Tomorrow Feb. 8th, 2013 the trial of Jordy Johnson starts. On the eve of that trial we see Pat Williams' statements of the Grizzly Football Team being thugs, Judge Townsends comments regarding character witnesses for Mr. Johnson as a "waste of time'" (this mornings Missoulian) as well as the accuser being referred to as "victim." Can Jordy get a fair trial in Townsends court room or will this just be an extension of The Shrine Circus? This isn't about the starting quarterback anymore. This is about the justice system. Remember folks this could be your son being treated with what seems to be disregard by a politically motivated process. The accuser up until tomorrow has been able to fly under the radar. That is about to change which will undoubtedly change her life forever. IMO Jordy, in the minds of Gwen, Pat, and Judge Townsend is guilty and the course of this trial will be the only thing "proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Let The Circus Begin
- Thread starter nzone
- Start date
wbtfg
Well-known member
I don't know the answer to this, but are 25 character witnesses commonly allowed in trials such as this? I guess I just don't see the point of calling 25 witnesses to basically say that Jordan is a good kid, but none of them were present the night of the alleged incident. If I were on the jury, I'd be annoyed if the defense called 25 people that have no information relevant to what happened that night.
Also, is there a precedent set about using the term victim in a court room? I didn't see a copy of the motion to prohibit the use of the term victim to see what they cited as precedent.
Also, is there a precedent set about using the term victim in a court room? I didn't see a copy of the motion to prohibit the use of the term victim to see what they cited as precedent.
scottsdalegriz
Well-known member
Has anybody received the memo on where we are permitted to set up the tailgates? Mine must have been lost in the mail.
Blgs Griz Fan
Well-known member
I believe the Judge could have allowed all 25 witnesses and the prosecuting attorney could have stipulated to the testimony after a few witnesses that all 25 would testify JJ is a fine young man. if the defense agrees to the stipulation the trial proceeds without calling any further character witnesses.
By limiting the number of character witnesses the Judge may well have interefered with the legal process and tainted the trial. There would be an impact to hearing the proscution acknowledge the defense had a ton of character witnesses.
I sat on a sexual molestation jury and there were some exhibits from the defense that were not allowed. In the deliberation we discussed the information not allowed and how it could shed light on the case. The end result of this trial was a hung jury with one juror not willing to change from guilty.
By limiting the number of character witnesses the Judge may well have interefered with the legal process and tainted the trial. There would be an impact to hearing the proscution acknowledge the defense had a ton of character witnesses.
I sat on a sexual molestation jury and there were some exhibits from the defense that were not allowed. In the deliberation we discussed the information not allowed and how it could shed light on the case. The end result of this trial was a hung jury with one juror not willing to change from guilty.
I seriously doubt that the defense would have put all 25 on the stand anway. Simply because you're on the witness list doesn't necessarily mean you'll be called.
One of my thoughts on this is that the State is doing all they can to try to get a mistrial or a hung jury. Then, they can say they did all they could, that they went to the mat, that they're tough on UM's players, but they simply cannot afford to retry a case (likely in a different venue) with limited evidence of guilt. That would be the perfect outcome for the prosecution.
One of my thoughts on this is that the State is doing all they can to try to get a mistrial or a hung jury. Then, they can say they did all they could, that they went to the mat, that they're tough on UM's players, but they simply cannot afford to retry a case (likely in a different venue) with limited evidence of guilt. That would be the perfect outcome for the prosecution.
