Which rights would you give up?

[tampa_griz]

We met Johnson at his attorney David Paoli’s office Tuesday afternoon. To get the interview we agreed to only ask about Johnson’s football career, school, and his future.

Correct. The interview wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. Unless perhaps Paoli's office is outside.

[[cat_bracket]]

Or are you talking about FVV when you mention prosecutor trying to gain political advantage?

Both. Obviously.

So you'd want to have a prosecutor that has political aspirations leading a trial where you're trying to get a guilty verdict on one of the most popular and well-liked people in Missoula and much of Montana?

One gunning for cover from and the other one gunning for favors from the Obama administration? I wouldn't want either if I was the accused. There's just way too much corruption there and it should be exposed.

Would you want either if you were the accuser?

Why wouldn't JJ, one of the most popular people in the state, want someone that is aspiring to be a politician (and is a UM grad) prosecuting him? I'd think that would be the ideal. He doesn't want to piss off the voters and he's an alum of the same school JJ's going to. As for FVV, he could just be going through the motions to appease the DOJ.

[[cat_bracket]]

We met Johnson at his attorney David Paoli’s office Tuesday afternoon. To get the interview we agreed to only ask about Johnson’s football career, school, and his future.

Correct. The interview wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. Unless perhaps Paoli's office is outside.

No one said the interview was conducted in Paoli's office.

[tampa_griz]

Would you want either if you were the accuser?

Heck yes. They both as prosecutors have a personal as well as professional interest in both saving and advancing their careers.

[Grizlaw]

Or are you talking about FVV when you mention prosecutor trying to gain political advantage? If so, I find it odd that people were all cool with FVV when he was barking at the DOJ (he still isn't cooperating with them), but when he sent JJ to trial he became the bad guy (even though he isn't cooperating with DOJ still).

I guess I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other.

I thought FVV was correct to question the DOJ's authority to come in and investigate his office, and I gave kudos to him (here and elsewhere on the interwebs) for doing so. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything else he does for the rest of his life, does it?

[[cat_bracket]]

Would you want either if you were the accuser?

Heck yes. They both as prosecutors have a personal as well as professional interest in both saving and advancing their careers.

Haha, no you wouldn't. You'd want someone with as much successful prosecutorial experience as there is. Someone not aspiring to be a politician, especially in this case, and one that isn't a UM grad and probable fan. Preferably someone that went to school out of state and didn't live in Missoula.

[tampa_griz]

We met Johnson at his attorney David Paoli’s office Tuesday afternoon. To get the interview we agreed to only ask about Johnson’s football career, school, and his future.

Correct. The interview wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. Unless perhaps Paoli's office is outside.

No one said the interview was conducted in Paoli's office.

So Paoli didn't control the interview. On that we agree.

[tampa_griz]

Would you want either if you were the accuser?

Heck yes. They both as prosecutors have a personal as well as professional interest in both saving and advancing their careers.

Haha, no you wouldn't. You'd want someone with as much successful prosecutorial experience as there is. Someone not aspiring to be a politician, especially in this case, and one that isn't a UM grad and probable fan. Preferably someone that went to school out of state and didn't live in Missoula.

Yes I would. I would want someone with personal skin in the game. It would incentivize them to take shortcuts and liberties in order to win. Why wouldn't I want them to do that?

You'd want a prosecutor that didn't live in Missoula to prosecute a case in Missoula? Can I wish for a unicorn to prosecute to instead?

[[cat_bracket]]

Or are you talking about FVV when you mention prosecutor trying to gain political advantage? If so, I find it odd that people were all cool with FVV when he was barking at the DOJ (he still isn't cooperating with them), but when he sent JJ to trial he became the bad guy (even though he isn't cooperating with DOJ still).

I guess I'm not sure I understand what one has to do with the other.

I thought FVV was correct to question the DOJ's authority to come in and investigate his office, and I gave kudos to him (here and elsewhere on the interwebs) for doing so. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything else he does for the rest of his life, does it?

