|
Yeah my company pays normal pay the first three weeks and then after that it is the normal pay minus your jury compensation. I was actually a little disappointed when the circuit court only had one case that settled on the courthouse steps when I had jury duty because I was hoping for a long haul case.
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
rivetz posted:So then the defense gets up there and presents some variant of the following: lmao I think it's quite telling how they risked their entire image on a "minimize payout" strategy. Because this makes it sound like they knew they were hosed. So instead of focusing on the "we didn't know/we tried our best/we did what we could or what we were required to" they doubled down on "well so you say here that you experienced mental distress, yet you didn't go to a doctor? I GUESS IT WASN'T THAT BAD HUH??" Like how can you expect to get a jury on your side if you spend your time berating people whose lives were basically destroyed? I guess thinking about it it's a legit strategy. If you know you're going down, might as well do all you can to reduce the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 12:28
|
|
|
Thanks for posting. It’s not often you get to talk to a juror and a high profile case about their experience. Very interesting. I’m curious if there were any stylistic or presentation elements by the lawyers on either side that stood out to the jury, positively or negatively. You’ve already pointed out how the defense emphasized fairly trivial aspects of the plaintiffs’ damages, and apparently came off like tools as a result. Many times there’s nothing to do but ask one or two questions, so it doesn’t look like you’re beating up on people. Do you think it would have been more effective for the defense to just do nothing with their damages, and focus exclusively on the liability side? Or was the defense basically boned no matter what they did? How did the plaintiffs present their case? Did they start with their experts, then put on the plaintiffs to testify about their experience? Or was it the other way around? How long did jury selection last? Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Jun 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 13:37
|
|
|
rivetz posted:So after a couple hours of this you get a little break where you go back into the little jury room, still processing this barrage of confusion and grief and mounting anger from this testimony, which by grotesque coincidence is the one thing you're not allowed to talk with anyone about in the jury room. Why wouldn't jurors be allowed to talk about the testimony? I thought discussing testimony and coming up with a decision based on that testimony was the whole point of deliberations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Why wouldn't jurors be allowed to talk about the testimony? I thought discussing testimony and coming up with a decision based on that testimony was the whole point of deliberations. Not till the end. No forming fixed opinions till tour heard everything is the idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not till the end. No forming fixed opinions till tour heard everything is the idea. Ah, got it. I reread it and see they were just on break.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
My guess is you don't discuss jury room deliberations because saying something that sounds sorta like maybe a juror discussed something they weren't supposed to could imperil the whole case as a matter of appeal. Another reason could be that if future jurors know their deliberations could wind up public, they might clam up instead of being forthright in jury deliberation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
jurors almost certainly make decisions based on facts/issues not in the record, unsupported by evidence, etc., but you have to preserve the façade
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
you also probably don't want one juror having to testify that another juror was lying about what they said in the jury room, in some appeal of a case, it could get really ugly
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:jurors almost certainly make decisions based on facts/issues not in the record, unsupported by evidence, etc., but you have to preserve the façade Cellphone vids Animated slides Interactive models Heavy reliance on Google Maps, Google Earth Pro Tons of video depositions and a few live Zoom depositions Screenshots, spreadsheets, emails, .ppt slides everywhere But of course for the folks tasking with sorting all this stuff out, the same folks for whom all this evidence has ultimately been exclusively collected: hello here's your little spiral notebook and we have blue pens or black pen I understand and respect the pitfalls that accompany greenlighting any degree of tech for jury members, and the accompanying perils of risking the introduction of outside evidence. I don't have an answer. But there has to be some intermediary ground. These rules were established well before everyone had a dictionary, phone, camera, encyclopedia etc in their pocket. Who knows what some sort of solution could/would look like, but I hope somebody's talking about it. Some aspects of jury duty seem heavily institutionalized, with little consideration of changing times and evolving communications etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Look friend, they can’t even account for it not being 1950 in the compensation they provide, how do you think any of that other stuff could even stand a chance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 19:13
|
|
|
So you were picked and not an alternate?quote:PacifiCorp argued in closing argument on Tuesday that punitive damages in this amount could result in $25B in total damages. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:So you were picked and not an alternate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
I'm in a dog custody dispute in the state of NV. From what I understand, dogs are considered property, any legal proceedings would take place in small claims court, and lawyers do not necessarily appear there. If I want some legal advice, who do I contact? I'm getting a lot of personal injury and real estate lawyers when I search
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
loopsheloop posted:I'm in a dog custody dispute in the state of NV. From what I understand, dogs are considered property, any legal proceedings would take place in small claims court, and lawyers do not necessarily appear there. If I want some legal advice, who do I contact? I'm getting a lot of personal injury and real estate lawyers when I search Any lawyer you hire would do this on an hourly rate and it would almost certainly go beyond the monetary value of the animal. But if it’s not about money then you probably want a generalist lawyer who handles litigation. Small firms that advertise doing wills, DUIs, contract litigation, and personal injury (all of them—not a specialized firm doing only one kind) I think would be your best bet
