|
Loucks posted:Nonsense. Doing god's work
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Badactura posted:I'm taking a break from my regular idiotic shitposting to say that: It's not that magical. Also lol hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 05:36
|
|
|
Badactura posted:2. Evidence rules in general and hearsay in particular make no sense. Evidentiary Rules make more sense when you realize the archaic reason for them existing is basically, "Does the party the evidence is being offered AGAINST have a fair opportunity to investigate and challenge the credibility of the evidence?" Hear/say - "I heard/them say." Its hearsay because the original speaker is not the one testifying. This is A PROBLEM because you can't grill the original speaker on what they said, why, or whether they should be believed at all if they aren't on the stand when the spoken words are introduced. Authenticated - is this Authentic? In other words, is this the original document or photograph or video? If we only have a copy, is there an INDIVIDUAL who can be grilled on what the original document said/photo showed, and why, or whether the individual should be believed at all. Every rule of evidence is tailored to meet this basic function - does the other side have a fair chance to call "bullshit" on this offered evidence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
The other thing to remember is that everything is admissible if you're sneaky enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
GrandmaParty posted:The other thing to remember is that everything is admissible if you're sneaky enough. Or if your judge is elected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
GrandmaParty posted:The other thing to remember is that everything is admissible if you're sneaky enough. My trial practice prof had a story from his prosecutor days. He got Charlie to testify "I head Adam order Bill to put the drugs in the trunk of the car". Defense objected. Prof, "Your honor, I'm not offering that testimony to establish the drug trafficking charges, I'm offering evidence of Bill generally following Adam's orders for the conspiracy charge. If it makes you feel better I'll go ahead and agree to a jury instruction that they can only use that item of testimony for the conspiracy charges and not to determine the drug charges." Judge allowed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:42
|
|
|
"do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." F.R.E. 801
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 14:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Or if your judge is elected. Definition of relevance: If the judge wants to hear the answer it's relevant. Definition of hearsay: If the judge wants to hear the answer it's not hearsay. etc. A Tasteful Nude posted:"do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." F.R.E. 801 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Or if your judge is elected. Or if you're a DA
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Goons help me make a life changing decision. Current junior funds attorney at sole-proprietorship. I have an offer at a mid-sized firm doing general capital markets work and an interview for a cap markets staff attorney at an AM Law 50. Mid-sized firm: Pros: people seem nice, substantial improvement over status quo, broad corporate law training with potential tax work, offer in hand Cons: not market salary compared to bigger firms but i'm ok with that Staff attorney: Pro: well-known firm, maybe in 2 years+ I can lateral elsewhere as an associate (big if???), fixed hours Cons: stigma as staff attorney lol Leaning towards the mid-sized firm but I appreciate if you guys have some input.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Goons help me make a life changing decision. Current junior funds attorney at sole-proprietorship. I have an offer at a mid-sized firm doing general capital markets work and an interview for a cap markets staff attorney at an AM Law 50. i dont know what the gently caress funds attorneys or corporate attorneys in general do - but for the kinds of associates where i do know what it is they do, I would much rather hire a mid-size firm associate than a well-known firm staff attorney if all I knew was the title. also, a mid-size firm may be a lot easier to make a career out of it than a bigger firm. a staff attorney at a big firm is a dead-end job so you have to move; the mid-size firm you may have an actual shot at partnership or moving in-house with their help
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 15:51
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:You can still get out, you don't have to finish law school. I want to finish it is the thing, and I enjoy it a lot more when it's not totally online. I've read a lot on evidence and I keep thinking that hearsay does make sense (I appreciate the explanations of how it is practically applied, from everyone) until I get to class and go through these stupid hypotheticals that end up making me feel like I actually don't understand. Like, the idea of hearsay being 'testimony has to be cross-examinable so we don't let in testimonial evidence that can't be questioned' makes sense to me, but then there are a million exceptions that basically allow hearsay in on technical grounds and it's all a big game of getting a judge to let you introduce evidence that will definitely prejudice the jury in reality, but won't by the insane logic of the law. It's also the end of the semester and I have a million things due and I wanted to vent to people. My friends just don't understaaand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I want to finish it is the thing, and I enjoy it a lot more when it's not totally online. This doesn't apply to every exception, but a lot of times the reason most hearsay exceptions/exemptions exist is because the the other party is presumed to be able to otherwise disprove them. Like a business record is easy enough to contradict if you can produce a contrary record from the same company. Or a training manual could just be introduced by the opposing party if they think it contradicts what the witness said about it. If you disagree that an Opposing Party said that, put their rear end on the stand. A huge outlier that I can think of is the dying declaration. I've always thought that one was dumb as poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:A huge outlier that I can think of is the dying declaration. I've always thought that one was dumb as poo poo. In these cases, its generally because, "Welp, the detriment that you can't cross them on it is outweighed by the benefit of the testimony for the case." Similarly with "Statement of Party Opponent", we know they're here to cross them on it anyways, and they are probably gonna lie, so its fine that its hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:In these cases, its generally because, "Welp, the detriment that you can't cross them on it is outweighed by the benefit of the testimony for the case." Similarly with "Statement of Party Opponent", we know they're here to cross them on it anyways, and they are probably gonna lie, so its fine that its hearsay. I mean, I realize that the burden is on the proponent and even it's allowed in, you can always cross the witness saying they heard the dying person say it and in practice, that person is usually someone trustworthy like an EMT or something. But like, goddamn, it's so old-timey. Also, just call it an excited utterance and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:43
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Or if your judge is elected. lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:47
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I want to finish it is the thing, and I enjoy it a lot more when it's not totally online. god damnit I had a whole long thing typed up and my computer crashed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:god damnit I had a whole long thing typed up and my computer crashed. A windows update bug with networked kyocera printers did that to me multiple times over the past few weeks because windows kept reinstalling it after I removed it, but it did not auto-install the fix when it came out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:A huge outlier that I can think of is the dying declaration. I've always thought that one was dumb as poo poo. i mean that one is really easy - you just gotta be able to use "x shot me, that fucker, i'm dying because x shot me" as they stumble out bleeding into the street and die as evidence the real "wtf" about hearsay is the distinction between Officially Not Hearsay and Hearsay, But Allowable Anyway
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:god damnit I had a whole long thing typed up and my computer crashed. haha, reminds me of law school
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I want to finish it is the thing, and I enjoy it a lot more when it's not totally online. i mean at the end of the day the point of lawyers is to turn the rules from a sensible thing into a game designed to benefit your client like the mark of a good litigator is being able to come up with an answer on the spot why rank hearsay is admissible anyway (when in doubt, you can use "well, your honor, it's an email sent from a work email, that's a business record" because even though i've never seen that work, i've seen good attorneys try)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i mean that one is really easy - you just gotta be able to use "x shot me, that fucker, i'm dying because x shot me" as they stumble out bleeding into the street and die as evidence It's not the using it that's wtf, it's the theory of why it's somehow trust-worthy when it's not testable AT ALL. Like if you put in OPS, your opponent can just put the speaker on the stand. If you dispute a business record, introduce other business records. But a dying declaration and the only justification is, "Well who would like about that?" And you're like, "OK, sure, but we have no idea of the circumstances AT ALL."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
In Takeshi's Castle/MXC there is a game called "Knock Knock" where contestants run at a series of walls with doors in them. Some of the doors are real, and some are fake. If they hit a real door, they pass through to the next wall. If the door is fake, they hilariously slam into it.  Evidence is the same. I offer the evidence (it starts running), the Other Side Objects (the wall goes up) My evidence passes the objection (makes it through a door). You only have to get evidence through one of the multiple, potential doors to pass on to the next wall. Relevance is the first wall: there is one door for each element of each cause of action, that says, "does this evidence make this element more or less likely to be established?" If it does, they bust through that door. Its a logical, non-statutory question. You just have to get through one door to move on. Admissibility is the rest of the walls. These walls are statutory - the Rules of Evidence. There is one wall for every applicable Rule of Evidence. Each Rule of Evidence keeps out a certain kind of evidence, UNLESS. If you get through any door, you move on. Take Texas Rule 701 for example, Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses quote:If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: If Wall 701 comes up, there are 4 potential doors you can run through: Door 1 - Not applicable! Its not opinion testimony! Door 2 - Not applicable! My Witness is an Expert, not a lay person! Door 3 - Exception a) applies - its based on perception! Door 4 - Exception b) applies - its helpful to understanding other testimony! If you get through one of those doors, the evidence moves on to admission! Hearsay is the same. If you offer evidence, and the other side objects, "Hearsay!" then the wall goes up. You look at the doors you can run through, and you try each potential door. Door 1 - Not Applicable! Its Not An Out of Court Statement (element 1 of hearsay)! Door 2 - Not Applicable! Its Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted (element 2 of hearsay)! Doors 3 - Infinity: [proffered] EXCEPTION APPLIES! So you respond to the objection by picking applicable doors and running into them! If the judge agrees with you, the evidence breaks through, and faces the next wall, or, if there are no more objections, passes on to the finish line (gets admitted).  Your job as a law student is to memorize every potential door, and list them in response to a question about that specific wall. Then, you say which doors you would break through, and why. Thats how you pass the test. sometimes the judge doesn't let it in, anyways! 
blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
Sufficient indicia of reliability lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
Residual exception FTW
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Badactura posted:and it's all a big game of getting a judge to let you introduce evidence that will definitely prejudice the jury in reality, but won't by the insane logic of the law. Yes, exactly, you understand it. The central unspoken unutterable truth of the American legal system is that everyone knows the whole thing has, at best, the same relationship to actual fairness that a stage play does to reality. Every participant knows, and would say if asked individually, that it's a legal system, not a justice system, and nothing about it is fair, just like all the actors and all the audience know the play is fictional. But they'll never all say that at once in unison, because that would stop the performance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
Principled approach - yeah its hearsay, no it doesn't fit in an exception, but I'm letting it in anyways because you see, everything is an exception if you look at it right
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
One of the reasons* why I love arbitration compared to courts is that it doesn't have rules of evidence, strictly speaking. Counsel and arbitrators obviously lean on seat rules or the rules of wherever they're trained/qualified, but it's all optional/waiveable. *the other one is that you can actually enforce awards wherever you want
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
Man, this is a really helpful way to visualize the evidence rules, thank you! Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes, exactly, you understand it. I kind of had forewarning that this is effectively how the legal system works by being raised by a public defender who would often complain about this exact issue. Still, I do not think I was prepared for how much of a play it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I kind of had forewarning that this is effectively how the legal system works by being raised by a public defender who would often complain about this exact issue. Still, I do not think I was prepared for how much of a play it is. Just a helpful hint: forget about the "play" and the "realities of practicing law" and all the other bullshit we complain about. Right Now you have to pass a test. Ignore the subtext, context, practical applications or whatever else - focus on learning specifically what you have to learn to Pass The Test. That means learning each element of each cause of action, and learning the handful of cases your professor gave you that interpret each element, and being able to poo poo them out, in order, on command. You can get your head kicked in by 'practical realities' later; right now just pass the test.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Badactura posted:I kind of had forewarning that this is effectively how the legal system works by being raised by a public defender who would often complain about this exact issue. Still, I do not think I was prepared for how much of a play it is. Wait, you had a parent as an attorney and went to law school? You were failed by your parent(s).
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
nm posted:Wait, you had a parent as an attorney and went to law school? Honestly " my parent is partner in a practice I can inherit" is the best reason to go to law school
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 17:54
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Goons help me make a life changing decision. Current junior funds attorney at sole-proprietorship. I have an offer at a mid-sized firm doing general capital markets work and an interview for a cap markets staff attorney at an AM Law 50. I would take the mid sized firm offer 99% of the time. The problem with being a staff attorney is you’re going to be the first one on the chopping block if the work dries up, and also yeah you won’t ever be an associate even if you lateral. I would maybe consider the staff attorney job if I knew I was going to move across the country in the future, in which case having the bigger firm’s name on the resume might be marginally more helpful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:It's not the using it that's wtf, it's the theory of why it's somehow trust-worthy when it's not testable AT ALL. Like if you put in OPS, your opponent can just put the speaker on the stand. If you dispute a business record, introduce other business records. You ask the person who is relating the dying declaration for the circumstances of the dying declaration, seems easy to me. The person introducing the statement can still be crossed, the statement has to be put into evidence somehow and if it’s not the person who heard the dying declaration then you have a separate hearsay objection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
The easiest two that gently caress judges up are "Reply letter doctrine" and "Not offering for the truth of the matter asserted but only to show that it was sent."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Goons help me make a life changing decision. Current junior funds attorney at sole-proprietorship. I have an offer at a mid-sized firm doing general capital markets work and an interview for a cap markets staff attorney at an AM Law 50. What are your long term goals? How many staff attorneys have been made associate in that practice group at the big firm? If you want to be a partner at a big firm then big firm and understand it's improbable. Otherwise, mid-sized firm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
GrandmaParty posted:"Not offering for the truth of the matter asserted but only to show that it was sent." My go to right here
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Yeah, if you want to be a partner at a big firm (why) then big firm and try to get promoted to an associate (you'll have to do way better work than the current associates to get promoted, and also will have to work on developing clients because once you're an associate you'll be on the partner timer that all associates are on, but you're going to be older so they'll expect you to be a partner sooner). I.e. that's very difficult and almost impossible. If you want to be a partner at a different firm than the staff associate position, then sure, you could go staff associate to lateral. But that seems kinda foolish because...the other big firm will also see on your resume that you're a staff attorney, and they'd be just as likely (more likely) to hire an associate from a regional than a staff attorney from a big firm. Because staff attorney has a stigma associated with it at big firms. So unless you want to make a career out of being a staff attorney or you want to make partner at that particular big firm and have an unrealistically large ego, go for the mid-size firm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
disjoe posted:I would take the mid sized firm offer 99% of the time. The problem with being a staff attorney is you’re going to be the first one on the chopping block if the work dries up, and also yeah you won’t ever be an associate even if you lateral. As a former funds associate, wholly agree with that. A partner-track associate position is simply viewed differently than a staff attorney gig - it'll be assumed you got better training, got more drafting/negotiating work and saw more interesting things, while a staff attorney handles SEC forms and subscriptions all day. Also, even if the firm is only midsize, if the individual lawyers or clients have a good reputation (i.e. if a partner or two used to be at a big shop and you can say "I was trained by [x]" or "I worked for [y client] on an issue worth $texas") you can use that to sell yourself should you move. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:22 |
|
|
Also generally speaking you'll probably be happier in a smaller firm with nicer people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 18:42
|
|