|
joat mon posted:I just don't get the need for a defense and indemnification section on a non commercial lease of a garage The landlord isn't trying to avoid liability for his own negligence or the condition of the building. He wants to shift risk to the tenant for injury to the tenant or others related to the use of the property as a wood shop. If tenant's buddy gets his hand cut off by tenant's saw, landlord wants tenant to indemnify and defend. Or if tenant's poo poo causes a fire that burns down the neighborhood. But I'm drunk at Jazz Fest and I haven't researched the question so...whatever lol
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
nm posted:Lol. The sound legal advise is to offer to trade the cop your gun for his badge, then show him your gun so he knows what he is bargaining for. Tip for experts - cops are very picky that the barrel bore be clean - give him a good view down the muzzle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
RadioPassive , if you and your landlord can pay for a plane ticket to New Orleans and a few days in a hotel, I'm quite sure I can convince Phil of the error of his commercial/non commercial ways and come to agreements on the applicability of MA laws against such indemnifications. We'll be able to provide non sober non legal non opinions for jurisdictions in which we are non licensed, which might still cost less than paying a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Derek Trucks just indemnified the poo poo out of BB King
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Single party consent state. If the defense accidentally butt dials the prosecutor and reveals incriminating information about their client, is it admissible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Almost certainly not, but sometimes judges are weird. Even if there's a reason and way to admit the evidence, policy would probably dictate that it not be admitted in court The prosecutor isn't a party to thee conversation he's an eavesdropper. Also, depends on to whom the defense attorney was speaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Single party consent state. What state? Who is the attorney taking to during the butt dial? e: what HDD91 said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:The prosecutor isn't a party to thee conversation he's an eavesdropper. That's the part I was wondering about - if it considered eavesdropping if the defense called him, even if it was unintentional.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
If the defense attorney is talking to a third party, who's not within the circle of privilege, that could be bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
Yeah, for him. Very possibly ethical violation. I just can't imagine a court allowing that into evidence against the defendant. Just because your lawyer violates your privilege you shouldn't get convicted. That's a really interesting question. If this is anything more than hypothetical, please let us know how that turns out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Yeah, for him. Very possibly ethical violation. I just can't imagine a court allowing that into evidence against the defendant. Just because your lawyer violates your privilege you shouldn't get convicted. I mean I'm not criminal at all, but for sure if we screw up and break privilege on something otherwise admissible it's coming in. If it's probative of guilt and not privileged, what reason does the judge have to keep it out?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
Through whom does it come in? You're not going to be able to call the defendant's lawyer to the stand to ask what he said. You also will be hearsay on the prosecutor/ third party talking about it. Obviously you can't call the defendant to testify about it. And there are likely 5th amendment implications to things said to counsel that counsel then reveals without authorization, breaking privilege. Additionally, I'd say that the policy implications of convicting someone because their attorney makes dumb statements without privilege are negative. We'd be driving a wedge between attorneys and criminal defendants. Can't tell them the truth if their statements can be used to convict you, better just clam up. If I were the judge, I'd rule it excluded. No one should go to jail because their lawyer butt dialed a prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:That's a really interesting question. If this is anything more than hypothetical, please let us know how that turns out. It was purely hypothetical, so I'm afraid there will be no follow up story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:If I were the judge, I'd rule it excluded. No one should go to jail because their lawyer butt dialed a prosecutor. Gagreed. A client's right to privilege outweighs a prosecutor's right to invade that privilege in the event that the client's attorney is unethical, incompetent, or both. Edit: You're also gonna want a jury trial on that poo poo. "Yes, your honor, I know you've heard a recording of me detailing my client's guilt/liability, but the law commands you to pretend that you haven't, thanks."
