Ex-quarterback's lawyers want to interview accuser

2012-11-30T06:00:00Z 2014-10-03T14:28:04Z Ex-quarterback's lawyers want to interview accuserBy Gwen Florio of the Missoulian missoulian.com

Former University of Montana quarterback Jordan Johnson’s defense attorneys have pooh-poohed the prosecution’s motion seeking information in his rape case as “speculative, dramatic and without merit.”

The court should deny the motion, Kirsten Pabst and David Paoli said in the document filed late Wednesday and entered Thursday into the record.

It’s a response to a prosecution request for information on defense witnesses, experts and their reports. Assistant Attorney General Joel Thompson said that although the state has provided Johnson’s defense attorneys with thousands of pages of material, the defense has yet to provide its own discovery.

Paoli and Pabst wrote that they’ve made repeated requests – most important, for an interview with the woman who accused Johnson of rape – for information, only to see those go unanswered.

They also seek a report from David Lisak, a Massachusetts psychologist who’s a national expert on acquaintance rape. The prosecution filed notice it will call Lisak as a witness.

Such testimony, wrote Pabst and Paoli, may not be allowed in Montana, “but without a report that analysis is as difficult as formulating a response. A motion to exclude Lisak’s testimony will be the subject of a separate forthcoming motion.”

Their response also seeks counseling records from the alleged victim from February 2012 through September 2012.

Johnson, charged with sexual intercourse without consent, is accused of assaulting a fellow UM student as the two watched a movie at her home on Feb. 4, 2012. He was suspended from the Grizzlies football team as a result. His trial is set for Feb. 8, 2013.

Missoulian reporter Gwen Florio can be reached at 523-5268, gwen.florio@missoulian.com, or @CopsAndCourts.

Copyright 2015 missoulian.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(17) Comments

  1. eswain
    Report Abuse
    eswain - December 06, 2012 4:19 am
    you are so dumb, it is to hard for you to see that this young man did NOT RAPE HER! mr johnson might not be someone to bring home to meet mom and dad but he did nothing wrong to this woman. She made an adult choice to have sex. you people who hate(and u r 1) the griz DON'T want the truth! you DON'T care about the truth! you type of people are going to lose this fight and the UM will have to pay mr johnson A LOT OF MONEY and i hope he wins and sues the pants off the whole state! and EVERYONE knows this person can"t write a true story about this and she needs to go before the missoulian loses more readers!
  2. griznationbaby
    Report Abuse
    griznationbaby - December 01, 2012 1:02 pm
    I thought journalism was supposed to be balanced, unbiased, accurate reporting. Guess not at the Missoulian.... Our paper is trash, we should learn from the Great Falls Tribune .
  3. Bittersweet
    Report Abuse
    Bittersweet - November 30, 2012 7:20 pm
    Meanwhile, a 15 year old girl was allegedly raped in a local community and there isn't one so called "advocate" that has taken the time to comment on that article. So is it you are the Joan of Arcs when it comes to standing up for alleged rape victims or is it you just hate The University Of Montana and their athletic department? Just curious. What gives?


  4. Alan Johnson
    Report Abuse
    Alan Johnson - November 30, 2012 1:41 pm
    Maybe in a perfect world they "should" submit to an interview. But no one can be forced to give a pre-trial interview, even an alleged victim. This is balanced with the defendant's right to remain silent. Jordan Johnson is "lawyered up" and the prosecutor can not interview him either. When she testifies at trial, as she must, (defendant's right to face his accuser) Johnson's lawyer will be able to cross-examine her.
  5. Bbr
    Report Abuse
    Bbr - November 30, 2012 12:57 pm
    This story really confused me as well, until I read defendants reply to the states motion to compel discovery. Then I realized what the story was, but you won't find it in the headline or body of this "story". The story isn't that Johnson's attorney's want to interview the accuser - that is standard and the defendant's constitutional right. And it is not that the Defense team is "pooh Pooing" the request for discovery - in fact they state they have already given the state all of the discovery they have. You can't "pooh pooh" or refuse to give up something that you have already given.

    The real story here, and the reason this is newsworthy, is that the defense is claiming that the prosecution is filing this motion to compel discovery is to avert attention away from the fact that they have failed to comply with the discovery they are required to provide to the defense, possibly resulting in a violation of his constitutional rights, and probably a mistrial if Johnson is convicted.

    Of course this might be all hot air from the defense, but as a taxpayer I would sure like to know if our taxes are paying for unethical behavior that is likely to led to a mistrial, and possible miscarriage of justice (regardless of who wins). I sure wish Gwen would have focused on the issue, maybe even got an independent expert to comment on what is and is not normal so us people without a background in the courts (including Gwen) would have an idea on how to judge the merits of the 2 arguments.