He's defying the DOJ by not cooperating and pacifying the DOJ by sending JJ to trial at the same time? Why would he send JJ to trial if he's not cooperating with the DOJ. Is he in shock, like Jane Doe? Is this like her giving him a ride home?

[[cat_bracket]]

We met Johnson at his attorney David Paoli’s office Tuesday afternoon. To get the interview we agreed to only ask about Johnson’s football career, school, and his future.

Correct. The interview wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. Unless perhaps Paoli's office is outside.

No one said the interview was conducted in Paoli's office.

So Paoli didn't control the interview. On that we agree.

So you don't think it was Paoli's idea to only talk football and school? I would say that's controlling the interview, wouldn't you? You think Paoli wasn't there and JJ just picked his office to meet the TV to discuss the interview and how it would be conducted, then they moved to someone else's patio to do the interview?

[tampa_griz]

So you don't think it was Paoli's idea to only talk football and school? I would say that's controlling the interview, wouldn't you?

No. I've seen lawyers do that on TV when their clients are being interviewed on TV. And then I saw JJ's interview. It wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. He didn't control it.

[[cat_bracket]]

Would you want either if you were the accuser?

Heck yes. They both as prosecutors have a personal as well as professional interest in both saving and advancing their careers.

Haha, no you wouldn't. You'd want someone with as much successful prosecutorial experience as there is. Someone not aspiring to be a politician, especially in this case, and one that isn't a UM grad and probable fan. Preferably someone that went to school out of state and didn't live in Missoula.

Yes I would. I would want someone with personal skin in the game. It would incentivize them to take shortcuts and liberties in order to win. Why wouldn't I want them to do that?

You'd want a prosecutor that didn't live in Missoula to prosecute a case in Missoula? Can I wish for a unicorn to prosecute to instead?

You want someone that knows he's going to lose voters if he wins a case for you? A prosecutor that is a UM grad and lives in Missoula and wants to run for office is going to represent you well in a case against the most popular guy in town?

[[cat_bracket]]

So you don't think it was Paoli's idea to only talk football and school? I would say that's controlling the interview, wouldn't you?

No. I've seen lawyers do that on TV when their clients are being interviewed on TV. And then I saw JJ's interview. It wasn't conducted in Paoli's office. He didn't control it.

So Paoli had no say and couldn't have been standing nearby and couldn't have asked to see a list of questions prior to the interview and selected the ones JJ would answer? You don't actually believe that do you? No one said it was conducted in Paoli's office. Why do you keep going back to that? Are you trying to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument?

[tampa_griz]

You want someone that knows he's going to lose voters if he wins a case for you? A prosecutor that is a UM grad and lives in Missoula and wants to run for office is going to represent you well in a case against the most popular guy in town?

Uhh....I would know that wasn't his motivation the minute he used to discretion to file charges. If he was scared about upsetting the most popular person ever he wouldn't have done that. As it stands, and as deductive logic allows, it was clear that the prosecution was ducking and covering while trying to advance a political career. It wouldn't make sense to file charges otherwise.

[tampa_griz]

So Paoli had no say and couldn't have been standing nearby and couldn't have asked to see a list of questions prior to the interview and selected the ones JJ would answer? You don't actually believe that do you? No one said it was conducted in Paoli's office. Why do you keep going back to that? Are you trying to divert attention away from the flaws in your argument?

He couldn't have. He wasn't there. The interview was conducted away from his office. Have you seen the list of questions Paoli signed off on? Where did you get that?

I've seen interviews with accused and their attorneys. They do them together. I didn't see that here.

[Grizlaw]

He's defying the DOJ by not cooperating and pacifying the DOJ by sending JJ to trial at the same time? Why would he send JJ to trial if he's not cooperating with the DOJ. Is he in shock, like Jane Doe? Is this like her giving him a ride home?

I see your point, but I think you're over-simplifying things a bit.

