Johnson’s best defense would be if he was hiqh on druqs to the point that he couldn’t see what really happened.
Did they druq test Johnson? If they did and he was that hiqh, then why would his testimony even have been admissible in court?
I know when you file an affidavit you have to swear that you can competently testify to the facts you claim in your affidavit. Does someone who testifies in court have to similarly say that they are competent to testify - which would mean that they are sayinq they were not so stoned out that they couldn’t see?
He's not going to need a defense because he isn't going to be charged with anything.