JJ Trial

[br fan]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

 

[spokaneman]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

 

[JBS]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

When did the Kaiman and the Missoulian switch roles? I've been reading the Kaiman online since this started, not just about the trial but most of the articles, and it now seems the Kaiman is the real newspaper and the Missoulian is the tabloid rag.

 

[montanaguy]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because JJ is not an expert on what stigmata or evidence implies rape. Amazing to me that the judge allowed it. It would have been a good opportunity for him to say, "I don't know. I don't know anything about rape."

 

[Ursus1]

Not an expert here....but I don't like the defense's choice in choosing him as their last witness....think would have been better to leave the last thought in the minds of the jury to be JJ's dad...not a paid witness who argues not PTSD...which frankly doesn't mean she wasn't raped...

 

[GrizMusician]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Probably because there was no bruising to the woman's chest or genital area... :roll:

 

[JBS]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because the witness was the defendants dad testifying as a character witness. Not only was it inappropriate, the witness wasn't an expert and his opinion was just conjecture. You are still #dumbass Sorry, I was #dumbass there, I thought they asked the question to his dad. Still, my point is the same and you are still a dumbass.

 

[mlbowl]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

It's not neccessarily this one objection. I have gone through MANY tweets from the trial and it appears that ANY time the defense objects, it is overruled. Conversely, the prosecution seems to be granted everything they ask for...Nothing to see here :roll:

 

[GrizMusician]

So.. we're going to break 100 pages... is this an eGriz record?

 

[PolsonGrizFan]

not even close..."Word Association" is at 509 pages, which you can blame Chris for.

 

[UMGriz75]

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because the witness was the defendants dad testifying as a character witness. Not only was it inappropriate, the witness wasn't an expert and his opinion was just conjecture. You are still #dumbass Sorry, I was #dumbass there, I thought they asked the question to his dad. Still, my point is the same and you are still a dumbass.

The objection was not just appropriate, overruling it was wildly inappropriate.

This is a textbook objection; the witness is a character witness, the question is beyond the scope of direct examination -- far, far beyond the scope of direct -- no foundation was laid for the witness to have any opinion whatsoever on the question asked, and it's irrelevant as to what a basketball coach father who is on the stand talking about his son's character may or may not think constitutes appropriate medical evidence.

The Judge then rolling her eyes, as reported, is inappropriate behavior before the Jury in particular because the Defense objection was not just appropriate, there were no grounds to overrule it whatsoever.

The question was inappropriate. There was no legal justification for it.

 

[Grisly Fan]

The question was inappropriate. There was no legal justification for it whatsoever.

Fix on redirect?

 

[GrizMusician]

not even close..."Word Association" is at 509 pages, which you can blame Chris for.

Oh sh*t... I totally forgot about that thread... so then this might be the longest on the FCS board??? :lol:

 

[mlbowl]

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because the witness was the defendants dad testifying as a character witness. Not only was it inappropriate, the witness wasn't an expert and his opinion was just conjecture. You are still #dumbass Sorry, I was #dumbass there, I thought they asked the question to his dad. Still, my point is the same and you are still a dumbass.

The objection was not just appropriate, overruling it was wildly inappropriate.

This is a textbook objection; the witness is a character witness, the question is beyond the scope of direct examination -- far, far beyond the scope of direct -- no foundation was laid for the witness to have any opinion whatsoever on the question asked, and it's irrelevant as to what a basketball coach father who is on the stand talking about his son's character may or may not think constitutes appropriate medical evidence.

The Judge then rolling her eyes, as reported, is inappropriate behavior before the Jury in particular because the Defense objection was not just appropriate, there were no grounds to overrule it whatsoever.

The question was inappropriate. There was no legal justification for it whatsoever.

+1

 

[UMGriz75]

The question was inappropriate. There was no legal justification for it whatsoever.

Fix on redirect?

 

[mlbowl]

The question was inappropriate. There was no legal justification for it whatsoever.

Fix on redirect?

Hopefully, this Judge's actions will be "fixed" upon conclusion of this trial.

 

[wbtfg]

...and another defense objection is overruled. :roll: Granted, I haven't read every single tweet, but I honestly can't recall this judge ruling in favor of the defense even 1 time (pretty much everything for the prosecution seems to be granted). I honestly don't believe she should be presiding over this case.

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because the witness was the defendants dad testifying as a character witness. Not only was it inappropriate, the witness wasn't an expert and his opinion was just conjecture. You are still #dumbass Sorry, I was #dumbass there, I thought they asked the question to his dad. Still, my point is the same and you are still a dumbass.

I didn't think the prosecution had any questions for Jordan Johnson's father...?

 

[GrizMusician]

Thankfully this whole situation is almost over...

 

[Griz2k]

Last new witness will be Dr. Bell for the prosecution. Stratford is excused but may be recalled

I thought the prosecution rested? Rebuttal witness or something?

 

[JBS]

I thought this was interesting as reported by the Kaiman from yesterday's testimony:

"Then, Duerk questioned whether bruising on the woman’s chest or injuries to her genitals would imply that she was raped.

Pabst objected and said, “This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. May we approach?”

Townsend, raising her voice to overrule the objection, rolled her eyes and allowed defense to approach.

The objections were overruled, and Johnson agreed that those types of injuries would be consistent with rape."

Why in the world would defense offer an objection in this instance??... Of Course bruising and visable injury could be an implication of rape.... if this is a sampling of the issues that the defense has objected to, no wonder the Judge has overruled them more so than the State ....

Because the witness was the defendants dad testifying as a character witness. Not only was it inappropriate, the witness wasn't an expert and his opinion was just conjecture. You are still #dumbass Sorry, I was #dumbass there, I thought they asked the question to his dad. Still, my point is the same and you are still a dumbass.

I didn't think the prosecution had any questions for Jordan Johnson's father...?

I tried to fix it in time, but alas, too late. Like 75 said above what has been seen cannot be unseen. Kind of like the turf over at Eastern.