|
Wait it's the criminal lawyer's guide to criminal law? Lawyers ITT, would this obviously valuable resource have helped you in the path to your illustrious career as a public defender? E: so far all I've learned is that I won't go to jail for firing Irish people. Supposedly.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
There's also a whole section on constitutional law, and another on criminal procedure. And another separate thing where he goes into terrorism. And a patreon! I have no idea if he still practices law. But sometimes he goes months without updating the site so I suspect he does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What do you guys think about the illustrated guide to law? Seems completely unrelated to law, or at least the practice of law, basic fundamental tenets of legal philosophy at least as taught by the continent where legal philosophy and history originated and is simplified to the point where it doesn't teach you anything useful. It's also a terrible loving comic. 0/10 stars, don't waste your time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 19:41
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Wait it's the criminal lawyer's guide to criminal law? I like to think my illustrious career as a public defender helped him in his path to draw the comics. They've been around for a while, and they do a good job of explaining foundational legal concepts that even most educated people don't quite get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I like to think my illustrious career as a public defender helped him in his path to draw the comics. As in you got him off death row so he's still alive to produce them? Or you got him on death row so he has time to "research" and produce them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
The second worst clients are those that think they have a foundational understanding of the law, especially from some pop culture source Worst clients are lawyers
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
lmk if you want a summary of the topline comm sci research in deception detection short version is that we have a couple broad competing theoretical frameworks (interpersonal deception theory and information manipulation theory) that work quite well under a decently broad set of circumstances, but absolutely not reliably enough for almost all military or law enforcement uses and definitely not for courtrooms (though the main group doing research on the subject at U Michigan got a bunch of DoD and FBI grants early in the Obama administration and stopped publishing suddenly, so who knows). Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Oct 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:lmk if you want a summary of the topline comm sci research in deception detection I'm curious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 11:20
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I'm curious. No you're not, that's a lie
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 11:50
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:No you're not, that's a lie You got me, it's a lie. Be wary though, because sometimes I lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You got me, it's a lie. Basically, truth is like four sphinxes on the edge of a cliff, one always tells a lie one always tells the truth, one's slept with his study buddy and the last is friends with the judge. Law works the same way
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
I
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Speaking of lying, I'm interested in that "the whole truth" segment of the swear. Are people ever convicted of perjury for lies of omission? Or can't someone more or less plausibly argue that they "forgot" to mention some important detail?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Speaking of lying, I'm interested in that "the whole truth" segment of the swear. Are people ever convicted of perjury for lies of omission? Or can't someone more or less plausibly argue that they "forgot" to mention some important detail? Very very rarely under the federal perjury statute. 46 years ago the Supreme Court held that: quote:While "the lower federal courts have not dealt with the question often," and while their expressions do not deal with unresponsive testimony and are not precisely in point, "it may be said that they preponderate against the respondent's contention." United States v. Norris, 300 U.S. at 300 U. S. 576. The cases support petitioner's position that the perjury statute is not to be loosely construed, nor the statute invoked simply because a wily witness succeeds in derailing the questioner -- so long as the witness speaks the literal truth. The burden is on the questioner to pin the witness down to the specific object of the questioner's inquiry. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/409/352/ There have been a couple of cases that tested those boundaries but didn't go anywhere. The DOJ manual follows this: quote:Occasionally, a witness will try to mislead the inquiry by giving answers to questions that, although literally true, are evasive or unresponsive. In Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that such conduct does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 1621, reasoning that "if a witness evades, it is the lawyer's responsibility to recognize the evasion and to bring the witness back to the mark, to flush out the whole truth with the tools of adversary examination." Id. at 358-59. Thus, the jury does not focus on whether the statement was intended to mislead or divert the examination, but rather considers whether the declarant "does not believe his answer to be true." Id. at 359. See also, United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 (1953). https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1753-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-evasive-and
