Judge won't give JJ all of accuser's texts.

[mtgrizrule]

Non-lawyer here, but I think you are making way too much out of this. I assume the redactions are mostly to protect privacy interests of people who have no involvement in or bearing on this case.

I don't know the law in this area, but what privacy interests are you talking about? Just curious. The texts/information could be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement, i.e. a prohibition against them being leaked. What privacy interest, whatever that is, would prevent the information to be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement?

Again, I don't know the law here, but I could see this being a later reversible error. It seems to me that at least all texts around the event and thereafter should be provided. The defense would look at them more carefully and in a different light than the prosecution or the judge.

I wonder if the defense will eventually ask for a new judge. If denied, yet another possible appeal issue.

Oh, I don't know, like if she just happened to text you, for instance. Would your name or cell phone number be relevant to this case? I have no idea, for I am just another dumbass.

AWF, most of us are clueless on the legalities of all this. The only lawyer that posts frequently here does not have a background in this. Would like to hear someone with a background in these kind of cases maybe give his or her opinion on this case.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Non-lawyer here, but I think you are making way too much out of this. I assume the redactions are mostly to protect privacy interests of people who have no involvement in or bearing on this case.

I don't know the law in this area, but what privacy interests are you talking about? Just curious. The texts/information could be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement, i.e. a prohibition against them being leaked. What privacy interest, whatever that is, would prevent the information to be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement?

Again, I don't know the law here, but I could see this being a later reversible error. It seems to me that at least all texts around the event and thereafter should be provided. The defense would look at them more carefully and in a different light than the prosecution or the judge.

I wonder if the defense will eventually ask for a new judge. If denied, yet another possible appeal issue.

Oh, I don't know, like if she just happened to text you, for instance. Would your name or cell phone number be relevant to this case? I have no idea, for I am just another dumbass.

AWF, most of us are clueless on the legalities of all this. The only lawyer that posts frequently here does not have a background in this. Would like to hear someone with a background in these kind of cases maybe give his or her opinion on this case.

I'm with you. Where the hell is Robert Kardashian when you need him? Buried fifteen feet beneath the ground, that's where! Because, deep down, lawyers are good people.

 

[PlayerRep]

Non-lawyer here, but I think you are making way too much out of this. I assume the redactions are mostly to protect privacy interests of people who have no involvement in or bearing on this case.

I don't know the law in this area, but what privacy interests are you talking about? Just curious. The texts/information could be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement, i.e. a prohibition against them being leaked. What privacy interest, whatever that is, would prevent the information to be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement?

Again, I don't know the law here, but I could see this being a later reversible error. It seems to me that at least all texts around the event and thereafter should be provided. The defense would look at them more carefully and in a different light than the prosecution or the judge.

I wonder if the defense will eventually ask for a new judge. If denied, yet another possible appeal issue.

Oh, I don't know, like if she just happened to text you, for instance. Would your name or cell phone number be relevant to this case? I have no idea, for I am just another dumbass.

If just given to the defense team under a confidentiality agreement, what would be the big deal of providing that text?

What if the defense knew that the recipient of text (let's assume it was another lawyer and not me) was a lawyer who was known to the defense team. Then the defense team called the lawyer to inquire about the text and learned that the lawyer had represented another guy accused of sexual assault by the accuser. Or assume it wasn't a lawyer, and it turned out that the person texted had in fact been accused of sexual assault by the accuser. How could the prosecution or the judge know that the text wouldn't lead to something that would assist the defense in a situation like this?

 

[granitegriz]

Florio's article is clear as mud. She makes it all very confusing. She answers very little and just adds more questions.

 

[grizfan47]

I'm fine with redacting personal information.

But the judge has already said that the prosecutors must divulge who the texters and receivers were. If I were JJ's attorney and if I suspected information critical to my client's defense was being witheld, I'd simply subpoena each of those people and ask them about the texts under oath. Therefore, I'm not sure what the value of the judge's ruling is to the prosecutors.

This. The people that were texted will be interviewed about the content of the texts and any statements she may have made. It is no big deal.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Non-lawyer here, but I think you are making way too much out of this. I assume the redactions are mostly to protect privacy interests of people who have no involvement in or bearing on this case.

I don't know the law in this area, but what privacy interests are you talking about? Just curious. The texts/information could be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement, i.e. a prohibition against them being leaked. What privacy interest, whatever that is, would prevent the information to be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement?

Again, I don't know the law here, but I could see this being a later reversible error. It seems to me that at least all texts around the event and thereafter should be provided. The defense would look at them more carefully and in a different light than the prosecution or the judge.

I wonder if the defense will eventually ask for a new judge. If denied, yet another possible appeal issue.

Oh, I don't know, like if she just happened to text you, for instance. Would your name or cell phone number be relevant to this case? I have no idea, for I am just another dumbass.

If just given to the defense team under a confidentiality agreement, what would be the big deal of providing that text?

What if the defense knew that the recipient of text (let's assume it was another lawyer and not me) was a lawyer who was known to the defense team. Then the defense team called the lawyer to inquire about the text and learned that the lawyer had represented another guy accused of sexual assault by the accuser. Or assume it wasn't a lawyer, and it turned out that the person texted had in fact been accused of sexual assault by the accuser. How could the prosecution or the judge know that the text wouldn't lead to something that would assist the defense in a situation like this?

