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

[Bear Spray]

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.

I'm betting the judge does know the law. Regardless of when texts were sent & received, if they have no beaing on the case, they don't matter. For example, if you PlayerRep texted this young lady and asked about an STD, or shared that you were considering a sex change operation, would you not want your privacy protected?

 

[granitegriz]

This is probably the first and last time, but +1 Bear Spray. Excellent post. I hope I didn't text this young fraud on accident. I do have you on ignore but I hadn't logged in yet.

 

[grizpsych]

LOL Regina, I 8 2 burritos at Taco Del Sol.

 

[Bear Spray]

This is probably the first and last time, but +1 Bear Spray. Excellent post. I hope I didn't text this young fraud on accident. I do have you on ignore but I hadn't logged in yet.

Thanks Granite. I sent you a PM.

 

[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.

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

Nope. The opposing team made the determination, and the ref blessed it. Presumbly the the ref did her homework and made the right determination. Zero input from the home team. No input from the fans, other than speculation. I suppose we may see if the league officials agree with the ref's call.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Do you think the judge read all 29,000 texts? Do you think the judge knows as much about the case and the possible defenses, as the defense team does?

 

[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?

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.

Nope, you are wrong. The term evidence means alot more than evidence introduced at trial. And I was talking about evidence, not rumors. What's in the motion to dismiss is evidence and it's not rumor. You should read the motion to dismiss, and then you would understand alot more. You are way in over your head on this subject.

 

[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

Nope. The opposing team made the determination, and the ref blessed it. Presumbly the the ref did her homework and made the right determination. Zero input from the home team. No input from the fans, other than speculation. I suppose we may see if the league officials agree with the ref's call.

You are saying that the prosecuting attorney made the ruling on what redaction should be removed or not?

 

[Grizlaw]

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)?

I tend to think that such a broad question would still be objectionable by the other side. Depending on how the question is phrased, you're either indirectly asking the witness about the content of the messages (which calls for hearsay), or you're asking the witness to speculate about something that they're probably not qualified to speculate about (for example, if they were to ask a witness to reach a conclusion about the victim's mental state based on the texts, without divulging the contents of the texts).

A lot of how such an objection would turn out would depend on what the content of the particular text was, which is why it's kind of hard to discuss this generically. But those are my very general thoughts.

 

[Sportin' Life]

My guess is that the vast majority of texts were of the form "OMG this class is so boring" and "R U here yet" from three months ago and the like, and probably can't possibly pertain to the trial. On the other hand there may be some that are not exculpatory on the basis of these statutes:

26-1-812. Advocate privilege. (1) Unless a report is otherwise required by law, an advocate may not, without consent of the victim, be examined as to any communication made to the advocate by a victim and may not divulge records kept during the course of providing shelter, counseling, or crisis intervention services.
(2) This privilege belongs to the victim and may not be waived, except by express consent. The privilege continues even if the victim is unreachable. Consent may not be implied because the victim is a party to a divorce or custody proceeding. The privilege terminates upon the death of the victim.
(3) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Advocate" means an employee or volunteer of a domestic violence shelter, crisis line, or victim's services provider that provides services for victims of sexual assault, stalking, or any assault on a partner or family member.
(b) "Victim" means a person seeking assistance because of partner or family member assault, any sexual assault, or stalking, whether or not the victim seeks or receives services within the criminal justice system.

And some may fall under the auspices of the rape shield which basically says that the prosecution cannot use the "but she is a slut" defense:

45-5-511. Provisions generally applicable to sexual crimes. (1) When criminality depends on the victim being less than 16 years old, it is a defense for the offender to prove that the offender reasonably believed the child to be above that age. The belief may not be considered reasonable if the child is less than 14 years old.
(2) Evidence concerning the sexual conduct of the victim is inadmissible in prosecutions under this part except evidence of the victim's past sexual conduct with the offender or evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity to show the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease that is at issue in the prosecution.
(3) If the defendant proposes for any purpose to offer evidence described in subsection (2), the trial judge shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (2).
(4) Evidence of failure to make a timely complaint or immediate outcry does not raise any presumption as to the credibility of the victim.
(5) Resistance by the victim is not required to show lack of consent. Force, fear, or threat is sufficient alone to show lack of consent.

