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

[Cats2506]

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.

In other words the defense didn't find what they wanted in the texts, and the Judge said it isn't in the redacted part so they will have to look somewhere else

 

[Grisly Fan]

Texts by their very nature are highly contextual since rarely does a single text message say much of anything. It often takes reading the entire thread to understand what is meant by pithy messages such as "not really". So, if the prosecution attempts to use any redacted text message as damning evidence then the defense merely needs to hammer on the possibility of a lack of context due to redaction. It won't be a silver bullet but then again the defense only has to establish reasonable doubt and it isn't tough to cast doubt on a message when you can't read the whole thing. It may be that the ruling could even help the defense depending upon how things proceed.

 

[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.

In other words the defense didn't find what they wanted in the texts, and the Judge said it isn't in the redacted part so they will have to look somewhere else

Possibly. Your speculation is as good as mine. Could be the defense was just fishing for more texts to question her character. They may have what they want, but they might be looking for more. Could be they are trying to buy more time or find some sort of misconduct in the redacted versions. Sounds like they are being thorough as they should be. I was just stating what the judge said in the decision. That the redacted texts add no value to the case for either side.

 

[Grizfan-24]

Possibly. Your speculation is as good as mine. Could be the defense was just fishing for more texts to question her character. They may have what they want, but they might be looking for more. Could be they are trying to buy more time or find some sort of misconduct in the redacted versions. Sounds like they are being thorough as they should be. I was just stating what the judge said in the decision. That the redacted texts add no value to the case for either side.

This is exactly what my friend in the legal profession said. He went on to say that in fact if there were any facts evident in those redacted files, it would be an area in which would create a chance for over turn on appeal. The point is as he said, no judge likes having cases turned over for judicial 'mistakes.' So he suggested there isn't much smoke or fire in the decision.

He noted also if there were pieces of important information included in those texts, there are other ways in which to get at the information.

 

[Grizbacker1]

Possibly. Your speculation is as good as mine. Could be the defense was just fishing for more texts to question her character. They may have what they want, but they might be looking for more. Could be they are trying to buy more time or find some sort of misconduct in the redacted versions. Sounds like they are being thorough as they should be. I was just stating what the judge said in the decision. That the redacted texts add no value to the case for either side.

This is exactly what my friend in the legal profession said. He went on to say that in fact if there were any facts evident in those redacted files, it would be an area in which would create a chance for over turn on appeal. The point is as he said, no judge likes having cases turned over for judicial 'mistakes.' So he suggested there isn't much smoke or fire in the decision.

He noted also if there were pieces of important information included in those texts, there are other ways in which to get at the information.

using words like overturn and appeal indicate you think he will be convicted. i think there is a better chance of snow in Vegas during August.

 

[Grizfan-24]

GB1:
i am not a lawyer. I don't know if the prosecution has damning evidence or not. Though if I were believe the word on the street, and we know how reputable that information is, you are probably right.

My legal friend noted that in his experience that most cases like this, don't end up in the court room for a myriad of reasons. He didn't cite particulars, but rather based upon what he read there is a lot grey area.

I just don't know really. I guess I am more interested in making sure justice prevails.

 

[PlayerRep]

Possibly. Your speculation is as good as mine. Could be the defense was just fishing for more texts to question her character. They may have what they want, but they might be looking for more. Could be they are trying to buy more time or find some sort of misconduct in the redacted versions. Sounds like they are being thorough as they should be. I was just stating what the judge said in the decision. That the redacted texts add no value to the case for either side.

This is exactly what my friend in the legal profession said. He went on to say that in fact if there were any facts evident in those redacted files, it would be an area in which would create a chance for over turn on appeal. The point is as he said, no judge likes having cases turned over for judicial 'mistakes.' So he suggested there isn't much smoke or fire in the decision.

He noted also if there were pieces of important information included in those texts, there are other ways in which to get at the information.

If the prosecution doesn't turn over exclupatory information, the case/conviction would likely be tossed out. There are multiple high-profile examples of that occurring. Stevens in Alaska. I think the Duke lacrosse case. I don't know if the defense could appeal the judge's order at this time, nor do I know if there would be any basis for appeal.

 

[PlayerRep]

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?

Yes, evidence is the term I wanted to use. The definition of evidence is much broader than that narrow definition you cited. I assume you've looked at the motion to dismiss.

Here's an example. I think your post is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about on this subject. How's that for an example?

 

[Grizlaw]

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.

Like PR, I am also not a trial lawyer, but I do think there is some significance to this ruling (though it might not affect the outcome of the case).

One thing we have to remember about these text messages is that, to the extent they contain factual statements that are relevant to the trial, they probably constitute hearsay under the rules of evidence, which generally means they can only be used at trial in certain circumstances and for certain purposes. While it's true that JJ's attorneys can interview the people who sent the texts and ask them about their content, any statements made by the senders would also be hearsay, meaning that in order to get the contents of the text messages themselves into evidence at trial, the defense would have to establish both that the contents of the text message and the witness's testimony about such message qualified for an exception to the hearsay rule.

In other words, to the extent that the defense hopes to rely on the content of the text messages at trial, getting a witness's testimony about the content of a text message is not the same as getting a written copy of the text message itself. By relying on the witness instead of having the actual message, the defense must insert another level of hearsay analysis.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

How do you know or think the defense already has all texts that are relevant?

