Let's not get any hopes up about the trial being put back. Unless anyone was in court to hear the arguments we have no idea why it has been moved or even which side wanted the original date vacated. Rest assured that AJ will have a top team of lawyers - if they had a whiff that the prosecution was wobbling they'd probably be resisting any adjournment as hard as they can. It might also be that AJ has some good reason to want the delay (to get more expert evidence on his phone finished for example). Even if that would only take (say) a month if his QC (I'm assuming he is using one) might have significant other court commitments which mean Feb is as early as they can get him free for however long the trial is listed for. Just saying that the delay could be for anything - privately paid briefs will get much more scope to bugger about on dates than ones on legal aid - should not be the case but it is.
Doubt the prosecution or the Judge will care much about what Johnson wants. It will be the prosecution who requested it be put that. The only reason they'd do that is if they haven't finished putting the case together. Won't take till feburary to get all the lab results back, surely they've been back weeks. I can only assume they're struggling to put a case together.
Sorry guys but we don't know who has asked for the delay or why. Might even be because they're hearing it elsewhere and that coty hasn't got a free week (if the trial is expected to go that long?) until then. I know no more than anyone on here but assuming it's the CPS wanting time might well be just wishful thinking
I don't think defendants can request trial adjournments mate. can't find anything saying they can or any reference to a trail where it's happend
About 10 years ago I was named as a witness in a trial that was put back 4 times at the request of the defence . The final date of the trial was nearly 18 months after the initial report of the crime. In the end I was never called as a witness as the defendant changed his plea to guilty at the very start of the trial. That's not a comment on whether AJ is innocent or guilty, just an example of trials being put back at the request of the defence.
I was never told the full reasons, and not sure I was even supposed to be told any. The explanation I was given by the police was that the defence team requested time for their own experts to examine evidence that had been provided by prosecution experts. I wasn't exactly key to the case as my evidence related to his movements and actions after the offence. I was a nightshift manager in a 24 hour supermarket at the time and he turned up in our store later in the night. We used to get called to court loads back then to give evidence in cases of shoplifting or fights, etc, but this particular one had nothing to do with anything that took place in the store.
Anyone else think this chick just made it all up? Went out, all dressed up, maybe met up with him, got a pic, she tried it, he turned her down she made up a story to look cool to her friends, dad found out and the rest is history... Could be wrong, but this **** would happen alot to Footballers Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Me? I'll wait for the facts and the decision of the jury before I put on my special lynch mob shoes. Mind they are nice shoes, really shiny.
A couple of good over the thumb rules: 1. Delay almost always favours the defendant. 2. If there is a way to **** it up, the police and prosecution will find it. Their consistency here is truly amazing. As for my two bob's (again), without good dna evidence, it's her word against his and she will lose. Of course, I have no idea if the evidence is there or not.
Assuming AJ is acquitted can he then claim back his legal costs and if so who will be paying that. Us Taxpayers or the lass and her family?
didn't happen with that young footballer though, his mate got off but he got done for rape and now he is trying to clear his name. (cant remember it myself off hand)
If he's acquitted he will get his costs back like any other defendant. Don't cry but he will recover those costs at "legal aid rates" rather than what he is paying his legal team (probably 5 or 6 times as much) Once upon a time he would have recovered what he spent (Cameron and Clegg changed that) now the "rich" (which by legal aid terms is anyone in a job more or less) pay whether they win lose or draw - don't get charged kids!
