A new development in the case involving Michael L. Johnson, the gay 25-year-old former college wrestler currently serving 30 years in prison for exposing four men to the HIV virus and infecting one.
Johnson, who also went by the name “Tiger Mandingo,” was convicted in May 2015 by an all-straight, nearly all-white jury of which two-thirds openly admitted that they believed being gay was both a sin and a choice. He was found guilty of five counts relating to his HIV status and sentenced to three decades behind bars, and will have to register as a sex offender upon his release. Since being carted off to prison, Johnson has spent much of his time in solitary confinement.
Related: Jailed HIV-Positive Wrestler Pens Heartbreaking Letter From Solitary Confinement
Now, the Associated Press reports that an appeals court in Missouri has agreed to rehear the case after it found recordings of phone calls Johnson made while he was in jail awaiting trial should not have been allowed as evidence in the case.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
A three-judge panel at the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ruled that Judge Jon Cunningham, who originally oversaw the trial and who scolded Johnson for his “very severe crimes” before sending him to prison for 30 years, erred by admitting the jailhouse recordings into evidence, which were not disclosed to Johnson’s attorney until day one of the trial.
Related: Two-Thirds Of The Jury That Convicted HIV-Positive College Wrestler Believed Being Gay Was A Sin
The court panel determined that “there was at least a reasonable likelihood” that the surprise evidence introduced by prosecutors could have prevented Johnson’s lawyer from mounting “a meaningful defense” and that intentionally waiting to reveal the recordings was done so “to gain a strategic advantage.”
The panel didn’t address Johnson’s argument that his sentence was unfairly disproportionate to the crime, however. His attorney contended that the sentence violated a constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Missouri is one of 33 states that have HIV criminalization laws, which AIDS activists have slammed for being outdated and unfairly targeting black men.
Baba Booey Fafa Fooey
Good. That jury was terribly vetted. Most (or all) believed gay was wrong. He was guilty simply for being gay.
viveutvivas
Well, good luck getting a fair trial as a gay black man anywhere in Missouri.
Kangol
His sex life and his HIV+ status should never have been put on trial in the first place. Given where the new trial will be taking place and the fact that he is black and gay, I don’t think the new outcome will be any better. But maybe his defense lawyer can better prepare to defend him.
abnerbha
@Baba Booey Fafa Fooey: @Kangol:
His defense lawyer(s) must have asked the prospective jurors about their views of homosexuality before the defense, prosecutor & judge agreed to the jury selected. Don’t know about the recordings. We’ll see if he is convicted by another jury or if there’s a plea bargain. If you have a venereal disease (VD), AIDS or other disease & you knowingly give that to others, then you should go to prison.
If people are going to be promiscuous whether it’s straight or gay & not use condoms, then if they get a Venereal Disease (VD), it’s their fault-they knew the risks but chose to take them. Most smokers except for those suing the tobacco companies aren’t asking for sympathy if they get lung cancer because smokers knew the risks but still chose to smoke.
Most straight Venereal Disease (VD) victims don’t ask for sympathy. Most men who got Venereal Disease (VD) after they had sex with many women w/o using condoms aren’t asking for sympathy because they admit they knew the risks but still chose to take them. Gay victims, ask others for sympathy after they get AIDS. The truth about gay AIDS victims is that almost all of them knew the risks, but chose to take them.
JerseyMike
People have to take responsibility for their own lives. You hooking up with some random dude online and expect him to be honest..OK.. He is having unprotected sex with you on the first hookup.. Do think you are the only one he is doing that with. Do you really think you are that special? How can they prove he is the one who infected this person. I am sure he isn’t the only one these people sleep with unprotected.The burden of proof should be on the prosecution. If you are going to accuse me, your whole life will be on display for the world to see. sexual partners, medical history, online history.. Anytime an adult willingly has unprotected sex with a random stranger, your infection is your problem. If you are in a committed relationship and your partner steps out and infects you, prosecution is in order. If you don’t want it, stop fcuking around with strangers. WE ALL KNOW THE RISK. Take some responsibility for your own fcuk ups..
XzamilIoh
He should be in prison. Black men need to stop spreading AIDS around!
ErikO
@XzamilIoh: Agreed he should be in prison as should other people who are HIV+ but lie about it or just don’t tell the other person/people.
Xzamistletoe
@XzamilIoh: Captain Obvious, you do know I have your IP address, right? So I know it’s you. Queerty, this troll is setting you up for trouble.
MacAdvisor
@abnerbha:
Mr. Johnson’s viral load is undetectable. He isn’t capable of seroconverting anyone, though he was convicted of doing so in one of the five charges. The other four were just exposure without seroconversion. There wasn’t any DNA evidence presented to indicate the strain of HIV Mr. Johnson has was in any way related to the person who did seroconvert, nor, under the shield law, was the defense able to strike jurors for cause for believing being gay is a sin and a choice. Thus, they used as many preemptory challenges as they could, but getting a group of 12 people in Missouri that don’t have such a believe is very difficult.