    Lee will probably give Gwen another award for this story.
  6. Bittersweet
    Report Abuse
    Bittersweet - November 30, 2012 11:54 am
    "The guy raped her and admitted it?" What the what? Did I miss something? I thought he entered a plea of not guilty. "First the woman is raped?" Whew, if you want to be on that jury you better get your lie on while selections are being made. Your mind has obviously been made up.
  7. Bass Whacker
    Report Abuse
    Bass Whacker - November 30, 2012 11:37 am
    Don't know what you are smoking! Johnson admits to giving in to this woman's tireless sexual pursuit. He admits to consensual sex that evening where she was the primary aggressor during foreplay. She admits to everything Johnson says about their past interactions and the evening in question, up thorugh being the aggressor in foreplay. Their stories only differentiate where she says as some point during intercourse she says she asked him to stop and he says she never did. All of the evidence after the sexual encounter on what she did and said points to anyhting but rape. After her best case was presented to the prosecutors by the "everything is rape" advocates, the prosecutor declined to prosecute. If the feds were not int own looking at UM and CA's office, Mr. Johnson would never have been charged becasue there is no evidence to support the complaining witnesses statement, and her actions belie the charge.

    More to your point, even if Mr. Johnson had agreed with her version of the events, due process requires the prosecution to make her and all of its witnesses available for questioning by the accused. The CONSTITUTION requires this access. Of course, to the "all sex is rape" crowd, apparently nobody accused of rape should have any consititutional rights.
  8. pl
    Report Abuse
    pl - November 30, 2012 10:35 am
    So first the woman is raped and then she has to be brow beat by defense lawyers? Oh yes, let's prosecute the victim even MORE! The guy raped her and admitted it. Put his @ss on trial for it! You Grizz football obsessives who want to turn your head every time a football player breaks the law....get over it and your little college football team!
  9. Dub
    Report Abuse
    Dub - November 30, 2012 10:16 am
    I would think Johnson's attorneys should be able to talk to the lady, she would have her legal council with her, of course. What are they hiding?
  10. J555-5
    Report Abuse
    J555-5 - November 30, 2012 9:36 am
    I'm surprised "pooh poohed" made it past spell check. Everyone knows it should be "poo pooed."
  11. MikeH
    Report Abuse
    MikeH - November 30, 2012 9:17 am
    Confused is a good word Bittersweet. I'm still confused how a person can claim she was raped and then drive the person home who supposedly raped her? It just doesn't seem plausible to me which begs the question, why is the county attorney's office pursuing this? Is it because the UofM is undergoing investigation of sexual abuse? Or is it because the county attorney's office is covering it's "six" so that the feds don't investigate them resulting in the charges against Jordan? Something just doesn't add up here.
  12. ma80
    Report Abuse
    ma80 - November 30, 2012 9:07 am
    I think it's safe to say who the author of this article is rooting for. What an interesting choice of verbiage, wondering if the same words would have been chosen if referring to the prosecution's requests. I'm anxious for this all to be over, and for justice to be served...no matter what the outcome.
  13. Montana DAD
    Report Abuse
    Montana DAD - November 30, 2012 8:48 am
    My pleading to the prosecuting attorney to dismiss this immediately and stop squandering civic resources...

  14. walter12
    Report Abuse
    walter12 - November 30, 2012 7:22 am
    This woman is going to rue the day that she listened to those arch leftist groups at UM.
  15. Bittersweet
    Report Abuse
    Bittersweet - November 29, 2012 9:26 pm
    I was thinking the same thing about the pooh but was afraid it was maybe some legal term and another poster would embarrass me if I didn't know what it meant. Makes a LITTLE more sense now that the defendants response to state to compel document popped up but this one is still all over the place Gwen. Maybe have a few more people proof read it and see if it's just me that is missing the point.
  16. huckleberryhaven
    Report Abuse
    huckleberryhaven - November 29, 2012 8:48 pm
    Just as confused here too. Pass the popcorn. Oh and did I really read "pooh poohed" in the first paragraph??
  17. Bittersweet
    Report Abuse
    Bittersweet - November 29, 2012 6:11 pm
    Sorry, I'm confused. Who asked who for what and din't get it? I'll read the story again, slower this time and without eating popcorn.
Missoulian Civil Dialogue Policy

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on Missoulian.com

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Missoulian (Missoulian.com) may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in Missoulian.com's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Missoulian or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on missoulian.com.

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick