JJ Trial

[blackfoot griz]

Regarding the disputed issues in this situation, what would be the reason for not using a polygraph?

 

[BDizzle]

I was completely objective going into this trial because I didn't know the facts. But at this point, the only question in my mind is whether there will be a mistrial or an acquittal.

I was pretty objective also, but based on what I have read at this point I have some doubt, but am still trying to determine if it sinks below or rises above the "reasonable" level or not. Still need to hear from JJ and some of the others involved in the immediate aftermath. An awful lot of what I am hearing from the defense is just noise that is intended to confuse the issue.

My biggest problem is that I can not get a read, through the twitter posts, on how believable the witness is

JJs testimony will mean a lot. It depends on if he comes across as a respectable college student that got mixed signals and thought she was all about or if he comes across as an arrogant football player that felt entitled.

 

[Jerry Punch]

Regarding the disputed issues in this situation, what would be the reason for not using a polygraph?

Inadmissable in most Montana courts.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Regarding the disputed issues in this situation, what would be the reason for not using a polygraph?

Not admissible in Montana.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

JJs testimony will mean a lot. It depends on if he comes across as a respectable college student that got mixed signals and thought she was all about or if he comes across as an arrogant football player that felt entitled.

That's just it - I don't think anything he says on the stand can really help the prosecution. I don't think he will even agree that the signals were "mixed."

 

[GRZFTBL]

I think it's safe to say it's a good thing, for JJ, that Jerry Punch isn't on the jury. He would already have a room in Deer Lodge.

 

[garizzalies]

what i will never understand is that she can basically testify about how JJ allegedly assulted other girls but JJ can't testify about her prior sexual history. i get the rationale but don't agree with it in this instance. What's good for the goose.......

 

[Jerry Punch]

I think it's safe to say it's a good thing, for JJ, that Jerry Punch isn't on the jury. He would already have a room in Deer Lodge.

Someone's butt is hurt and it isn't mine. Point out to me where I asked or hoped for JJ's conviction. I'll be waiting.

Paitience is the key. 2 of 11 days are finished. The third is currently ongoing. It would be as foolish for me to say INNOCENT or GUILTY as it would be for you.

 

[BDizzle]

JJs testimony will mean a lot. It depends on if he comes across as a respectable college student that got mixed signals and thought she was all about or if he comes across as an arrogant football player that felt entitled.

That's just it - I don't think anything he says on the stand can really help the prosecution. I don't think he will even agree that the signals were "mixed."

Yeah only thing could be if he admits to holding her down with one of his arms while undressing her or if he admits that she forcefully says no and he ignored it.

 

[Raider]

I think it's safe to say it's a good thing, for JJ, that Jerry Punch isn't on the jury. He would already have a room in Deer Lodge.

Someone's butt is hurt and it isn't mine. Point out to me where I asked or hoped for JJ's conviction. I'll be waiting.

Paitience is the key. 2 of 11 days are finished. The third is currently ongoing. It would be as foolish for me to say INNOCENT or GUILTY as it would be for you.

While I don't necessarily agree with what "GRZFTBL" said, let me ask you an honest question.

Why do you care so much?

 

[tnt]

what i will never understand is that she can basically testify about how JJ allegedly assulted other girls but JJ can't testify about her prior sexual history. i get the rationale but don't agree with it in this instance. What's good for the goose.......

For what ever reason Paoli opened that door. It could not be brought up otherwise

 

[grizpack]

I think it's safe to say it's a good thing, for JJ, that Jerry Punch isn't on the jury. He would already have a room in Deer Lodge.

Someone's butt is hurt and it isn't mine. Point out to me where I asked or hoped for JJ's conviction. I'll be waiting.

Paitience is the key. 2 of 11 days are finished. The third is currently ongoing. It would be as foolish for me to say INNOCENT or GUILTY as it would be for you.

This is true, but I would think that the Prosecution had better be WAY ahead at this point if they have any hope of winning the case. The defense hasn't even started their case yet.

 

[GRZFTBL]

I think it's safe to say it's a good thing, for JJ, that Jerry Punch isn't on the jury. He would already have a room in Deer Lodge.

Someone's butt is hurt and it isn't mine. Point out to me where I asked or hoped for JJ's conviction. I'll be waiting.

Paitience is the key. 2 of 11 days are finished. The third is currently ongoing. It would be as foolish for me to say INNOCENT or GUILTY as it would be for you.

You've been pretty one-sided, like your mind is made up.

