No Way JJ Can Be Convicted

[AllWeatherFan]

Is this thing common in these cases or is the prosecution being asked for things that may not exist?

Attorneys bill by the hour. More discovery = more hours billed. It's the American way, isn't it?

(And also, I suspect that the prosecutor deserves it in this instance.)

Nothing good can come from this case.

 

[PlayerRep]

The defense filed another motion yesterday, to obtain the requested information from the county attorney. Production of documents and information has apparently not been forthcoming from the county attorney.

Is this thing common in these cases or is the prosecution being asked for things that may not exist?

My impression is that this is unusual, but this is an unusual case. There usually isn't such a large body of public and almost public information out there, like there is in this one. This resulted because the university proceeding went on so long and the accuser appears to have texted so much and talked to so many people. Usually there isn't an early motion to dismiss like this, especially one with so much information in it. The defense is entitled to all or virtually all of this information, and I assume that it all exists. I don't know when the prosecution is required to provide the information. My impression is that the defense probably wants this information right away, so as to bolster its motion to dismiss argument, put pressure on the prosecution, and move the case along quickly. My guess is that the defense thinks there's a reasonable chance of having the case dismissed or dropped, and they would like this to occur sooner than later so that they can get back to going after the university. Others on the board probably know this area better than I do.

 

[PlayerRep]

Is this thing common in these cases or is the prosecution being asked for things that may not exist?

Attorneys bill by the hour. More discovery = more hours billed. It's the American way, isn't it?

(And also, I suspect that the prosecutor deserves it in this instance.)

Nothing good can come from this case.

Criminal lawyers don't always bill by the hour. In this case, more discovery = increased chance of finding information that will decide the case in the favor of the accused.

 

[tnt]

Is this thing common in these cases or is the prosecution being asked for things that may not exist?

Attorneys bill by the hour. More discovery = more hours billed. It's the American way, isn't it?

(And also, I suspect that the prosecutor deserves it in this instance.)

Nothing good can come from this case.

Criminal lawyers don't always bill by the hour. In this case, more discovery = increased chance of finding information that will decide the case in the favor of the accused.

So far the motions are following a script. Next up will be the motions to suppress (which is what they are alluding to in this most recent motion. Who knows we might even have an omnibus motion and hearing or two.

I wouldn't read too much into any of the motions......

Montana has a pretty stringent rape shield law.. Request for defense interview and admission of prior "sexual history" is pretty limited......

 

[PlayerRep]

Is this thing common in these cases or is the prosecution being asked for things that may not exist?

Attorneys bill by the hour. More discovery = more hours billed. It's the American way, isn't it?

(And also, I suspect that the prosecutor deserves it in this instance.)

Nothing good can come from this case.

Criminal lawyers don't always bill by the hour. In this case, more discovery = increased chance of finding information that will decide the case in the favor of the accused.

So far the motions are following a script. Next up will be the motions to suppress (which is what they are alluding to in this most recent motion. Who knows we might even have an omnibus motion and hearing or two.

I wouldn't read too much into any of the motions......

No, the motions are not following a script. A detailed motion to dismiss with so much information in it so early in the case is unusual, and there is no script. I've now talked to about dozen lawyers who have read the motion to dismiss, including several criminal lawyers, and they all said the motion was very well done and has at least some chance of being granted.

 

[tnt]

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.

PR and 75, You might also read through this rather interestring document prepared by the JUDGE in this case:

http://www.mtcoattorneysassn.org/legal/DLforms/sexabuse.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[UMGriz75]

PR and 75, You might also read through this rather interestring document prepared by the JUDGE in this case:

http://www.mtcoattorneysassn.org/legal/DLforms/sexabuse.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, whatever your continuing battle is, I know Judge Townsend well, I am familiar with the document, and I have litigated cases precisely on the points of this case, the most recent of which ended in a hung jury, the second trial allowed Fred to fix all the mistakes that led to the hung jury, they got their conviction, we appealed, it was reversed, and the presiding Judge told Fred he wasn't going to hold a third trial and the matter ended with a $50 fine and deferred sentence.

I am "familiar" with how criminal trials on this matter are conducted, the applicable rules of evidence, how the battle is hard fought all the way through the appellate level and back and that is precisely what I have argued on this thread regarding the documented evidence available, so what's your point?

 

[PlayerRep]

PR and 75, You might also read through this rather interestring document prepared by the JUDGE in this case:

http://www.mtcoattorneysassn.org/legal/DLforms/sexabuse.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, whatever your continuing battle is, I know Judge Townsend well, I am familiar with the document, and I have litigated cases precisely on the points of this case, the most recent of which ended in a hung jury, the second trial allowed Fred to fix all the mistakes that led to the hung jury, they got their conviction, we appealed, it was reversed, and the presiding Judge told Fred he wasn't going to hold a third trial and the matter ended with a $50 fine and deferred sentence.

I am "familiar" with how criminal trials on this matter are conducted, and the rules of evidence, and that is precisely what I have argued on this thread regarding the documented evidence available, so what's your point?

Ditto. Ha-ha.

 

[tnt]

The discovery motion is not a slam dunk, your accusations of the alleged victim are not a slam dunk either.

 

[UMGriz75]

Montana has a pretty stringent rape shield law.. Request for defense interview and admission of prior "sexual history" is pretty limited......

The accused may not personally interview the victim; true. His attorneys can.

Jane Doe's "sexual history" has not been made an issue by anyone. Why the red herrings? Why are your bringing it up?