I don't think Paoli prosecuted JJ just to placate the DOJ (nor do I think the DOJ would be placated just by the fact that he brought charges in one high profile case...if the rest of their investigation reveals a pattern of not pursuing cases, then this one case won't change that in their eyes, I'm sure). What you seem to be ignoring, though, is the fact that the DOJ is just one of many sets of eyes that were watching this case. In addition to the DOJ, there was also the NY Times, Jezebel, Gwen Florio, and countless other media sources, bloggers, and activist groups that, I'm sure, all would have had an opinion to share with the world if he had chosen not to prosecute the case. It's not just about the DOJ investigation. If he had chosen not to bring charges, he would've been crucified in the national and local media.

Just to be clear -- I don't think it was necessarily wrong of him to bring the charges. It's a judgment call, and he would've been criticized by one group or the other either way. I do think it's possible that all of the media attention played into the decision, though, and I don't think that's inconsistent with the view that he was right to stand up to the DOJ.

[TomCat88]

Yea, this was a good read as well as good civics refresher - all perhaps with the exception of her opinion about the prosecutor and the validity of filing the case in the first place. This all leads me to believe that the whole piece was done for damage control for JJ as well as herself.

I do agree that our trial process is as good as it gets in this world, but there is one component of it that I do consider a little less than ideal, that being that often it is the higher-priced gunslinger that wins the case so I'm not all that sure that prosecuting attorneys are always that good of a match for private defense attorneys. It seems that this possible flaw is exaggerated even more in proceedings that don't use a jury, such as divorces - and yes, I have some experience and a most likely bias here

I assume there's a logical reason for it, but does anyone know why a person can't hire their own prosecutor. Grizlaw? I know why they wouldn't, the state provided prosecution is free. But if you have the means could you do this or does the government take ownership of the case. I guess when you're a plaintiff you do just that.

[Grizlaw]

I assume there's a logical reason for it, but does anyone know why a person can't hire their own prosecutor. Grizlaw? I know why they wouldn't, the state provided prosecution is free. But if you have the means could you do this or does the government take ownership of the case. I guess when you're a plaintiff you do just that.

For the same reason a person can't go out and hire their own police: law enforcement is a government function, not one performed by private citizens (or people they pay).

A lot of people think of the prosecutor as representing the alleged victim in a criminal case, but that's not actually his role. His job is to represent "The People," not any particular person.

[TomCat88]

I assume there's a logical reason for it, but does anyone know why a person can't hire their own prosecutor. Grizlaw? I know why they wouldn't, the state provided prosecution is free. But if you have the means could you do this or does the government take ownership of the case. I guess when you're a plaintiff you do just that.

For the same reason a person can't go out and hire their own police: law enforcement is a government function, not one performed by private citizens (or people they pay).

A lot of people think of the prosecutor as representing the alleged victim in a criminal case, but that's not actually his role. His job is to represent "The People," not any particular person.

It seems I have a lot to learn. But as my teachers used to say, "don't be afraid to ask a stupid question, someone else is probably wondering the same thing."

[Rich K]

I assume there's a logical reason for it, but does anyone know why a person can't hire their own prosecutor. Grizlaw? I know why they wouldn't, the state provided prosecution is free. But if you have the means could you do this or does the government take ownership of the case. I guess when you're a plaintiff you do just that.

For the same reason a person can't go out and hire their own police: law enforcement is a government function, not one performed by private citizens (or people they pay).

A lot of people think of the prosecutor as representing the alleged victim in a criminal case, but that's not actually his role. His job is to represent "The People," not any particular person.

It seems I have a lot to learn. But as my teachers used to say, "don't be afraid to ask a stupid question, someone else is probably wondering the same thing."

In a way, I believe you can hire your own prosecutor, as such. Isn't that what civil court (tort law) is concerened with? In civil court there is a basic plaintiff v. defendent as opposed to criminal court which is State v. defendent. I know there is more to it, and I'm probably a bit ham handed in my wording, but I don't want to be confused with any of these lawyer types hanging out here.