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Ugh, dog people are the worst clients. First client I had as a lovely baby lawyer was a dog custody case, got the dog back because property laws and the tearfully oh-so-important family member suddenly became this random inert object that wasn't "worth as much as I was charging even" (it was, like a quarter purchase value, gently caress off) and "I didn't even do very much" (I put pen threateningly to paper and also filed for arbitration which worked) and "it probably would have worked out anyway" (it would not, why would it?). Woof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Honestly the antiquity of this whole process was a distraction from the start. I was on a federal jury a few years ago and I think we had a computer system to pull up any document evidence from the trial to review during deliberation. You had to rely on your notes for testimony though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
The dog shall be cut in half.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 05:12
|
|
|
Just wondering, are USCIS interviews the government's only chance for catching marriage fraud? If it's discovered way after the fact (even after full naturalization is granted) does anything happen?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 05:31
|
|
|
maxwellhill posted:Just wondering, are USCIS interviews the government's only chance for catching marriage fraud? If it's discovered way after the fact (even after full naturalization is granted) does anything happen? Willful misrepresentation (including marriage fraud) is a ground for inadmissibility, technically, and there is such a thing as a revocation of nationality. So it's legally possible to reverse any benefits gained, including citizenship. As to how often that is pursued/actually happened, you'd need to talk to someone who actually does immigration work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
smackfu posted:I was on a federal jury a few years ago and I think we had a computer system to pull up any document evidence from the trial to review during deliberation. The jury I was on, we had hard copies of all the documents entered into evidence (mostly lots and lots of photographs and printouts of messages from facebook accounts) and there were also CDs with audio recordings and whatnot that they brought us a laptop to use for. (Everything was in color-coded binders and wheeled in to the deliberation room on a big cart.) But yeah, we didn't get transcripts of testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
maxwellhill posted:Just wondering, are USCIS interviews the government's only chance for catching marriage fraud? If it's discovered way after the fact (even after full naturalization is granted) does anything happen? The term is denaturalization. I think it's relatively rare, but the trump administration was trying to ramp it up for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
maxwellhill posted:Just wondering, are USCIS interviews the government's only chance for catching marriage fraud? If it's discovered way after the fact (even after full naturalization is granted) does anything happen? I am not a lawyer, but I have worked as a paralegal in an immigration law firm for a long time. There are basically two main points where marriage fraud is caught. The first one is during the initial filing when either USCIS or the consulate (depending on where you apply) is doing an interview. Normally at this point they have reviewed the application and found something that triggers a suspicion - either the brevity of the relationship before the marriage, a lack of demonstrable ties between the couple, or some other factor that makes them think there is an issue (like not living together). Often a fraud won't hold up under an interview, especially if the officer is searching for issues and does things like extended questioning or separating the couple. One the initial application is approved, if the marriage is <2 years old, the foreign national is only issued a conditional green card, valid for 2 years. After that time the person needs to file again to have a full green card granted, and this is the other catch point for a lot of fraud. The application requires both partners submit it and provide documentation of the relationship; if only the foreign national files, it goes under immediate suspicion that the marriage wasn't legitimate. You don't have to actually remain married that whole time, but you'll have to demonstrate why it was a totally legit thing that fell apart for normal reasons. Many fraudulent marriages split immediately, and can't demonstrate that there was ever real intent two years later. If that application is denied, the person loses their conditional residence. Some fraud makes it through both steps, either by being careful or lucky or just not triggering suspicion for a serious dig. If fraud comes to light at a later date, it can unwind the person's entire immigration process, including revoking their naturalization. This isn't very common because basically the only people who will know about it are the two involved, who have serious incentive to not let it be known - the immigrant partner risks losing their residence, and the US partner can face prosecution. If evidence arises though, USCIS can take action at any time in the future; there is no statute of limitations on revoking benefits achieved through fraud. This actually applies to everything, not just marriage, so if you lied on your green card about being involved in the Nazi state, or involved in acts of genocide, you can be denaturalized and deported from the US. This doesn't happen a lot but you can find articles about people who hide these things and then were uncovered decades later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 03:05
|
|
|
CellBlock posted:The jury I was on, we had hard copies of all the documents entered into evidence (mostly lots and lots of photographs and printouts of messages from facebook accounts) and there were also CDs with audio recordings and whatnot that they brought us a laptop to use for. (Everything was in color-coded binders and wheeled in to the deliberation room on a big cart.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
court reporters have to go back and prepare a transcript and make sure its accurate, they cant just give the jurors the rough short form of it all
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:court reporters have to go back and prepare a transcript and make sure its accurate, they cant just give the jurors the rough short form of it all Also, audio or video recording the testimony is considered Haram, as jurors may be tempted to just "skim everything the night before and cram for the big test," and it may also actually capture their soul.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Yeah, that's another one that had me scratching my head. I would've really liked to see portions of the testimony, but alas, see we only had someone type it all out so that the twelve people for whom it might hold the most real value could Not review it Over here jurors can ask to hear parts of the transcript, at which point all the parties get back together again in the courtroom so that the jury can be brought in and be read the bit of transcript they want, then go back to deliberating. It's pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 04:26