At any rate, the prosecutor and the judges are all public servants, and at some point we just have to trust them to make the right call. If there is in fact a conspiracy orchestrated by Pat Williams to use his powers over all levels of police, campus police, Royce Engstrom, the board of regents, all city and county offices in Missoula, as well as his considerable sway over all of the judges in the state, then there is nothing we can do but hope to hell that Pat Williams can take over QB duties next fall against App St.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

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.

Nope, you are wrong. The term evidence means alot more than evidence introduced at trial. And I was talking about evidence, not rumors. What's in the motion to dismiss is evidence and it's not rumor. You should read the motion to dismiss, and then you would understand alot more. You are way in over your head on this subject.

Nah, I'm not "in" anything. I admit it when I'm just guessing.

 

[PlayerRep]

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

Nope. The opposing team made the determination, and the ref blessed it. Presumbly the the ref did her homework and made the right determination. Zero input from the home team. No input from the fans, other than speculation. I suppose we may see if the league officials agree with the ref's call.

You are saying that the prosecuting attorney made the ruling on what redaction should be removed or not?

The prosecution went through the texts and made the redactions, and told the judge what they did was correct. The judge ruled in the prosecution's favor. The judge wouldn't appoint a special master to review the texts. Do you think the judge read all 29,000 texts? Do you think the judge knows what the defense's case will be, and what they may be looking for or to verify? Again, I don't know what the law and case law is on this subject (and nor do you).

 

[PlayerRep]

My guess is that the vast majority of texts were of the form "OMG this class is so boring" and "R U here yet" from three months ago and the like, and probably can't possibly pertain to the trial. On the other hand there may be some that are not exculpatory on the basis of these statutes:

26-1-812. Advocate privilege. (1) Unless a report is otherwise required by law, an advocate may not, without consent of the victim, be examined as to any communication made to the advocate by a victim and may not divulge records kept during the course of providing shelter, counseling, or crisis intervention services.
(2) This privilege belongs to the victim and may not be waived, except by express consent. The privilege continues even if the victim is unreachable. Consent may not be implied because the victim is a party to a divorce or custody proceeding. The privilege terminates upon the death of the victim.
(3) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Advocate" means an employee or volunteer of a domestic violence shelter, crisis line, or victim's services provider that provides services for victims of sexual assault, stalking, or any assault on a partner or family member.
(b) "Victim" means a person seeking assistance because of partner or family member assault, any sexual assault, or stalking, whether or not the victim seeks or receives services within the criminal justice system.

And some may fall under the auspices of the rape shield which basically says that the prosecution cannot use the "but she is a slut" defense:

45-5-511. Provisions generally applicable to sexual crimes. (1) When criminality depends on the victim being less than 16 years old, it is a defense for the offender to prove that the offender reasonably believed the child to be above that age. The belief may not be considered reasonable if the child is less than 14 years old.
(2) Evidence concerning the sexual conduct of the victim is inadmissible in prosecutions under this part except evidence of the victim's past sexual conduct with the offender or evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual activity to show the origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease that is at issue in the prosecution.
(3) If the defendant proposes for any purpose to offer evidence described in subsection (2), the trial judge shall order a hearing out of the presence of the jury to determine whether the proposed evidence is admissible under subsection (2).
(4) Evidence of failure to make a timely complaint or immediate outcry does not raise any presumption as to the credibility of the victim.
(5) Resistance by the victim is not required to show lack of consent. Force, fear, or threat is sufficient alone to show lack of consent.

At any rate, the prosecutor and the judges are all public servants, and at some point we just have to trust them to make the right call. If there is in fact a conspiracy orchestrated by Pat Williams to use his powers over all levels of police, campus police, Royce Engstrom, the board of regents, all city and county offices in Missoula, as well as his considerable sway over all of the judges in the state, then there is nothing we can do but hope to hell that Pat Williams can take over QB duties next fall against App St.

