|
wow a DA loving up a white supremacist prosecution
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
DaveSauce posted:
The main thing is you have to have everything sourced: you can't just say "here's a video" you have to have a person testify they took the video on such and such date and the video shown is faithful to what they saw when they took the video and so forth. Our office and the local prosecutor's office actually does use a central service called "evidence.com" to hold videos but that's an artifact of contracts our county has with evidence.com, evidence.com isn't part of the legal system. But yes, I'm having a really hard time envisioning any legitimate way this video was 1) not turned over until halfway through trial and also 2) not a reason to overturn any conviction on appeal for failure to provide Brady material in advance of trial. edit: I found a copy of the defense motion for mistrial here: https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-motion-for-mistrial/#Motion_for_Mistrial Short version, it doesn't look like the defense is arguing that the video wasn't turned over at all, only that it wasn't turned over in high enough resolution. Prosecution says this was accidental. In my jurisdiction that would give the prosecutor enough cover and it wouldn't be dismissed, but who knows. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:
I literally have to print out all received paper discovery right now in hard copy because our office server hard drive is full and we can't get a new one yet so I can't save .pdfs anywhere Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 02:11
|
|
|
OUR HARD DRIVE IS FULL TOO! I mean we have a lot of poo poo on it. But we should never have to go hunting for things to delete just to be able to save something new.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:OUR HARD DRIVE IS FULL TOO! they could buy a terabyte drive for like fifty dollars instead, gonna print *everything*
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 04:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Cost per laser printer page: 3 cents HDD cost per megabyte 0.003 cents Makes sense!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I literally have to print out all received paper discovery right now in hard copy because our office server hard drive is full and we can't get a new one yet so I can't save .pdfs anywhere This makes actual negative sense. I have no idea how a business that works with any amount of data would allow this to happen and represents a major logistical failure in this kind of management.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 04:47
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:This makes actual negative sense. I have no idea how a business that works with any amount of data would allow this to happen and represents a major logistical failure in this kind of management. Not a business. County government. Our IT infrastructure isn't run internally, it's dependent on the overall county IT department, and expenditures have to be approved and so forth. Hopefully the situation won't last that long.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Drama in the Rittenhouse trial right now, looks like the ADA might get himself disbarred! I don't know where you're getting that. Literally every murder trial includes a motion for a new trial, or to dismiss for this that or the other. As I've said in many posts about this Rittenhouse trial, anyone who practices in high level murder trials throw these sorts of bombastic claims around regularly and knows how to fend them off. This isn't some nice polite game of cribbage between two lawyers, as a defense attorney you go for the lowest blow you can if you think that's what will be most likely to succeed. In all likelihood the defense attorney is simply misleading the judge about not having the higher resolution video, which he is not only allowed to do, he is constitutionally required to do in many situations. Making stuff up about discovery is extremely common because judges are loathe to put the lawyers or the paralegals on the stand. This attorney has a judge who made the prosecutor call an expert to zoom in a photo, and has stated multiple times that he's clueless about technology, so a perfectly valid strategy is to get him all wound up about something that you make up out of the blue that he knows nothing about. Hell you have him convinced that "logarithms" are something to be wary of when it comes to a screenshot, drive that poo poo into the ground. As I've said before, if the prosecutor can't beat you, then gently caress 'em. Not a defense attorney's job to make it easy. The flip side of that coin is that no sane prosecutor would ever discover a video like that with "Apple phone to Apple phone email," whatever the hell that means. If he was stupid enough to do that then he deserves a mistrial. Everything goes over with a signed receipt at least twice with the fresh copies for every new defense attorney, everything goes over with an invitation to view the original, trial exhibit binders get discovered before trial just in case something got missed in the initial discovery packet. Edit just to provide an anecdote about discovery, the last big trial I did when I was a prosecutor had something similar happen. The defense attorney said he didn't get something in discovery because the judge was wound up about a tangential issue. My response was that the item in question was sitting on the attorney's desk right in front of him. Happened all the time like that. As I said, fair game. BigHead fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 07:15
|
|
|
It really is an excellent fact finding system of justice
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 14:07
|
|
|
discovery via email is super common in civil litigation, as is using whatever free systems you can. money spent on tech is money out of a partner's pocket most firms are small businesses and operate like you'd expect a small business to operate - ad hoc everything
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
But but but muh ideals
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