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Interesting. So, the clause in the oath that you have to swear to tell the whole truth is one of those things in law (or the procedure of law or whatever you want to call it) is just advising the witness/defendant that questioners can pursue them to give more complete answers if they believe their answers are incomplete or evasive, e.g. as a defendant answering questions on the stand, my attorney could not successfully object to a prosecutor's question on the grounds that "he already gave an answer and isn't sworn to give a complete answer." Although presumably the 5th amendment still applies? I seem to recall that if you start answering questions then you've waived your 5th amendment right and have to keep giving answers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:21
|
|
|
5th amendment is only if you personally are in criminal jeopardy
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Yeah so that only covers if I'm being evasive because I don't want to self-incriminate, I can't legally evade questions and give a not-whole truth for anything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Even if evasion doesn’t lead to perjury, your entire testimony is at risk of being thrown out and your credibility is severely weakened if left in
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
I have two family members who got into a lovely fight with each other that i didnt witness, apparently they got bruised and bloody and both immediately filed charges against each other Now neither wants to deal with the incoming legal hell and costs, or presumably family fracturing, so im trying to figure out how i can help them mutually drop charges for assault. Both are amenable to this. Im in california and i was wondering...is that even a thing they can do? And where? The police station? Courthouse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Interesting. So, the clause in the oath that you have to swear to tell the whole truth is one of those things in law (or the procedure of law or whatever you want to call it) is just advising the witness/defendant that questioners can pursue them to give more complete answers if they believe their answers are incomplete or evasive, e.g. as a defendant answering questions on the stand, my attorney could not successfully object to a prosecutor's question on the grounds that "he already gave an answer and isn't sworn to give a complete answer." Although presumably the 5th amendment still applies? I seem to recall that if you start answering questions then you've waived your 5th amendment right and have to keep giving answers? you can object on the grounds of asked and answered, depending on question and answer the judge will rule one way or the other the oath doesn't mean anything other than you are giving testimony under the threat of perjury. "the whole truth" is not an actual thing. how you answer the questions and how much info you include or volunteer is a part of your trial strategy catered towards your goals in the case
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers, that's about what I figured I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I have two family members who got into a lovely fight with each other that i didnt witness, apparently they got bruised and bloody and both immediately filed charges against each other They might be hosed. My experience in California is typically it is up to the DA if they are going to prosecute. Edit: better yet if they have defense attorneys already maybe let them know. Communications with the DA advocate aren't confidential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
They should talk to their lawyers, not the DA anything. Family members saying they don't want to prosecute probably won't help at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
TheKevman posted:Any and all suggestions are welcome and appreciated. At this point...talk to VICE and/or the FBI. That story sounds very close to this one (credit to carillon for sending this one my way): https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43k7z3/nationwide-fake-host-scam-on-airbnb
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Yeah reading that opening paragraph made it sound quite similar to your experience TheKevman, really sounded quite the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:I have two family members who got into a lovely fight with each other that i didnt witness, apparently they got bruised and bloody and both immediately filed charges against each other Well, if they both take the fifth and refuse to testify, and there is no other evidence . . . My advice is, they should each Google "prisoner's dilemma" and then talk to an attorney in their area. Also don't talk to cops
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
E wrong thread
Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 2, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
Legal profession question: When you're involved with selecting a jury, how many people typically get punted per acceptable sane person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:Legal profession question: When you're involved with selecting a jury, how many people typically get punted per acceptable sane person?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