I strongly agree with JerseyMike. One must take personal responsibility for one’s own sex life. I assume, whatever my partner says, he is positive and infectious. To not do so is to take risk and one should be responsible for the risks one takes.
ChrisK
@ErikO: Thankfully most states aren’t the Nazi Fascist states that you want.
ChrisK
@MacAdvisor: Hey you sound like a lawyer. Ha ha. Thanks for the inside info. I thought he was guilty of spreading HIV to one of them but sounds more like just a convenient scapegoat.
You’d think with the new information we now know about undetectable transmission being zero that would’ve played a role but not if you had a f*g hating ra*ist jury which they clearly were.
ChrisK
@JerseyMike: Same type of guys that hit me up with are you negative…? I always know what that that means. They just want to BB with a negative guy. I just need to say the magic I’m negative words. Never been proven wrong. I don’t get that logic.
ErikO
@MacAdvisor:
http://www.hiv.va.gov/patient/faqs/transmission-of-undetectable-virus.asp
“Taking anti-HIV drugs (ARVs) is very important for both your health and
for reducing your risk of passing HIV to sex partners, but it is not 100%
effective at preventing HIV transmission
…
Having said that, it will never be 100% protective for all couples.
…
And of course, it is really important to have frank and open conversations
about HIV transmission with your HIV negative partner(s), so you and they can make informed decisions about what level of risk you are willing to
accept.”
ChrisK
@ErikO: Yes a study from 2012 which doesn’t list any details how it was even done.
However, we have two very big detailed studies done this year endorsed by the NIH and the Health Department of NY that you completely ignore because it doesn’t support your BS.
money718
Good luck in backwards ass Missouri.
huckchuck
Oh please. The boy he gave HIV to asked him to use a condom. He said “it didn’t fit” and that he was negative, while knowing he was positive and actively put the boy’s life at risk. Yes, put his life at risk. While HIV+ individuals *can* live a full and healthy life, that by no means they will. I read just yesterday that HIV treatment has been linked to neurocognitive decline, with similarities to Alzheimer’s. Obviously over long periods of time, which the victim in this case will require.
This guy Tiger proceeded to film himself having unprotected sex with 30 different guys after receiving his diagnosis. He lied a number of times. We DON’T know that he was undetectable (and clearly was not with the boy who converted).
I’m sorry, but that is sociopathic behavior that deserves a jail sentence. 30 is probably too much, but I’d be fine with 10 years.
I understand “it takes two to tango” and I am smart enough to know that people lie, deceive, or are ignorant so I protect myself, however there must be consequences for people who maliciously and deliberately put others at risk. At the very least, it’s fraud.
Lastly, I don’t buy the argument that HIV criminalization laws (which certainly need reform) deter people from getting tested. If the death penalty doesn’t deter people from committing first degree murder, then I seriously doubt HIV criminalization laws deter people from getting tested. Cost + ignorance + apathy deter people from getting tested.
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
This guy may have received an unfair trial — almost certainly did — but in no way is this cùnt’s actions “innocent”
JerseyMike
https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=108378
What HIV negative ADULT in their right mind sleeps with a random stranger unprotected. I can understand that happening 15-20 yrs ago. MAYBE. The plaintiff said he had not slept with anyone in over a yr.. but you quick to jump in bed with a stranger(RAW). Then go back and have sex after you find out you have gonorrhea and HIV. This guy should get 5 yrs max.
Neonegro
Both parties having unprotected sex are putting themselves and each other at risk.
That sentence is ridiculous. You could actually kill someone and get less years.
Me2
I never understood how he was convicted to begin with. How was the prosecution able to prove that he infected anyone? Was he the only HIV+ person using that site/app? Is there some sort of unique traceable component to the virus that specifically identifies who the carrier is? Were they able to prove that he was the only person that the “victim” had unprotected sex with? What evidence did they have that proves he was the one who infected that person. This entire case has always seemed extremely frivolous to me. I hope he’s able to secure a private attorney as public defenders just seem to guarantee a guilty verdict.
Danny279
He’s not going anywhere. They will re-try him and convict him again. And his sentence will be comparable or the same. Strong sentences are needed because there is an attitude, exemplified by the comments above, that the naivete or stupidity of one’s partner gives you license to expose that partner to HIV. Notice that every commenter who tries to defend this monster offers some version of “What about the negative guy?” Very stiff sentences will disabuse HIV+ people that they can set their own rules or that they can use their partners’ conduct as an excuse to harm.
Miles
It takes 2 to tango.
JerseyMike
Somebody infects you with HIV.. Two weeks later you go back and have sex with them again..Who does that? I am sure he will get some time but it will not be 30 years.
monroerob69
On another note, saying “HIV virus”is like ATM Machine. Does anybody edit these?
highestbidder
30 years is too severe a penalty.
Realitycheck
Now a day HIV doesn’t kill anymore, and it is a less serious disease then diabetes.
