Lawyer fight!
TSJ Thread
Until they need a lawyer.
IANAL and reading this 4 days later so maybe there's an IAAL response to this already that I haven't gotten to yet... but I would think it would be very beneficial for the defense to subpoena Morris as a witness and just let the jury watch him repeatedly say "I exercise my 5th amendment right to not answer this question". IMO that would make for a dramatic implosion of the state's circus prosecution.
I’ve stayed off this thread for a long time. That’s my public service to all of you. You’re welcome.
Just jumping back on briefly because someone needs to point out that this is not at all how things work in actual criminal trials. If the defense theory is that someone else committed the crime, they are not going to subpoena that alternative suspect as a defense witness and ask, “Did you commit this very serious sex crime?” The witness is just going to answer “No, I did not commit that very serious sex crime.” Nobody in that situation is going to respond by invoking their fifth amendment right not to incriminate themselves, which everyone understands to be a de facto admission of guilt. They are just going to deny the allegation. Because that person either did not commit the crime, or if he did, he is not worried about being charged with perjury because he made a false statement under oath. He is worried about being charged with a sex crime because he admitted that he committed a sex crime.
If the defense has evidence that someobody else might have committed the crime, that evidence has a source. It’s going to be either something that the detectives uncovered and documented during the investigation that appeared in the discovery materials that were turned over to the defense. In that case, the defense will just have the detective testify about what was uncovered during the cross examination. Or the potential alternate suspect might have been discovered by an investigator employed by the defense. In that case, the defense investigator will be called to testify. Then the defense attorney can argue to the jury on summations, you heard evidence that a different person committed this crime or might have committed this crime, why didn’t the police do more to investigate that other person, the police had already decided that my client was guilty, and then hammer down hard that all this equates to reasonable doubt.
My question is they can have witnesses say Morris was there, but the evidence that the M.O. matches is locked behind the prosecutor, so can the defense still make it work?
In real life this won't happen. I've explained why earlier in this thread.
Repeating myself from earlier in this thread, other crimes evidence and evidence of prior bad acts are extremely hard to get admitted. If I still had my Wigmore Evidence Manual I'd elaborate, but I don't.
He's right.
That was my concern. I figured in real life the court wouldn't allow some cinematic moment where a witness is admitted on purpose to plead the fifth in front of a jury.
Appreciate the explanation here, and again IANAL, but sounds like you may be. I guess I would think the line of questioning in my (maybe fairy land) scenario could be a little less direct yet go a long way to introduce significant doubt into the minds of the jury. i.e. questioning Morris might look something like:
"Were you at the Jayhawk Cafe on the night of August 26th 2023 (or whatever date that original incident happened)"?
"Were you the subject of an investigation stemming from an alleged sexual assault that occurred on the night of August 26th 2023"?
"Were you at the Jayhawk Cafe on the night of Sep 9 2023?"
"Were you in the Martini Room at/around the time of the alleged incident?"
"Do you recognize the defendant, TSJ?"
"Do you recognize the accuser, MN?"
"Did you witness the defendant place his hand under the dress of the accuser"?
I don't think a person would perjure themselves on any of these questions, so he could either answer them all forthright which would seemingly support TSJ's defense or he could plead the 5th which would greatly support the defense. I guess the whole point of calling Morris as a witness would be to show the jury that there was another person in the vicinity with a rap sheet of similar offenses, but if that line of questioning is objectionable or inadmissible or something, then that would defeat the purpose and, like you mention above, there is a much better way to introduce reasonable doubt.
So are you saying that the defense's motion to compel discovery (posted on page 7 of this thread) is unlikely to succeed? because it seems like this is exactly what the defense is trying to get admitted.
Illini2010-11
- Sugar Grove
IANAL, but this seems like a serious waste of time and energy. I envision Morris simply saying no to all questions (or possible objections with the line of questioning from prosecutor), with exception of recognizing TSJ (since he is a relatively famous college basketball player). To discredit him, you would need other forms of evidence. In that case, why not just introduce that evidence? As suggested, this evidence will likely be seen in Discovery.