I hope JJ didn't do this. If he did, I hope he spends a long time in prison. If he's found not guilty, I truly hope that young woman get the help she needs (she will need it) and can get over this. Both will need guidance.

 

[Grizlaw]

Can she testify as to what another person said?

It depends on the nature of the question, and the reason why the answer is relevant. If it's relevant because it tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted, then it's hearsay (and thus, only admissible if it falls within a hearsay exception). If it's relevant for some other reason (such as, to show the hearer's belief or mental state), then it's generally not hearsay.

That's why I'm saying that it's hard to know whether this particular statement is hearsay or not, without knowing more of the context and purpose for which it was offered.

 

[UMGriz75]

what i will never understand is that she can basically testify about how JJ allegedly assulted other girls but JJ can't testify about her prior sexual history. i get the rationale but don't agree with it in this instance. What's good for the goose.......

That was objectionable. Ordinarily Defense counsel would have been objecting in a high-priced voice. I meant "high pitched."

Paoli didn't object. He didn't want to. It backfired on her. The State should have objected to her testimony, but didn't realize where it was headed. They were no doubt puzzled, but at that point, were being led around like an Angus calf, and didn't object when they should have.

Look at the sum of the components so far: a psychologist who testifies that rapists don't just spring up and rape, they are generally serial rapists.

Here's Little Miss Muffet running around trying to establish that last year, "all on her own," to prove ... something. And she's calling high priced civil litigation lawyers. She "just wanted information." And she all of a sudden knows that a key to a successful civil suit is a "serial" situation. And so she's out there, combing the social networks. And of course if she can prove a serial situation, and UM didn't know, or investigate properly or do anything about it, there can be a basis for negligence ... "ChaChing!"

But, she couldn't find anything. So, no civil suit. Paoli covered that nicely. And will cover it nicely in Closing.

And she was "allowed" to testify to that, before the psychologist testified that such serial behavior is a common attribute of rape and rapists.

The rebuttal to the psychologist's comments were already in the record in the words of the alleged victim, who inadvertently gave key testimony rebutting the expert's "educational" opinion about rape generally being a "serial" offense.

It was a nice piece of lawyering.

 

[Jerry Punch]

what i will never understand is that she can basically testify about how JJ allegedly assulted other girls but JJ can't testify about her prior sexual history. i get the rationale but don't agree with it in this instance. What's good for the goose.......

That was objectionable. Ordinarily Defense counsel would have been objecting in a high-priced voice. I meant "high pitched."

Paoli didn't object. He didn't want to. It backfired on her. The State should have objected to her testimony, but didn't realize where it was headed. They were no doubt puzzled, but at that point, were being led around like an Angus calf, and didn't object when they should have.

Look at the sum of the components so far: a psychologist who testifies that rapists don't just spring up and rape, they are generally serial rapists.

Here's Little Miss Muffet running around trying the establish that last year, "all on her own," to prove ... something. And she's calling high priced civil litigation lawyers. She "just wanted information." And she all of a sudden knows that a key to a successful civil suit is a "serial" situation. And so she's out there, combing the social networks. And of course if she can prove a serial situation, and UM didn't know, or investigate properly or do anything about it, there can be a basis for negligence ... "ChaChing!"

But, she couldn't find anything. So, no civil suit. Paoli covered that nicely. And will cover it nicely in Closing.

And she was "allowed" to testify to that, before the psychologist testified that such serial behavior is a common attribute of rape and rapists.

The rebuttal to the psychologist's comments were already in the record in the words of the alleged victim, who inadvertently gave key testimony rebutting the expert's "educational" opinion about rape generally being a "serial" offense.

It was a nice piece of lawyering.

Just like in that movie I saw last week!

 

[Grisly Fan]

...It was a nice piece of lawyering.

No doubt! You wouldn't normally let a witness wander into that territory unless you had a pretty good idea where she was headed. They must have done a good job of pre-trial prep and hoped that she would go there. It sure helps to erode her credibility.

 

[garizzalies]

The sex was all from behind, and she was on her knees (and presumably hands or elbows). I don't understand how rape can occur this way.

Maybe you should ask a prisoner?

 

[grizatwork]

The sex was all from behind, and she was on her knees (and presumably hands or elbows). I don't understand how rape can occur this way.

Maybe you should ask a prisoner?

Ouch!

 

[argh!]

it sounds like a lot of you view this like a football game between the lawyers instead of what it is supposed to be. moreover, many of you seem to be 'cheering' against the girl.

sad.