 

[UMGriz75]

The discovery motion is not a slam dunk, your accusations of the alleged victim are not a slam dunk either.

Your allegation that JJ was an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" was not just not a slam dunk, there was no basis for the accusation whatsoever, and it was fundamentally an effort to insert a dishonest accusation into this conversation in your continuing efforts to slander JJ and to prevent any objective review of the accuser's admitted behavior in this case, by substituting invented behaviors on the part of JJ. That overt dishonesty illuminates the fact that this is an anti-athlete crusade on your part that has little concern for the damage that it may do to either Jane Doe or JJ; likely both regardless of outcome.

I think that motive is reprehensible.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR and 75, You might also read through this rather interestring document prepared by the JUDGE in this case:

http://www.mtcoattorneysassn.org/legal/DLforms/sexabuse.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Where's the part/script about motions to dismiss and motions to suppress being standard and common?

 

[ranco]

Give it up TNT. While your bias is is annoying, your total inability to make a logical argument, based on actual facts (as alleged in the record), is embarrassing.

 

[PTGrizzly]

LOUD NOISES!

 

[tnt]

Actually the ONLY one who has referred to JJ as an alcohol fueled predator is YOU. I realize out of context is your specialty, but you know and I know that that refernce came from a quote of describing the Forrester's ball as JJ humoring a very disturbed young woman and knowing so. I commented if he switched from that super guy one night to the the next night after a few drinks being taht behavior being very NEARLY an alcohol fueled sexual predator.

But then you have never alluded to the alleged victim being a slut either:

I think the part about showing up slobbering drunk at the Forester's Ball and trying to create a scene with JJ will mitigate, to a large extent, her "good image."

Not that she would be described as an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator," but in fact, the only time that excess alcohol played a role at all in the ongoing Jane Doe/JJ shenanigans was when Jane Doe herself was "alcohol-fueled" in front of 1,500 witnesses and announced how willing she was, while thusly "alcohol-fueled," to "do" the University of Montana's star quarterback.

I don't know if that makes her a "sexual predator" or not, but in that state of high intoxication, she seemed VERY aggressive about publicly promoting her view of sex and her desire to have it specifically with the star quarterback, and in particular to not only announce it in front of the star quarterback's Date, but that her intentions possibly extended beyond merely announcing it in front of said Date to doing it in front of said Date and possibly 1499 other spectators.

She did, after all, use the word "anytime," a word that requires little further imagination.

Jane Doe presents, if nothing else, an extraordinary gift of award-winning social charm that I am sure will provoke among the jurors a collective wish that she was their daughter.

I don't know specifically that President Engstrom made a big deal about alcohol at the Forester's Ball just because one drunken participant made something of a public scene about having sex with the University's star quarterback, but, geez folks, it is interesting that "alcohol fueled" would be a term applied to JJ negatively on this thread, when it was completely untrue at any time herein, whereas the actual fact of that condition described ... Jane Doe.

The discovery motion is not a slam dunk, your accusations of the alleged victim are not a slam dunk either.

Your allegation that JJ was an "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" was not just not a slam dunk, there was no basis for the accusation whatsoever, and it was fundamentally an effort to insert a dishonest accusation into this conversation in your continuing efforts to slander JJ and to prevent any objective review of the accuser's admitted behavior in this case, by substituting invented behaviors on the part of JJ. That overt dishonesty illuminates the fact that this is an anti-athlete crusade on your part that has little concern for the damage that it may do to either Jane Doe or JJ; likely both regardless of outcome.

I think that motive is reprehensible.

Ranco, I'm not building a case for anything except most we have seen is very typical of sex cases (just more public) and ALL arguable.

 

[Umista]

I am sure tnt is human. It is his location I am not sure of. Wins the championship title "King of the rambling rants!"

Fishing AZ? Yes.

 

[UMGriz75]

I commented if he switched from that super guy one night to the the next night after a few drinks being taht behavior being very NEARLY an alcohol fueled sexual predator.

And you tried to make this claim despite the fact that Jane Doe said she didn't think he had had any beers.

Absolutely no one in this case suggested alcohol played a role in this. No one.

There is zero evidence of that. Her words will carry great weight on that point.

Despite that, you used the words "alcohol-fueled sexual predator" because, as you just admitted, you are trying to counter the scene that she made at the Forester's Ball the previous evening.

So, what is your purpose here? Just to fabricate counter-allegations? Take the heat off?

Is it just to slander JJ and to make sure that her behavior doesn't get in the way by fabricating an outrageous allegation about him?

 

[ordigger]

In the end no one's opinions count here. If it goes to trial just 12 people's opinions count....and just need to create doubt in one of them. Nothing else matters in regard to guilty or not guilty.

 

[PlayerRep]

In the end no one's opinions count here. If it goes to trial just 12 people's opinions count....and just need to create doubt in one of them. Nothing else matters in regard to guilty or not guilty.

In the very end, nothing matters because everyone is dead.

 

[UMGriz75]

Actually the ONLY one who has referred to JJ as an alcohol fueled predator is YOU.

Why are you falsifying this whole discussion?

tnt: With in those 'texts" I am told, there is a pretty clear picture of who/what JJ knew was dealing with, and it ain't pretty, he moves from a good guy helping make a girls day, to very nearly a predator when fueled with alcohol. JJ does have some history as being a "different person" when drinking. He also has some baggage from high school according a teacher I know from there. He likes getting his way.

NONE of this appears in this case record. Now, you are making claims that someone else said what you said in the quoted portion, on this thread, pretending you DIDN'T say it. What gives?