This is not Matlock where you try to bring in who you think did the crime and get them to confess or plead the 5th.
this is true when used to show propensity... however, bringing in this evidence would be used to show the identity of the assailant through a possible suspect's MO (given the similarity of the first incident and the alleged incident here), which is a permitted use, is it not?
To add onto what others have said, you don't want to put on the stand witnesses who may be unreliable or wildcards. Plus in this case there's no need to do so as the defense merely needs to show reasonable doubt. Yes, us fans would love TSJ to be not just "not-guilty" but innocent, but "innocent" is incredibly difficult to prove in this case whereas reasonable doubt is abundant. As such, it's far more effective to question the investigating officer about both the frequency of alleged sexual assault occurrences in that bar in the months preceding TSJ being on that campus along with the fact that another person (Morris}, previously charged with sexual assault, also was in the bar that night in close proximity of the victim. And then you hammer home the victim's own testimony that she didn't see the hand that was assaulting her.
I get that the public facts (those we're aware of) have made it frustrating that this case has been pursued by the Lawrence DA and that many on here feel TJ may have been wrongfully dragged through the mud (including myself), but let's please refrain from name-calling the alleged victim. Whether or not TJ was involved, it's highly plausible -- even likely -- that the victim was in fact assaulted that night, and that the only 'error' (if there is one) was a wrong identification made under severely traumatic circumstances. This woman is 18 years old -- we have no idea what's happened behind the scenes or whether/how she was (mis)led by true professionals. Let's treat her with some grace, just as I think most of us want the same to be afforded to TJ.
So, she walks up to TSJ where he's standing at the bar with Harmon and McCullar and another woman who is "grinding" on Shannon, with her elbows pinned to her sides and both hands occupied, facing him, he puts his hand on her behind over her skirt, and this other dude ,Morris, walks up to her from behind and sticks his hand under her skirt etc.?
Exactly! I don’t think that her story will stand up to cross. This case has reasonable doubt written all over it
If anyone is dumb or a moron here, it is the DA and local police/authorities who are apparently terrible at their jobs and have mishandled this case from the start. We may truly have a young victim who was sexually assaulted by someone at that bar, along with an innocent man with a golden future on the line getting wrongfully prosecuted, all the while there is an actual sexual predator escaping this unscathed... The accuser may have been ignorant that she'd be used as a pawn in a politically motivated prosecution, but I wouldn't call her dumb. That would be this DA.
No, I think the defense is entitled to the information. There are exceptions to the general rule, and that's why the prosecutor should not be the gate keeper by unilaterally deciding that the information is not subject to disclosure. So I think they'll prevail on their motion, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll get it admitted at trial.
From what has been previously released, it appears that TSJ's statement is that he doesn't know who the alleged victim is and didn't have any contact with her. So long as all the key defense witnesses who were standing in close proximity say similarly and no state witnesses can corroborate a physical interaction, you stick with that defense. You can focus on the environmental conditions of it being dark and crowded, that TSJ was dancing with another girl and preoccupied at the time, lack of DNA evidence identifying TSJ, that in the rush for "justice" an overeager police department didn't do their due diligence in investigating potential suspects including someone previously charged with sexual assault, and the alleged victim's own shaky statements, along with other character witnesses, each pointing to reasonable doubt. Then you summarize each of those points for the jury in closing explaining how each individual point is enough for reasonable doubt, and this case has multiple times of that so much so that there is not just reasonable doubt but a preponderance of doubt.
If the State courts in Kansas essentially follow the federal rules of evidence I think they'll have a tough time with 404(b), although I'd love to be wrong.
Last edited:
Both sides released more subpoenas today. Of particular interest: Shannon's defense has sent some to the police staff that worked the Morris case. Because they worked off the publicly available complaint, these members of the department are referred to by title and last name, as that's all the info Shannon's team has on them.
You keep mentioning Morris, but was Morris wearing "a yellow mustard shirt" at the Jayhawk Cafe on 9/9/2023, which M.N. said Shannon was and surveillance video seemingly backs up? If not, this argument by the Shannon's defense team seems weak.