|
Rough ballpark is notice of appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the judgment, which may take a month or two after the trial. So we are about right for the notice now. Then add three to four months for appellate briefing, two to six months until appellate oral argument, and then as much time as the judges feel like for the opinion to issue, typically two to four months but the judges gonna do their thing.
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Do you mind sharing the grounds for the appeal, bird? Cause that would give us a better idea of the actual chance of success. If it's an appeal because a punitive damage is excessive, depending on state that's more of a coinflip. If it's over anything involving judicial discretion, you're probably fine. It's hard as an appellant to win on an abuse of discretion appeal. We can't ever really say because appellate courts are fickle fucks regardless of state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 03:53
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Rough ballpark is notice of appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the judgment, which may take a month or two after the trial. So we are about right for the notice now. Then add three to four months for appellate briefing, two to six months until appellate oral argument, and then as much time as the judges feel like for the opinion to issue, typically two to four months but the judges gonna do their thing. The judgment was filed pretty quick and they filed the notice shortly after, in mid November. So we're 2.5 months into the 3-4 months for appellate briefing I guess. Mr. Nice! posted:Do you mind sharing the grounds for the appeal, bird? Cause that would give us a better idea of the actual chance of success. There weren't any punitives, so no worries there, judgment is about half economic and half non economic. The appeal is on whether or not Sudden Medical Incapacity is an affirmative defense or not. If it is, then his lawyer effed up by not pleading it in advance and their malpractice insurance is going to get a workout. If it isn't then the judge screwed up and the guy gets a new trial I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
If you're a lawyer in a civil trial can you just flat out say "Hey, this slide I'm showing you can't be in the materials we provide you for when you're deliberating so if you think it's relevant you should take some notes."? My lawyer outlined what we thought we should receive for various economic and non economic damages but since a lot of it is opinion I guess you can't give that to the jury in the evidence binder thingy and they all thought it would be in there, so none of them took notes. They got numbers for all the medical bills to date of course but I don't think any numbers for estimated future medical bills and estimated future lost wages and definitely not any numbers for non economic damages.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Demonstratives can't be entered as evidence and u can't tell the jury to "take notes" or do anything, really, it's improper
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
I figured. If they could get those numbers was the first question the jury asked and then the second question was if they could have access to Excel or similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Waiting on an appeal is miserable, and you're probably looking at another 6 to 18 months before you get a ruling from the appellate court. Hopefully your attorney can force them to put up a significant bond pending appeal, to at least guarantee you're going to be paid at the end of it. At what point in the process does requesting a bond happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:At what point in the process does requesting a bond happen? Relatively early in the appeal process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
In my experience in order to get a suspensive appeal, i.e. an appeal that suspends execution of the judgment, you meet to file a motion and post bond between 30-60 days of entry of final judgment, after resolution of any motion for new trial/JNOV which can take a few months if any are filed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 04:53
|
|
|
This is kind of out of nowhere, but if you were walking around wearing a t-shirt that says, "I have cocaine in my pocket", would that give a cop reasonable suspicion to search you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:This is kind of out of nowhere, but if you were walking around wearing a t-shirt that says, "I have cocaine in my pocket", would that give a cop reasonable suspicion to search you? The best way to understand reasonable suspicion is "could a cop get away with it at the time [always yes] and would a judge let them get away with it later [usually yes]." So, probably yes, but it would depend on other circumstances (how white are you, is it part of a Halloween costume, etc)
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The best way to understand reasonable suspicion is "could a cop get away with it at the time [always yes] and would a judge let them get away with it later [usually yes]." Everything is reasonable suspicion under the generally accepted testilying standard Driving under the speed limit - nobody does that! He clearly is trying to avoid a traffic stop because he's trafficking drugs Driving exactly the speed limit - even more suspicious! The amount of attention that would take (assuming he's not using cruise control) would be huge, he's probably trafficking drugs Driving over the speed limit - in a hurry to traffic drugs, eh? Let me get a drug dog out here to alert so we can search your car Same with making eye contact/avoiding eye contact with cops, it's all pretextual bullshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:11
|
|
|
Devor posted:Everything is reasonable suspicion under the generally accepted testilying standard I watched a trial where a suppression motion was granted once Dude was parked in a car (his own car) in a parking lot (his girlfriends apartment complex) at night. Not a moving vehicle just parked. Cops rolled up on him with four cars and shouted "stop! Do not get out of the vehicle" before they did *anything* else Testimony at the suppression hearing was that the officer knew it to be a "high crime area" but then admitted on cross that there had been no other arrests there in the past four months. Judge threw the case out. Said it was the only suppression motion he'd ever granted. Cops just hosed up by detaining the dude before they even gave themselves a pretext. If they'd walked up to the car first and said they'd smelled weed, entirely different case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