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:But I'm drunk . . . and I haven't researched the question so...whatever lol That'd make a pretty good thread title, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Through whom does it come in? You're not going to be able to call the defendant's lawyer to the stand to ask what he said. You also will be hearsay on the prosecutor/ third party talking about it. Honestly if it was an admission of guilt it's probably worth the prosecutor recusing themselves in favor of someone else in their office taking the case on and standing as witness to introduce it. If it's a third party it's a no-brainer to try to get in. (Hearsay isn't an issue, at least in federal court, because it falls under admission by a party-opponent doctrine.) Inadvertent privilege breach doesn't always destroy privilege, but we were presuming privilege was gone (because otherwise it's a privileged statement and doesn't come in as a result.). My guess is that in that situation privilege isn't actually treated as waived and this it's excluded on privilege grounds; if privilege is waived, I think it comes in.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Honestly if it was an admission of guilt it's probably worth the prosecutor recusing themselves in favor of someone else in their office taking the case on and standing as witness to introduce it. If it's a third party it's a no-brainer to try to get in. Even if you can get past authentication, I think you'll have trouble establishing the foundation for the client's knowing and intelligent waiver of privilege. This isn't civil where injuries to rights (like inadvertently/negligently releasing ACR stuff) can be converted to money damages (by suing your attorney for unauthorized release). On top of that, admissions of guilt within an ACR impacts 5th amendment non incrimination rights that don't apply in civ cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Right, which is why I assumed it gets resolved by not ruling that privilege was waived. My original post was asking on what basis it stays out assuming waiver.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
incogneato posted:That'd make a pretty good thread title, honestly. lionelhutz.txt
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:That's the part I was wondering about - if it considered eavesdropping if the defense called him, even if it was unintentional. I would read it exactly the same as if an attorney was talking to a client in a meeting room outside the court that isn't completely silent (in fact most have thin walls) while the prosecutir stands outside listening in. The prosecutor is obligated to hang up the call asap and disclose anything he has learned and possibly even recuse. Privledge is not waived by mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
IIRC there's at least one Law and Order episode where something similar happened (I can't remember the details) and the lawyer basically went "uh yeah I hosed up but please don't punish my client for my mistake" and the judge went "the law says I have to" and they let the evidence in. Forums poster Timby would likely know what episode that is if any of you guys want to watch it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Right, which is why I assumed it gets resolved by not ruling that privilege was waived. My original post was asking on what basis it stays out assuming waiver. Assuming waiver, you could also try to keep it out by arguing that the court and DA are forcing the defense attorney to withdraw in order to be a rebuttal witness to the DA, which is an improper interference with defendant's choice of counsel. Also, even with waiver, if the state is like CA as nm pointed out, the cross of the DA as witness vis-à-vis authentication would be a lot of fun. The DA could choose between a conviction that would be overturned on appeal* and their license**. * Affirmed, as the evidence was overwhelming and the defendant's confession wouldn't have made any difference. ** Maybe an footnote in the affirmance, expressing 'concern' at the unnamed DA's conduct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
An elected DA got disbarred recently for prosecutorial misconduct in del norte county, so I hold out some hope for ethics. Catch: DA was recorded doing an unethical thing (speaking to a represented defendent and then not informing the co-def that she confessed and said he was a patsy) and lied about it and had had a few suspensions before that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Wouldn't the butt dial recording also be excluded to prevent an IAC claim? (Disclaimer I am not a criminal attorney) Seems to me that letting the prosecutor listen in on your otherwise-privileged conversation with defense counsel falls below the standard of care, and excluding it stops us from having to fight about prejudice later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
nm posted:The prosecutor is obligated to hang up the call asap and disclose anything he has learned and possibly even recuse. Is he also obligated to report it to the Bar, or would the more realistic scenario be that he pretended he never heard it and tells the defense they should be more careful?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jun 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Doesn't the DMV require the title transfer to be notarized? Does your brother have access to a notary who would authenticate a forged signature? Have you called the DMV to ask what they recommend?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
I hosed this one up. The only reason the title was in my name was because my dad did not want to be awkward about it.
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Your brother is a dick is my legal advice. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Your brother is a dick is my legal advice. What the gently caress. Is his brother freely storing the car? Still kind of a dick, but if the car is taking up a garage spot...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Your brother cannot legally sell the car unless he somehow gets it in his name. Your brother is also a dick. Fraudulent sale could pretty easily be done if he lies to the seller and forged your signature. Note that this would be a felony, not just a civil matter.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
If the brother is storing the car for free, can't he just say, "come get your poo poo or I'm calling it abandoned and therefore forfeit?" Within a reasonable period of course. If so, what are you going to do when your brother gives you 30 days or whatever, OP? Assuming you're not paying for storage of some sort.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:If the brother is storing the car for free, can't he just say, "come get your poo poo or I'm calling it abandoned and therefore forfeit?" Within a reasonable period of course. Probably, if he does it correctly, though it would require somewhat more time. I'd certainly try to get the car away from him.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
nm posted:Fraudulent sale could pretty easily be done if he lies to the seller and forged your signature. Would have to be a private sale, no dealership or sales place would ever do a transaction like this without proper id.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
I hosed this one up. The only reason the title was in my name was because my dad did not want to be awkward about it.
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
DEA posted:No, it is not located in his garage spot, that's a full-fledged fact. It is either [unlikely] parked on the side of the road or a long-time family friend is storing it — whom have no issue to continue storing it for me whatsoever. I strongly believe it is the latter as my car was with them the last time before I left. But it is now difficult to communicate with my brother over this since he's upset that I threatened him over selling my car.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
I hosed this one up. The only reason the title was in my name was because my dad did not want to be awkward about it.
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
DEA posted:
No. No. No. Bad idea. Bad Idea. No. e: this is throwing up troll flags, but I would have expected more titillating extraneous details, like Thai sex tourism or a Bahraini marriage with brother's wife. joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Not a troll. This is pretty much all I asked for so I have no further questions. e: quick question, what does Bahrain got to do with this?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
DEA posted:Not a troll. This is pretty much all I asked for so I have no further questions. It's a foreign place that sounds exotic. Pick any other place you like better. Do you have no one you trust to mail you the title and possibly store the car?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 19:28
|
|
