard to make any sense out of your ramblings Mr. TnT. But since you don't seem to have any real experience in the criminal justice system, and I do, let me address your statement that in a "he said/she said" situation the tie would go to her because some physical evidence (minor in my opinion) corroborates her account. To which I say, "Stuff and nonsense."
The fundamental fact of a criminal prosecution, employing basic constitutional rights, is that to be lawfully convicted of a felony, the prosecution, and by implication the victim/witness, must convince 12 jurors that her account is accurate and truthful, in order to secure a conviction. In fact the standard of proof is not one of greater belief in one side than the other, but the vastly more difficult one of truth "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is usually a jury instruction in a felony prosecution where the judge advises each juror that if he or she entertains any degree of doubt that could be considered "reasonable", it is their duty and obligation to acquit the defendant of the charges.
On the other hand, the defense only need convince one juror that the defendant's account represents a more truthful telling of events, to secure his release from the charges. Just one.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that the deprivation of personal liberties which attends the conviction of a criminal offense, should occur only after the most careful, fair, and thorough consideration of the facts in the case ---- that pretty consistently and in some ways overwhelmingly line up to support conviction. Otherwise, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges.
I'm not saying that I know what would happen at a trial in this case. There are a lot of variables, and once in court anything can happen. All that I know, from my personal experience, is that the prosecution carries a large burden of convincing all twelve jurors of their charges and their factual rendition "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I want to also add that it is my sincere hope that this charge gets resolved short of a trial. I think a trial and further public testimony would not be in the best interest of either of the prinicipals in this case.
The fundamental fact of a criminal prosecution, employing basic constitutional rights, is that to be lawfully convicted of a felony, the prosecution, and by implication the victim/witness, must convince 12 jurors that her account is accurate and truthful, in order to secure a conviction. In fact the standard of proof is not one of greater belief in one side than the other, but the vastly more difficult one of truth "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is usually a jury instruction in a felony prosecution where the judge advises each juror that if he or she entertains any degree of doubt that could be considered "reasonable", it is their duty and obligation to acquit the defendant of the charges.
On the other hand, the defense only need convince one juror that the defendant's account represents a more truthful telling of events, to secure his release from the charges. Just one.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that the deprivation of personal liberties which attends the conviction of a criminal offense, should occur only after the most careful, fair, and thorough consideration of the facts in the case ---- that pretty consistently and in some ways overwhelmingly line up to support conviction. Otherwise, the defendant is entitled to be acquitted of the charges.
I'm not saying that I know what would happen at a trial in this case. There are a lot of variables, and once in court anything can happen. All that I know, from my personal experience, is that the prosecution carries a large burden of convincing all twelve jurors of their charges and their factual rendition "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I want to also add that it is my sincere hope that this charge gets resolved short of a trial. I think a trial and further public testimony would not be in the best interest of either of the prinicipals in this case.
No where did I offer an opinion of the evidence, if for no other reason that it hasn't been presented. Now possibly you will see more with the prosecution's answer to the motion. Apparently your experiece is on TV. While an 11-1 won't result in a conviction, there is no assurance it will result in the dropping of charges. It takes an 0-12 to acquit. Anything less is mistrial, then its a crap shoot as to what will happen. Its unlikley there will be a dismissal, so deal with it. There are ways to make this all go away.
As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.
As far as that reasonable doubt thing, the jury decides whats reasonable. That leaves it awfully subjective.
No Ranco, I'm not an attorney. I take a lot of their money though and clean up a fair number of their messes (especially defense attorneys for whom i work the most.) I have been one of those nasty people that have been paid to testify in better than 100 sexual assault trial and consult regularly for diversion programs.
Latest posts
-
-
2027 Montana Recruiting (21) Verbals & (19) Offers (2) 2028 Offers
- Latest: Downwiththefoe1984
-