/\ In NJ, the smell of weed is no longer a cop excuse to search someone's car. But in CA it is. If they can see paraphernalia in plain sight and suspect you're under the influence, that's different.Skunkduster posted:This is kind of out of nowhere, but if you were walking around wearing a t-shirt that says, "I have cocaine in my pocket", would that give a cop reasonable suspicion to search you? I have a shirt that says "Do Not Resuscitate" depicting methods of suicide on it, and I often wonder the same thing but for EMTs. Waffle! fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I watched a trial where a suppression motion was granted once I know a state district court judge that granted at least half the suppression motions he heard. He was a real pain in the rear end to practice in front of as a prosecutor but obviously the defense loved him. So ymmv when it comes to reasonable suspicion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:/\ In NJ, the smell of weed is no longer a cop excuse to search someone's car. But in CA it is. If they can see paraphernalia in plain sight and suspect you're under the influence, that's different. I had a prosecutor consent to half a motion to suppress because my second half was an argument that the smell of weed is no longer valid probable cause due to medical marijuana. Either way the charges were dropped, so it was a win for my client, but I wanted to argue that portion in court. I think the judge might have granted it on those grounds as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:48
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I had a prosecutor consent to half a motion to suppress because my second half was an argument that the smell of weed is no longer valid probable cause due to medical marijuana. Either way the charges were dropped, so it was a win for my client, but I wanted to argue that portion in court. I think the judge might have granted it on those grounds as well. I raised that exact issue probably a hundred times at preliminary hearings. The ruling I always got back was "until a higher court in this state rules on that, I won't grant that motion." And pot cases always pled out to minor charges for no jailtime, so no appeals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I raised that exact issue probably a hundred times at preliminary hearings. The ruling I always got back was "until a higher court in this state rules on that, I won't grant that motion." And pot cases always pled out to minor charges for no jailtime, so no appeals. Cowardly judges don't want to kill cops golden goose of probable cause.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Cowardly judges don't want to kill cops golden goose of probable cause. There might be a surprising effect on Leo olfactory senses. They just might begin to only ever smell the aroma of burnt Marijuana, suggesting recent smoking in the car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Cowardly judges don't want to kill cops golden goose of probable cause. Aren't there at least 1 or 2 defendants who would have standing to challenge it at the appeals court level, if there was any indication from those judges that it might stick?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:07
|
|
|
Some police drug dogs face retirement because they can't unlearn signaling for the scent of weed in legal states.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
Devor posted:Aren't there at least 1 or 2 defendants who would have standing to challenge it at the appeals court level, if there was any indication from those judges that it might stick? Anyone in the car who was found guilty at trial of a crime arising from the search of the car would have standing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The best way to understand reasonable suspicion is "could a cop get away with it at the time [always yes] and would a judge let them get away with it later [usually yes]." Thank you for the depressing, but informative answer. Would the same apply if it were a bumper sticker and a traffic stop or do different rules apply to traffic stops?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
Skunkduster posted:Thank you for the depressing, but informative answer. Would the same apply if it were a bumper sticker and a traffic stop or do different rules apply to traffic stops? Depends, how black are you? To be clear, if you were my client, my advice would be not to advertise your cocaine Anyway, https://youtu.be/RkN4duV4ia0?si=rCHvqnO7rcDqmA1y
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Depends, how black are you? I'm lily white and live in a cornfield in the midwest, so I'm guessing a cop would just roll their eyes and laugh if I had a t-shirt like that. I can't watch that video at work, but I think I know which one it is and it is a good one!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 19:59
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:Some police drug dogs face retirement because they can't unlearn signaling for the scent of weed in legal states. I was under the impression that a lot of that drug dog stuff was the handler themselves doing something to initiate the dog's behavior as an excuse for a search.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 23:12
|
|
|
pentyne posted:I was under the impression that a lot of that drug dog stuff was the handler themselves doing something to initiate the dog's behavior as an excuse for a search. I used to do a small amount of work with the K9 officers. They had something like a 99.5% success rate in terms of positive hits, if I'm remembering correctly from years ago. The dogs were way more likely to miss drugs than to do a false positive. Even then a false positive was usually "you touched meth then you touched your door handle so your door handle smells like meth" or "your clothes are soaked in fentanyl smoke." In my state the cops had to put their dogs statistics in the search warrant application. And they got their asses cross examined plenty on those statistics. What you're referring to is not an accurate statement in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
pentyne posted:I was under the impression that a lot of that drug dog stuff was the handler themselves doing something to initiate the dog's behavior as an excuse for a search. As above, but also, the handler making them perform a hit isn't the probable cause, it's the dog itself. The assumption is that the dog can be considered a machine that will only register the scent of only contraband materials; if that's no longer true, the dog alerting can no longer mean contraband is probably present, only possibly present, which is the level of "officer stated the presence of an odor of marijuana"
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2024 02:30
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:I have a shirt that says "Do Not Resuscitate" depicting methods of suicide on it, and I often wonder the same thing but for EMTs. I think that's meant to be something you give an enemy as a gift.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Waffle! posted:I have a shirt that says "Do Not Resuscitate" depicting methods of suicide on it, and I often wonder the same thing but for EMTs. That came up a while ago in the healthcare stories thread in The Goon Doctor, and the response was "a shirt or tattoo is not a legal document, we don't know if it reflects your actual intentions, we're not going to treat it as if it means anything".