That said those states that still have penalties should get rid of them immediately,
there are many other VDs that doesn’t have penalties and are equally or more serious
like the new untreatable Gonorrea that is antibiotic resistant, and of course the incurable herpes.
Last, as noted above it does take to to Tango, people have the duty to protect themselves.
Billy Budd
If someone agrees to have sex, there is always a risk involved. If someone agrees to have unprotected sex, there is an enormous risk involved. It is YOUR fault if you do it, not the other guy’s. If someone injected me with a syringe full of HIV+ blood, then he or she should be convicted. But consensual sex cannot be a crime. This so called Justice is just an excuse for bigotry, prejudice, racial hatred, and inhumanity.
abnerb
@highestbidder: @Billy Budd:
Then the AIDS victim should inform others that they have AIDS, so that the person who has sex with them knows that they are proceeding @ their own risk. If people want to have sex (straight or gay) with others who have Venereal Disease (VD), then they should @least know that they’re having sex with people who have VD. In this case, the gay hid the fact that he had AIDS with those he had sex with. Think you’re dishonest when you say this is race discrimination because it’s a Black man. If he had been a White man, American Indian man or Asian man, than they would get the same punishment. Other thoughts
Yes, we must help people who are sick with any disease whether it’s their fault or not. If a drug junky OD or if a drunk driver gets injured, then it’s a Drs. duty to help him or her heal. HOWEVER, I can’t sympathise with a drunk driver who breaks a leg or even gets killed while drunk driving because they took a reckless risk. Once saw a case where a drunk driver was paralyzed after a wreck, while it’s far more common for drunk drivers to kill or injure their victims. As alcohol relaxes muscles that can give some protection to drunk drivers which is why it’s more common for those hit by drunk drivers to be seriously injured or killed. Our sympathies must be more with those who are injured & killed by drunk drivers.
If a smoker dies of lung cancer (have known people who have), we usu. say that while it’s bad that the smoker died, they knew the risks but chose to take them. Many smokers would ask us not to sympathize with them if they get lung cancer because they understood the harms involved. I know that people will differ with why I don’t sympathise. But it’s for the easy reason-if you take part in reckless conduct knowing the risks, then I can’t sympathize with you.
Some will talk about construction workers who do dangerous jobs, etc. My answer there is that if you do a dangerous job & if you’re not going to follow safety rules such as a construction worker who doesn’t wear safety glasses, helmet, gloves, etc. & you get seriously injured or killed, well you were negligent. Some raise the food eg. of people who eat poorly & die of heart disease, diabetes or cancer. This is more complex because you need food in order to live & with poor people, they don’t always have access to supermarkets which sell healthy foods but just bad markets. Now if you’re educated & wealthy but still choose to eat poorly, then proceed @ your own risk.
With AIDS victims, if a baby gets the disease from their mom, then yes they’re sympathetic victims just as if a person gets AIDS from a bad blood transfusion. In those cases it’s not the victims fault. But gay AIDS victims have themselves to blame. If a gay is going to be promiscuous & not use condoms incl. use drugs, then it’s his fault if he gets AIDS & I can’t sympathise with him as he knew the risks but chose to take them.
If people are promiscuous straight or gay & not use condoms, then if they get a Venereal Disease (VD), it’s their fault-they knew the risks but chose to take them. Most smokers except for those suing the tobacco companies aren’t asking for sympathy if they get lung cancer because smokers knew the risks but still chose to smoke.
Phourtitude
@huckchuck I don’t think anyone is saying Mr. Johnson was innocent. But the reality is personal responsibility has to be considered in this case. This GROWN MAN chose to engage in risky behavior… Period. Ok the condom doesn’t fit. Go get a bigger one or, shocker, be an adult and take control of your health by refusing to have unprotected sex with a stranger. If this was a forceable act or done without his consent, then I would agree with such a severe sentence. That’s the more efficient way to deal with this pandemic, the better incentive is to encourage personal responsibility.
Regarding this case, its a classic he said- he said case. Its just on the he saids is a black guy in Missouri. Especially considering, Mr. Johnson was from a rural area uneducated and uninformed and barely literate as seen in the letters he attempted to write. In his eyes, he had one commodity. A type of sex appeal that it appears plenty of guys were willing to step in line to test and engage in risky behavior to do it. Now we won’t to lock him up for 30 years.
In sum, this story is a tragedy from all angles and EVERYONE involved made poor decisions. But do we really want to open pandora’s box and encourage jailing HIV + people because others don’t want to take responsibility for their risky behavior.
Deepdow
“two-thirds openly admitted that they believed being gay was both a sin and a choice”
How on Earth were they allowed to serve on this case then? This world is horrible….
ChrisK
@abnerb: I liked you better when you spoke jibberish.
Computerboy
Well deserved scare, for those who choose to see black men as dumb beasts with large genitals.
jhon_siders
The picture shows the JFK and big 4 bridge on the Indiana side with Louisville in the back ground so I assume he was with U of L ?? wonder how many guys he slept with unprotected ?? scary .