|
|
|
We let juries listen to the testimony if they want during deliberations. No parties present, the court clerk just plays it and they can ask to skip parts or listen to only specific bits where the witness talked about a certain thing. Anything else seems awfully micromanaging of jury deliberations. Why is anyone policing how the jury reviews evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 05:38
|
|
|
have you seen jury instructions? they police the poo poo out of jurors and what they can and cannot use to reach a conclusion
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:have you seen jury instructions? they police the poo poo out of jurors and what they can and cannot use to reach a conclusion Are the instructions neutral, or are they biased towards a conviction? Unrelated question. In this video, the girl is under arrest for DUI and the cop is reading her rights. He says, "Your right to speak to an attorney or remain silent does not apply to requirement of the the New Mexico law that you take a breath test". How can state law negate constitutional rights? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8Rlf0UWjJM&t=892s Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Jun 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
I really need help in getting my worker's comp situation sorted out. I've been going to their appointed panel doctor, and every time I'm there, I give them my worker's comp insurance's adjuster's information. Every time I'm in the doctor's office, I make sure they have the adjuster's information, and when my insurance adjuster deigns speak with me, she claims she never got access to my medical information. It's always a back and forth between their panel doctor and the adjuster. I've tried getting an attorney but I haven't found one that will help me out. There's absolutely no one on my side here, and it's infuriating because I haven't been reimbursed whatsoever. It's been 2.5 months since I had my workplace injury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Unrelated question. In this video, the girl is under arrest for DUI and the cop is reading her rights. He says, "Your right to speak to an attorney or remain silent does not apply to requirement of the the New Mexico law that you take a breath test". How can state law negate constitutional rights? New Mexico has Implied Consent laws that state by driving on our roads you have stated you consent. Refusal means you will lose your license. I'm not sure how that lines up with people from another state, but either way you're taking a ride if you don't blow and probably also if you blow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
That Old Ganon posted:I really need help in getting my worker's comp situation sorted out. I've been going to their appointed panel doctor, and every time I'm there, I give them my worker's comp insurance's adjuster's information. Demand a copy of your medical information from the doctors office, then give it directly yourself? As in, go there and say you'll wait. Is the doctor's office refusing to do so? This seems like a great way for the insurance company to get out of paying, by just getting some people to give up. I can see why they chose this doctor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Are the instructions neutral, or are they biased towards a conviction? Someone else already answered, but any state with an implied consent law means that as a part of getting your driver’s license you consent to a blood or breath test if suspected of driving under the influence. You can absolutely refuse, but your license will be suspended. In many jurisdictions, the suspension for refusal to blow is identical to the suspension for first time DUI so you have incentive to refuse. This doesn’t violate the fourth because your driver’s license is a privilege not a right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Someone else already answered, but any state with an implied consent law means that as a part of getting your driver’s license you consent to a blood or breath test if suspected of driving under the influence. You can absolutely refuse, but your license will be suspended. In many jurisdictions, the suspension for refusal to blow is identical to the suspension for first time DUI so you have incentive to refuse. But as a Free Man who is Traveling, I
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Unrelated question. In this video, the girl is under arrest for DUI and the cop is reading her rights. He says, "Your right to speak to an attorney or remain silent does not apply to requirement of the the New Mexico law that you take a breath test". How can state law negate constitutional rights? There are (unsurprisingly) a bunch of cases in this general area. I’d start with Mackey v Montrym (443 US 1) which deals directly with implied consent laws and with Schmerber v California (384 US 757) which answers the silence and counsel questions directly wrt a blood draw. (There’s another case that basically says “if we said it about blood draws it definitely applies to breathalyzers.”) Short version though: remain silent/self incrimination right only applies to compulsion of testimony, and breath analysis doesn’t qualify as testimony. Counsel is more that you don’t have to be able to talk to a lawyer before being breathalyzed for similar reasons - you’re still free to consult counsel about it, you just can’t use it to stop the breathalyzer from being run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Demand a copy of your medical information from the doctors office, then give it directly yourself? As in, go there and say you'll wait. Is the doctor's office refusing to do so?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
That Old Ganon posted:Thank you, I didn't think of this. The rear end in a top hat doctor sent me back to work before my issue was even treated (to a job that requires fine motor skills), and the assholes I work for have me working one-handed. Just be warned that I'm not a lawyer, but I do dispense bad advice. You are advised not to take it, and best of luck with the new paradox I just gave you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Is there anything stopping Implied Consent from being used for other stuff besides DUI? You know some shady lawyer wants to use it as a defense for sexual assault
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:You know some shady lawyer wants to use it as a defense for sexual assault That's not even remotely close to the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2023 04:23
|
|