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 09:32
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I used to do a small amount of work with the K9 officers. They had something like a 99.5% success rate in terms of positive hits, if I'm remembering correctly from years ago. The dogs were way more likely to miss drugs than to do a false positive. Even then a false positive was usually "you touched meth then you touched your door handle so your door handle smells like meth" or "your clothes are soaked in fentanyl smoke." Those dogs and handlers start failing a lot more when they actually get tested properly. And the "it's not a false positive because you could have been near drugs once" excuse is always tossed around when they fail to find anything. There's a lot of bias introduced to the system by cops who don't want to be wrong about their hunches. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite quote:"The dogs are mainly used to confirm what we already suspect," says Fulmer. "When the dogs come out, about 99 percent of the time we get an alert. And it's because we already know what's in the car; we just need that confirmation to help us out with that." These aren't the words of someone who actually needs a drug dog. He just needs a probable cause dog. Atticus_1354 fucked around with this message at 13:34 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
Still looks like they hit 99% in the field if only because their sample size is 99% drug cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 13:37
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I used to do a small amount of work with the K9 officers. They had something like a 99.5% success rate in terms of positive hits, if I'm remembering correctly from years ago. The dogs were way more likely to miss drugs than to do a false positive. Even then a false positive was usually "you touched meth then you touched your door handle so your door handle smells like meth" or "your clothes are soaked in fentanyl smoke." Ok, Officer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:31
|
|
|
Drops help stats a lot
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 14:45
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:] I never had to actually get into the statistics of drug dog accuracy because in every case I handled where a dog was involved -- every single one -- the dog was just there to provide parallel construction. I had a case once (details changed slightly to ensure anonymity) where my guy got pulled over by the k-9 van. Officer gets out, says he pulled him over for a bad turn. Because the k-9 van does traffic patrol. Sure. Officer doesn't even get the dog out. He just says my guy "looks nervous" and that he "smells an odor of marijuana" so he asks the guy to get out then searches. Finds a pound of weed. My guy tells me "I know I didn't make no bad turn, I had a pound of weed in the car!" And was talking about wanting a trial. So we watch the body cam. The turn was fine; Officer was lying. On body cam the officer is talking to some other dude on his cellphone who clearly is telling him which car to pull over. When the officer gets out of the k9 van he puts his cellphone on the dash and clear as day you can see "Fred - DEA" center screen as the active caller. Once my guy saw that he was fine with taking a plea because he understood how he'd been caught. He got something like three months of probation because judges don't really care that much about pot any more. I don't actually know how accurate drug dogs are because I never saw a case where the dog didn't find anything. Maybe such occur, but in every case I ever saw, if the cops bothered to bring the dog van to you they already at least thought they knew there was something there for the dog to find. Which, I mean, is probably how it should be; they shouldn't be detaining you to wait for a dog to show up if they don't have some suspicion in the first place, and if they have that suspicion anyway, why do they need the dog? It's just a belt and suspenders thing at best most of the time, and parallel construction to evade discovery at worst. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I never had to actually get into the statistics of drug dog accuracy because in every case I handled where a dog was involved -- every single one -- the dog was just there to provide parallel construction. Why was this not a bad stop? Even under Whren, you still need a legal basis for a pretextual stop.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Why was this not a bad stop? Even under Whren, you still need a legal basis for a pretextual stop. Well, I mean, arguably it was. The prosecutor and officer would have said that the officer believed he'd seen a bad turn even if he hadn't-- he did follow the dude around for a good while waiting for a mistake. The bigger issue was that there was clearly some other form of investigation going on that they were withholding discovery about. The controlling issue though was that the client didn't want to fight it further. He knew he was getting a probation offer and I knew we had a good judge lined up where I could probably cut the offered probation time in half.(I was right). Client had a good job and knew probation wouldn't be a problem and didn't want to risk further struggle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, I mean, arguably it was. The prosecutor and officer would have said that the officer believed he'd seen a bad turn even if he hadn't-- he did follow the dude around for a good while waiting for a mistake. The bigger issue was that there was clearly some other form of investigation going on that they were withholding discovery about. So, you might get this charge dismissed but that just gives "Fred - DEA" a reason to bust him again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:14
|
|
|
Some Nevada lawyers are telling me that product liability SoL is 2 years and some are saying it's 4 years and it's really annoying that lawyers whose websites claim these lawsuits are part of their services can't even agree on something that basic. From what I can tell via google fu it's that negligence product liability is 2 years but strict liability is 4 years but via the definitions, negligence liability would nearly always also be strict liability so you could still sue you just wouldn't get any kind of negligence kicker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Well, I mean, arguably it was. The prosecutor and officer would have said that the officer believed he'd seen a bad turn even if he hadn't-- he did follow the dude around for a good while waiting for a mistake. The bigger issue was that there was clearly some other form of investigation going on that they were withholding discovery about. Is the possible outcome of trying to fight that, "okay, this 3 letter fed agency is taking over now, good luck getting less then 10 years"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 17:24
|
|