• 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 Trial

grizfan95 said:
I was informed that yesterday a reporter overheard Judge Townsend say she believes JJ is guilty, FWIW.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, she has made this clear before there was ever a trial on the matter and I understand there are a variety of comments out there about it.

The best thing for Judge Townsend, at this point, is a "not guilty" verdict. Along with JJ, she would be the other major beneficiary.

An appeal, and emerging details about all of this, would not do this Judge's reputation any good at all.
 
75,

I’m interesting to hear how the judge’s instructions to the jury might affect the outcome of the verdict, if at all. How much can she influence here?
 
Raider said:
75,

I’m interesting to hear how the judge’s instructions to the jury might affect the outcome of the verdict, if at all. How much can she influence here?
Click to expand...
Jury instructions on these kinds of cases are a well-worn path. They are "standard" instructions and any Judge would risk reversal by straying too far from the "standard" instructions. That just wouldn't happen, and Montana's Jury Instructions are pretty much "down the middle."
 
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I was told this could have a serious impact on the verdict, and if Karen is this biased (and not trying to hide it at this point), this could be bad news.

Thanks again.
 
Raider said:
Ok, thanks for the feedback. I was told this could have a serious impact on the verdict, and if Karen is this biased (and not trying to hide it at this point), this could be bad news.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...
To qualify my comment, a Judge can refuse to give an otherwise standard and necessary instruction. Drinking my coffee here and thinking about it, I do recall a case -- the Judge was a former prosecutor -- and his refusal to give me the instruction that I had requested which I happened to think necessary to the proper consideration of that case.

I recall responding in my usual good-natured fashion, "YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME," in a somewhat amplified voice to make sure he understood my sincere feelings on the matter, followed by his usual good-natured threat to put me in jail for contempt while I sincerely cooled down. It seems like it was a grounds for appeal, and that we did, but I just don't recall any more what the details were. It was a very long time ago.
 
Flathead Griz said:
I have a question for you legal minds out there. I seem to remember that Adam Duerk offered his services Pro Bono to the prosecution. Why would an attorney offer free services to the State and especially on a case that has as little merit for the State as this one has proven to have?
Click to expand...


Because he intends to run for County Attorney
 
After the State's somewhat problematic "Expert Witness" who didn't know who "Jane Doe" was, and who hadn't taken a look at this case at all, I fully expected that the State then had a natural follow-up of an "Expert" of some stripe to testify that he or she had looked at the case, and would be able to identify key consistencies that in the expert opinion, showed a classic diagnosis of a rape victim.

The State set that scenario up with its odd first expert witness, and it seemed like it HAD to have had a follow-up expert, because it would seem otherwise to odd to a jury that the prosecution had an "expert" that didn't know anything about the case.

When the State closed, the absence of that "expert" left a gaping hole for the Jury -- a raised expectation, and then nothing produced. The natural speculation -- the Jury will be instructed not to speculate -- will be that the State couldn't find such an expert.

Instructions aside, the State itself raised the expectation and then failed to offer evidence on that key point.

Along those lines, offering a PTSD diagnosis by an Asian Studies major (if I am remembering this correctly) would have been comical if not for the seriousness of the charges. The Jury can see that as the State's tacit admission that it did not have a serious case to offer.
 
I was informed that yesterday a reporter overheard Judge Townsend say she believes JJ is guilty, FWIW
Click to expand...

If true...wouldn't that be grounds for a mistrial? Not to mention the judge being in some serious hot water for misconduct? After all they jury is not "sequestered" and they could be reading this site???
 
It seems to me that defense completely demolished any testimony by that expert witness, and probably any diagnosis of ptsd when the SARC councilor testified. In fact, they also demolished the nurse examiners testimony, the ex boyfriends testimony, the roomates testimony...etc... But also, I don't think the women on the Jury are going to like or believe the accuser. And I am sure they aren't liking the judge. If fact, I can't see a single thing the prosecution has going for them.
 
FWIW - To me it is worth declaring a mistrial if the statement can be corroborated. The issue of the judge seems to be walking down the middle of the street carrying a billboard screaming out about her overt bias.
 
TxGriz said:
FWIW - To me it is worth declaring a mistrial if the statement can be corroborated. The issue of the judge seems to be walking down the middle of the street carrying a billboard screaming out about her overt bias.
Click to expand...
I would be really surprised if the defense wants a mistrial at this point. The cat is in the bag, and the bag is in the river. I'm sure there are ways to file complaints about the judge after the fact if they were so inclined, but since the lawyers will be in front of this judge again, I doubt they would do that.
 
Can the defense call Jane Doe back up on the stand? If they can, she would be the perfect last witness, coming so soon after JJ and his Dad. I don't see how she could hold up to all the contradictions presented since she testified before.
 
UMGriz75 said:
signedbewildered said:
"We are thrilled to announce that Gwen Florio, a veteran reporter with more than 30 years' experience in journalism, will be our featured speaker at this year's YWCA Missoula Annual Meeting."
I try to keep an open mind but this reporter is the most biased I have ever seen. Hidden agenda? Maybe I am just speculating but she sure seems to pick and choose which details she likes to add to her articles. "Empowering women" I don't have a problem with that but please do not belittle men that aren't deserving.

http://www.ywcaofmissoula.org/?q=node/582" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Click to expand...
You may recall that when Florio became sensitive to criticisms over her coverage of the Football program and in the guise of a news story launched a personal attack on her critics at "egriz," she found in the Director of the YWCA the single mouthpiece she needed to quote for the "article," and the presentation in the article made it sound like the YWCA Director just woke up that morning and became indignant for some reason over football fan criticisms of reporter bias, and ran right down to the Missoulian to express that indignation with no evidence whatsoever that the Director of the YWCA had any credentials whatsoever in journalism or football or sports to be offering opinions on newspaper coverage and objections to it, and in particular, that the Director of the YWCA knew anyone involved except the reporter, had any role in anything involving the coverage, or in fact knew anything at all about the controversy.

Because the "news article" was itself entirely self-serving, the role of the YWCA Director in being willing, apparently entirely out of the blue, to be the specific mouthpiece for the offended reporter's personal feelings about critics, including a ham-handed attempt to publicly "out" and embarrass the owner of "egriz" and to try to embarrass the University at the same time, it represented one of the initial bizarre and truly odd coverages provided by the Missoulian in its "news" columns.

So, is it odd that the "news reporter" and the YWCA are now shown to have a much closer relationship than the purported one of merely "source" and "objective reporter?"

It is part of a disgraceful episode, ongoing, of the Missoulian's abandonment of its role as a "newspaper."
Click to expand...

Well put. :clap:
 
A mistrial would do a great disservice to JJ and his counsel. The end game of this legal chess match is at hand. What will be most telling will be after the jury returns its verdict. Beyond the obvious importance of the verdict itself will be how long they deliberate and what we learn in the post trial revelations as to how they individually and collectively arrived at that verdict... Then the fireworks will begin for Judge Townsend, who I suspect will have some serious 's'plaining" to do to a judicial review counsel...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top