IANAL, but I used to work as the solo IT person at a small law firm. Judges are typically Baby Boomers, and Court rules have been written for Baby Boomers. The correct response to "I don't really understand technology" from a judge in an era when so much evidence is digital is "great, you're loving fired, because this is a huge loving part of your job." But the Boomers will never allow us to require them to understand technology, no matter how fundamental a part of their job it is. Lawyers are also terrible with technology, and we'd use whatever was at hand to get files wherever they needed to be, via the cheapest methodology possible that a lawyer could understand, and a lot of lawyers love iPads. I also had a friend send me a video the other day from his iPhone (I have an Android) and it was compressed as gently caress, which I complained about but was a problem he had never run into before since most of his friends are on iPhones, so I can definitely see that happening by accident. Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 21:26
|
|
|
I have a dumb TV law question. In this situation, a guy finds out he's a dad to a 12yo daughter. The mother hides the kid for her entire life to the point where the dad didn't even know the mom had been pregnant. The daughter finds the dad and starts a relationship. Mom is hesitant at first, but eventually allows dad to do occasional dad- related hangouts. So the dad starts hanging out with the daughter, getting to know each other- he's pretty involved, now. Occasional sleepovers but no true custody agreement via lawyers. Three months go by from the original meet-up. The mom has to move across the country, and the dad decides he wants partial custody and fights for it, and wins. My wife and I were arguing where she thought this was stupid TV drama and There was no way the guy would get custody. I thought it was plausible. Questions 1. Does the 12yo's opinions matter? Is there an age cutoff? Do her motivations matter (for example not seeing her friends again, and staying with dad means she doesn't have to uproot her life)? Could mom claim manipulation? 2. Does the timeline matter? If dad had been doing this weird unofficial hangout thing for a year vs three months? 3. Does the fact that the existence of the daughter was withheld from dad factor into the discussion at all? Also I assume this is state based, so let's say this all happens in Pennsylvania.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 23:00
|
|
|
This feels like a long about "let's say my friend has X" hypothetical that is fishing but sure. It is extremely state based and I dunno if we have any PA family law attorneys. But the basic overall answer is: it depends lol. Courts like both parents being involved, status quo can matter a lot even without previous orders, and law/caselaw can lay out when to factor in a minor's opinion and how age and the like factor in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 23:37
|
|
|
It's from the Gilmore girls. Season 7. Dad is Luke, daughter is April, mom is Anna. Luke wins custody with a really heartfelt letter from Lorelai. Also state is Connecticut, that's my bad. If I wanted actual legal advice I'd get it from flesh and blood lawyers as this thread has told me, not some shitposting AI collective sephiRoth IRA fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 04:48
|
|
|
I used to do IT at a small MSP with a couple of nightmarish “law firms” (solo cryptkeepers who kept practicing well into senility) as clients. It was hell. I’ve never met a demographic so willfully ignorant of not just modern technology, but the passage of time as a whole. We also had one guy who almost redeemed the whole lot because he knew he didn’t understand any of it, and so he trusted his assistant to hire us and get his poo poo in order. We replaced an ancient dictaphone tape machine in the attic with two iPads and it blew his loving mind. We also had some younger/slightly larger law offices as clients, and they were absolutely average for any small business we worked with. It was just The Olds™ that were a disaster. Sonic Dude fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Nov 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 05:24
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:shitposting AI collective Hey that's my stripper name
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 05:53
|
|
|
Pre-emptive post that this is not the mad about Rittenhouse thread. Not saying don't be mad, just not here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
I'm more unsurprised than I am mad. I'm no legal expert on any axis, but that felt like it went off the rails for the prosecution pretty badly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
On a different politically-charged case, I read an interesting article about the buffalo-horn guy from January 6 who just pled to a deal that results in a 3.5 year sentence instead of the 20 years he was facing. "You did the right thing," the judge said. The article points out that with that kind of disparity it's not so much "here's a small compromise to save everyone the trouble" and more "you're sentenced to 3.5 years for the crime, and to 16.5 years for asking for a jury trial". But apparently it's pretty common. Sure, the article was from the libertarian site Reason, but still. Doesn't really give me the warm fuzzies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:On a different politically-charged case, I read an interesting article about the buffalo-horn guy from January 6 who just pled to a deal that results in a 3.5 year sentence instead of the 20 years he was facing. "You did the right thing," the judge said. The article points out that with that kind of disparity it's not so much "here's a small compromise to save everyone the trouble" and more "you're sentenced to 3.5 years for the crime, and to 16.5 years for asking for a jury trial". But apparently it's pretty common. The trial tax is completely real and impacts people who aren't well off white people even more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
One of the things I've reflected on with the Rittenhouse case is that it would be awfully convenient if we reassessed how Jury trials work so that we can actually get narrative verdicts on what the jury's factual findings were. For example, I think the evidence at trial heavily points to Grosskreutz having made the decision to murder Rittenhouse, but we'll never know if the jury though that was probably the case, or if they thought that he accidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse's head, or if they thought Rittenhouse probably didn't have reasonable self-defence but weren't certain. We've had a couple of hundred years of testing trial by jury, I think we can expand the right to trial by a jury of one's peers who can coherently explain their thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 10:39
|
|
|
Or just get rid of the jury altogether yaknow
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 12:53