No one is suggesting a conspiracy. However, prosecutors and judges make mistakes all the time. That part of the reason why prosecutors don't win every case and judges get overruled by higher courts. Occasionally, prosecutors and judges get sanctioned. Not suggesting that anything like that would happen or be appropriate here, but it does happen.

 

[PlayerRep]

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.

Nope, you are wrong. The term evidence means alot more than evidence introduced at trial. And I was talking about evidence, not rumors. What's in the motion to dismiss is evidence and it's not rumor. You should read the motion to dismiss, and then you would understand alot more. You are way in over your head on this subject.

Nah, I'm not "in" anything. I admit it when I'm just guessing.

If you haven't even read the motion to dismiss, you can't possibly understand the situation and shouldn't even be posting on the subject. Come back after you're read the motion to dismiss.

 

[Hammer]

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.

Nope, you are wrong. The term evidence means alot more than evidence introduced at trial. And I was talking about evidence, not rumors. What's in the motion to dismiss is evidence and it's not rumor. You should read the motion to dismiss, and then you would understand alot more. You are way in over your head on this subject.

Nah, I'm not "in" anything. I admit it when I'm just guessing.

If you haven't even read the motion to dismiss, you can't possibly understand the situation and shouldn't even be posting on the subject. Come back after you're read the motion to dismiss.

Pretty much! I don't think anybody should post anything on the subject until they have read the motion to dismiss. JMO.

 

[granitegriz]

Why read the motions when we have Florio? :shock:

 

[Cats2506]

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

Nope. The opposing team made the determination, and the ref blessed it. Presumbly the the ref did her homework and made the right determination. Zero input from the home team. No input from the fans, other than speculation. I suppose we may see if the league officials agree with the ref's call.

You are saying that the prosecuting attorney made the ruling on what redaction should be removed or not?

The prosecution went through the texts and made the redactions, and told the judge what they did was correct. The judge ruled in the prosecution's favor. The judge wouldn't appoint a special master to review the texts. Do you think the judge read all 29,000 texts? Do you think the judge knows what the defense's case will be, and what they may be looking for or to verify? Again, I don't know what the law and case law is on this subject (and nor do you).

No I don't think the Judge read all 29000 text, but I think the judge did look at enough of the redaction's to feel comfortable that the redaction's were appropriate and not important to the defense's fishing expedition.

 

[George Ferguson]

Inventor of the Eat Siit Griz chant, do you believe JJ is guilty? totally honest question....What is Papa G telling you?

 

[Cats2506]

Inventor of the Eat Siit Griz chant, do you believe JJ is guilty? totally honest question....What is Papa G telling you?

douchebag griz fan, I have no idea, that is what the trial is for to my understanding

 

[AllWeatherFan]

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.

Nope, you are wrong. The term evidence means alot more than evidence introduced at trial. And I was talking about evidence, not rumors. What's in the motion to dismiss is evidence and it's not rumor. You should read the motion to dismiss, and then you would understand alot more. You are way in over your head on this subject.

Nah, I'm not "in" anything. I admit it when I'm just guessing.

If you haven't even read the motion to dismiss, you can't possibly understand the situation and shouldn't even be posting on the subject. Come back after you're read the motion to dismiss.

I read it a few minutes ago. I had seen much of this before, but hadn't read every word, and hadn't read the legal arguments in favor of dismissal. It appears to me to be a well-written summary of the defense case, and obviously includes the alleged facts that the defense will rely on at trial.

But nothing in that document comprises what I would consider "evidence." It hasn't been subjected to cross-examination, it hasn't been offered into evidence, and it hasn't been admitted into evidence. At this point there are only alleged facts.

That is not to say these alleged facts won't be borne out in trial by testimony and other documentary or digital evidence presented by the defense. And it's certainly not to say that the prosecution will be able to prove the facts that it alleges. And we all know that the prosecution has the burden of proof, and that in criminal cases the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But at this point, all we have before us is unproven allegations from both the prosecution and the defense.

Oh, and the judge denied the motion.

Is there anything I've just written that you wish to dispute?