The potential problem is that the prosecution, as well as a judge, is making the determination that the defense would best be made by the defense. Using a football analogy, do you think it would be okay for the opposing team to make determinations regarding penalties, and then have the officials bless the prosecution's determinations? Obviously, not quite analogous, but perhaps in the ballpark.

 

[ilovethecats]

:lol:

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

In other words the defense didn't find what they wanted in the texts, and the Judge said it isn't in the redacted part so they will have to look somewhere else

Possibly. Your speculation is as good as mine. Could be the defense was just fishing for more texts to question her character. They may have what they want, but they might be looking for more. Could be they are trying to buy more time or find some sort of misconduct in the redacted versions. Sounds like they are being thorough as they should be. I was just stating what the judge said in the decision. That the redacted texts add no value to the case for either side.

I'm pretty sure that this type of information, i.e. character information, is also relevant (I think only if the accuser introduces her good character into the trial) as rebuttal information, and I believe it is also discoverable by the defense. It's not just exculpatory evidence. My guess is that seeing more of the texts could lead the defense to finding more potential witnesses.

 

[Cats2506]

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.

How do you know or think the defense already has all texts that are relevant?

The potential problem is that the prosecution, as well as a judge, is making the determination that the defense would best be made by the defense. Using a football analogy, do you think it would be okay for the opposing team to make determinations regarding penalties, and then have the officials bless the prosecution's determinations? Obviously, not quite analogous, but perhaps in the ballpark.

I think that the refs (judge) should make the determination of the penalties.
that is exactly what is happening

 

[Gaeilge1]

I am not an attorney but I do know a few things about how the system works. One of my fields of emphasis in college was constitutional law. We did extensive study on both the right to privacy and the rights of the accused as most scholar's seem to think these are very interesting aspects of constitutional law.

Right or wrong at this stage, I think we have to assume that the Judge is impartial. Under this assumption the immediate ruling would be based on her review of the text messages and her belief that they would have no bearing on the charges against the defendent. The right of privacy being protected is not that of the accuser but rather of the third party recipients or initiators of texts that may have nothing to do with this. In that regard the points made on hearsay in this thread are spot on. This is why the names of texting or texted individuals are being provided to the defense as compared to the texts themselves. Theoretically the defense can then contact these individuals and interview/depose them directly as to the relevance of the texts. During the discovery process then, the defense would be able to determine if some of these people would be beneficial witnesses.

While there are 29,000 texts I doubt these were to 29,000 different people. We do not know the exact number of people but I would also doubt the number would be so large as to make it too difficult for the defense team to contact each one to hear what the have to say.

 

[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?

Yes, evidence is the term I wanted to use. The definition of evidence is much broader than that narrow definition you cited. I assume you've looked at the motion to dismiss.

Here's an example. I think your post is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about on this subject. How's that for an example?

It's a stupid example. "Evidence" ain't "evidence" unless it's been introduced at trial. So when you said
"[t]here is way to much evidence already out there, that the accuser will not be able to explain to a jury," you not only spelled "too" wrong, you also weren't talking about evidence. You were just talking about rumors.

And no, I haven't read the motion to dismiss. I'm only entertained by your condescending posts.

 

[EverettGriz]

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.

Like PR, I am also not a trial lawyer, but I do think there is some significance to this ruling (though it might not affect the outcome of the case).

One thing we have to remember about these text messages is that, to the extent they contain factual statements that are relevant to the trial, they probably constitute hearsay under the rules of evidence, which generally means they can only be used at trial in certain circumstances and for certain purposes. While it's true that JJ's attorneys can interview the people who sent the texts and ask them about their content, any statements made by the senders would also be hearsay, meaning that in order to get the contents of the text messages themselves into evidence at trial, the defense would have to establish both that the contents of the text message and the witness's testimony about such message qualified for an exception to the hearsay rule.

In other words, to the extent that the defense hopes to rely on the content of the text messages at trial, getting a witness's testimony about the content of a text message is not the same as getting a written copy of the text message itself. By relying on the witness instead of having the actual message, the defense must insert another level of hearsay analysis.

Great point regarding hearsay, GL.

But what if the questions to those witnesses were less about the content of one particular text, and more general in nature (e.g. "Did you receive any texts from the alleged victim regarding the activities of that evening, and if so could you explain the nature of those texts"?, or something along those lines)?

 

[poorgriz]

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.

The more you post about legal matters related to grizzly football, the more I agree with a profound statement that some poster made awhile back. I can't remember who it was, but they absolutely nailed it when they said something to the effect of... "You KINDA want him to be innocent... but MAINLY you want him to be found innocent in court."

 

[tnt]

While I am reasonably doubtful that the pervasive belief that there is a huge conspiracy afoot involving multiple agencies, judges, university officials, press personal, reagents, and local citizens to destroy the football program, is false, it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

 

[go4two]

...it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

How do you know this? Has this been publicly stated?

 

[tnt]

...it is possible that the defenses attempt to involve every facet of the alleged victims life since she was 5 years old, could be an attempt to dissuade her resolve.

How do you know this? Has this been publicly stated?

The motions have been made public...... So have the denials (in part) under rape shield law.