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:One of the things I've reflected on with the Rittenhouse case is that it would be awfully convenient if we reassessed how Jury trials work so that we can actually get narrative verdicts on what the jury's factual findings were. For example, I think the evidence at trial heavily points to Grosskreutz having made the decision to murder Rittenhouse, but we'll never know if the jury though that was probably the case, or if they thought that he accidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse's head, or if they thought Rittenhouse probably didn't have reasonable self-defence but weren't certain. It's a lot easier to get people to agree on a yes/no than on their reason for it. How do you synthesise the group opinion from all the individual ones so that you can report it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Or just get rid of the jury altogether yaknow Yes, let's ignore all the judicial system's problems and instead remove the one thing that's mostly working.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
The problem here wasn't the jury. The problem was that it's legal to walk around in public at a protest carrying an assault rifle if you're white and conservative, so everyone who was trying to disarm this nutjob was the aggressor, technically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 15:00
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Or just get rid of the jury altogether yaknow And replace it with what? The judge just gets to decide and everyone goes home? Whether, in this case, the judge’s various actions were or were not out of line, and whether they affected the verdict or not, it’s clear to anyone who has a MAGA uncle in their family that he had a preferred outcome the moment he walked in the door.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:One of the things I've reflected on with the Rittenhouse case is that it would be awfully convenient if we reassessed how Jury trials work so that we can actually get narrative verdicts on what the jury's factual findings were. For example, I think the evidence at trial heavily points to Grosskreutz having made the decision to murder Rittenhouse, but we'll never know if the jury though that was probably the case, or if they thought that he accidentally pointed his gun at Rittenhouse's head, or if they thought Rittenhouse probably didn't have reasonable self-defence but weren't certain. There are plenty of trials, typically in the civil law realm, that are narrative in form. Sometimes civil trials have most of the issues decided way in advance, and the trial is about one or two seemingly bizarre factoids. Sometimes it's a whole packet of cyoa findings where the verdict forms are four different theories of liability, and five different theories of who is responsible, and then pick the amount of damages, and finally pick the amount the other party is at fault. That's rare in criminal trials, especially when it's an all or nothing self defense case. Only need one verdict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
I think a panel of professional judges, appointed based on their experience and expertise in a particular area, isn’t the worst idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I think a panel of professional judges, appointed based on their experience and expertise in a particular area, isn’t the worst idea. In practice this would mean nobody on a jury who even *knew* anybody who was making less than a hundred thousand a year. The problem with rittenhouse wasn't the jury. The jury is just the easy target for blame. The problems with the rittenhouse case were 1) the law that made brandishing an assault rifle at a protest legal in the first place, and 2) the fundamental irresolvable difficulty that self defense rests upon state of mind and the legal system cannot read minds, so anyone who is white and allowed to present a self defense claim is fairly likely to get the benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Yes, let's ignore all the judicial system's problems and instead remove the one thing that's mostly working. Absolutely not, you should fix all your judicial system's problems. And also ban juries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Or just get rid of the jury altogether yaknow Holmgang now
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Hm yes we would stop worrying about the outcomes of all criminal trials if we replaced these people with different people
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
sullat posted:Holmgang now Don't threaten me with a good time
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
I have a suggestion. "A man was arrested for murder this morning and tried. Guilty. Execution at six - all channels, all net "
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Hypothetically, if a former renter was to sue their former land lord for failing to provide a statement of what was withheld from their deposit and didn't want to sound like a dipshit in front of a judge, how would they refer to RCW 59.12.280? Is it Title 59, chapter 18, section 280, or is there another way to refer to specific sections of the Revised Code of Washington?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 01:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hm yes we would stop worrying about the outcomes of all criminal trials if we replaced these people with different people Nice reductio ad absurdum BLARZGH
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 02:30
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:Hypothetically, if a former renter was to sue their former land lord for failing to provide a statement of what was withheld from their deposit and didn't want to sound like a dipshit in front of a judge, how would they refer to RCW 59.12.280? Is it Title 59, chapter 18, section 280, or is there another way to refer to specific sections of the Revised Code of Washington? I dunno but if i saw that statute I'd probably say fifty nine point eighteen point 280 one bee two, for example. We probably have a Washington lawyer who can tell you better but i like to give uninformed opinions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
The multiple point statutory format is so bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:In practice this would mean nobody on a jury who even *knew* anybody who was making less than a hundred thousand a year. I still think the most illustrative part of how this was going to go was the immediate police reaction. They rolled up looking for an active shooter and waved off/shot pepper rounds at Rittenhouse when he approached because a white kid out cosplaying militiaman like their buddies obviously wasn't the shooter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 10:00
|
|