Javid posted:Legal profession question: When you're involved with selecting a jury, how many people typically get punted per acceptable sane person? Really depends. Also lots of sane people get punted because they’re too sane for the other side. Most always lawyers like to use their challenges. Anyone ranting like a crazy person gets kicked for cause. One you use your strikes you’re stuck with whoever’s left. Devil you know, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What do you guys think about the illustrated guide to law? Reddit.com/r/legaladvice likes it, which is damning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Assuming you're not talking about peremptory challenges (legally acceptable sane person but I don't want you as a juror), .10 to .05. I'm talking about ratio of humans who get dragged to intake on a given day vs. how many you actually expect to seat. Basically, mine came up this week, I didn't get called, and I'm just curious what kind of a workload they called in 360 people for/how they eyeball it/etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm talking about ratio of humans who get dragged to intake on a given day vs. how many you actually expect to seat. Depends but even little courthouses usually subpoena 150-200, get like 100-150 to show up, and 14 get seated. Half don’t ever get put into the box for voir dire. Bigger courts usually call a massive panel and put them in various courtrooms over the course of the week. Basically every courthouse in America is different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:36
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm talking about ratio of humans who get dragged to intake on a given day vs. how many you actually expect to seat. In D.C.: quote:In 2014, the Superior Court Criminal Division held 367 jury trials and the Platystemon fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
Also depends on the judge. Some judges recognize that some employers don’t actually give a poo poo about legal protections for employees that have to go to jury duty. Some don’t. Also depends on the case. Famous capital murder trials, like the aurora theatre shooting, go through thousands of potential jurors
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 05:56
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Also depends on the judge. Some judges recognize that some employers don’t actually give a poo poo about legal protections for employees that have to go to jury duty. Some don’t. I was going to ask how many the Guzmán trial went through, but I can Google as well as anyone and NBC says: quote:The jury for his case, which is expected to last four months, was whittled down from almost 1,000 prospective panelists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
quote:Court documents unsealed at the request of VICE News and the New York Times on the eve of jury deliberations contained allegations from a witness who claimed Chapo had drugged and raped girls as young as 13. Hmm, yes, seems appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I was going to ask how many the Guzmán trial went through, but I can Google as well as anyone and NBC says: The aurora shooting had a pool of about 9000 people. Largest in history I think I recently took a cle about differences In generations when picking jury pools, and the guy hosting just straight up acknowledged that anyone with a smart phone is going to google everyone Involved and younger people in general are going to independently research everything on the internet. The idea of an independent unbiased jury is (and has been) a lie
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Javid posted:Legal profession question: When you're involved with selecting a jury, how many people typically get punted per acceptable sane person? Phil Moscowitz posted:Depends but even little courthouses usually subpoena 150-200, get like 100-150 to show up, and 14 get seated. Half don’t ever get put into the box for voir dire. /\ This is good for a statistical overview /\ The process goes something like this: I need 12 jurors. - The Court sends out Jury Duty notices to 100 people. - 60 of them get called into the Courtroom for Voir Dire; the "Jury Panel." The other 40 go home then and there. - The Jurors on the panel are numbered 1-60, and sit in order. - We get about 20 "free strikes" between the parties, that will almost all get used. - A jury panel usually has 1-5 weirdos or assholes or people who have had an experience too similar to the case to be un-biased, so those get chopped as well. So, from the 60, the parties and the judge chop the 1-5 for cause, and then each side chops the 10 they don't want from numbers 1-30. so your panel will have six rows of ten seats may look something like this after all the strikes: x x x 4 x 6 x x x 10 11 x 13 x x 16 x 18 x x 21 22 x 24 x x 27 x 29 30 x x x 33 34 35 x 37 38 x 40 So, Jurors 4, 6, 10, 11, 23, 16, 18, 21, 22, 14, 27, and 29 are your jury for the case. Everyone after that is dismissed, and case goes forward. In terms of probability that you sit on a jury, and make it past the jury panel, the higher your number, the better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:35 |
|
|
It's open enrollment time and the pre-paid legal debate time. FWIW, I've run the numbers and came up with the below: For our company the cost is ~$7 a pay period which comes out to $200/year, and I think I've gotten more out than I put in, but am willing to hear y'alls opinions. I retained an attorney for 2 different events in the past year: An attorney for my house purchase closing and document review. A demand letter sent regarding an estate issue, was resolved after the demand letter. This year I've got to create/update a will/setup a trust for said assets, and will probably be getting married, maybe buying a new house and selling my current one. At the moment it seems like i'm coming out ahead. Would I have been able to get the majority of these services for under $200 in billable hours/single jobs all together? Perhaps keeping pre-paid legal for years on end isn't the best idea, but for the years with expected legal outlays, it seems to make sense. edit: our covered services are 
toplitzin fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Nov 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:18
|
|