Wait, so you believe that the judge's ruling on this is a big deal? I just want to know if we're arguing about something meaningful.

 

[GrizMusician]

...since the girl's privacy is more important that the truth... :roll: :|

 

[PlayerRep]

I don't know the law in this area, but what privacy interests are you talking about? Just curious. The texts/information could be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement, i.e. a prohibition against them being leaked. What privacy interest, whatever that is, would prevent the information to be given to the defense under a confidentiality agreement?

Again, I don't know the law here, but I could see this being a later reversible error. It seems to me that at least all texts around the event and thereafter should be provided. The defense would look at them more carefully and in a different light than the prosecution or the judge.

I wonder if the defense will eventually ask for a new judge. If denied, yet another possible appeal issue.

Oh, I don't know, like if she just happened to text you, for instance. Would your name or cell phone number be relevant to this case? I have no idea, for I am just another dumbass.

If just given to the defense team under a confidentiality agreement, what would be the big deal of providing that text?

What if the defense knew that the recipient of text (let's assume it was another lawyer and not me) was a lawyer who was known to the defense team. Then the defense team called the lawyer to inquire about the text and learned that the lawyer had represented another guy accused of sexual assault by the accuser. Or assume it wasn't a lawyer, and it turned out that the person texted had in fact been accused of sexual assault by the accuser. How could the prosecution or the judge know that the text wouldn't lead to something that would assist the defense in a situation like this?

Wait, so you believe that the judge's ruling on this is a big deal? I just want to know if we're arguing about something meaningful.

I've said nothing about the judge's ruling. I've been commenting on statements you made.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Okay, thanks.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

...since the girl's privacy is more important that the truth... :roll: :|

Huh?

 

[reinell30]

If JJ didn't text anything saying he did wrong, there really is nothing to discuss is there?

 

[GrizPony]

If JJ didn't text anything saying he did wrong, there really is nothing to discuss is there?

Isn't that a little simplistic? What if she texted a friend and said "it was no big deal" or "he will be shocked when I report a rape"? Wouldn't that go directly to the element of whether he "knowingly" committed a crime? Remember, crimes have to have a criminal intent. Sex, without a criminal intent, is not a crime.

 

[reinell30]

From all I have read and heard, JJ didn't have criminal intent when he had sex with her, so he didn't commit a crime?

 

[GrizPony]

From all I have read and heard, JJ didn't have criminal intent when he had sex with her, so he didn't commit a crime?

His side isn't the only side though, she claims he did and that she told him "no". If her later texts suggest that she didn't really say "no", then that helps him defeat the "knowingly" element of the crime.

 

[reinell30]

From all I have read and heard, JJ didn't have criminal intent when he had sex with her, so he didn't commit a crime?

His side isn't the only side though, she claims he did and that she told him "no". If her later texts suggest that she didn't really say "no", then that helps him defeat the "knowingly" element of the crime.

I am not a lawyer, just a military cop. I do not understand how a judge can with hold evidence, especially if it has relevence to the case.
I will keep my fingers crossed he is found not guilty and he has no ill feelings towards the football program. Also, that the university holds no ill feelings towards him and he comes back to QB position where he should have been this year.

 

[GrizPony]

+1

 

[first11]

not good for defense of JJ...prior to this ruling I would have given him a 50/50 shot of aquittal....now maybe 30/70 at best. it appears that the 'system' will go all in to make it very difficult for JJ to walk unscathed from this.

 

[PlayerRep]

not good for defense of JJ...prior to this ruling I would have given him a 50/50 shot of aquittal....now maybe 30/70 at best. it appears that the 'system' will go all in to make it very difficult for JJ to walk unscathed from this.

While I'm sure the defense would rather have this information, if it really doesn't contain any exculpatory evidence (as judged by the prosecution and apparently the judge; I assume she read all of the stuff), then it shouldn't impact the defense at all, or at least not much. I doubt that the ruling will have any impact on whether he is convicted or not. I still say there is no way he will be convicted. There is way to much evidence already out there, that the accuser will not be able to explain to a jury. How are all those texts going to be explained to a jury, in a credible and believable way? How will the apparent statement the prior night that she would do him anytime, get explained, and how will a jury react to that explanation? Can the accuser possibly explain the wording of all of the texts, statements and her actions, and still be believable to a jury? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Based on what's in the motion to dismiss, I just don't see how can a dozen jurors get to that point.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

There is way to much evidence already out there, that the accuser will not be able to explain to a jury.

Now I must inquire.

"According to Black's law dictionary, evidence is 'any species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial of an issue, by the act of parties and through the medium of witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc. for the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as their contention."

Are you sure "evidence" is the term you wanted to use?

 

[grizatwork]

From what I understand, the judge has reveiwed the texts in question, and decided there is no exculpatory value in them and that releasing them to the defense will jeopardize the privacy of the other parties in the texts in question. I also understand that the defense team is in possession of all the texts that are appearantly relavent to the case. So in a nutshell, the judge held back any texts that were not relavent to the case for privacy concerns. Any text that could potentially exonerate the defendent is already in play.