lemonlime

Thanks. To my understanding the cell phone issue is both. The attorney should have released them in discovery, but I'm unsure of which attorney in Jones' string of attorneys would have been responsible for that and also once the death penalty was already given due to the failure to turn over discovery, whether a subsequent attorney would still have an obligation to turn over the delinquent discovery. But the cell phone also contained privileged information, and it was turned over in its entirety, without an assertion of privilege or a privilege log, and even after being advised that the privileged information was sent to plaintiffs, Reynal never asked for it back or asserted privilege over that information..

I thought punitive damages were usually bifurcated from the rest of the trial, though, regardless of whether there is bifurcation between liability and damages. At least in the jurisdiction I practice in, the amount of punitive damages is always bifurcated from everything else, because testimony on the defendants' net worth, earnings, etc. needed to determine how to punish the defendants is irrelevant to the action itself and would be inflammatory to the jury.

It's been a thing since polling in the 2016 election showed dotard with a big lead if only men voted.

I'm wondering what else is on the phone, besides the Sandy Hook stuff. Wasn't Jones an organizer of trump's "rally" on 1/6, and in communication with trump during the time period the other phones have been wiped? And if you're a lawyer in possession of that phone with those texts about an attempt to overthrow the government do you try to find some way to get those communications out there? Or maybe I'm giving Reynal way too much credit, given his performance at this trial.

I would think, although again I'm not in TX so maybe it's different there, but practiced med mal defense, the IIED damages would be (1) bills for psychiatric treatment, therapy, etc., (2) ancillary losses such as lost wages if couldn't work because too upset, maybe for security due to Jones' sycophants harassing them, etc., and then (3) pain and suffering damages, which would be amorphous, and based on what the jury thinks is appropriate based on the plaintiffs' testimony about their suffering. I'm still confused on the punitives aspect, though, as I've only ever seen that as part of a bifurcated trial, and would need economic expert testimony about Jones' assets, revenues, etc.

Yup. Which is why they decided Shelby County v. Holder first. Political moves don't matter if you have Russian style "elections."

I think plaintiff counsel said he notified defense counsel, but defense counsel never got back to him about clawing stuff back. I think the failure to respond, assuming there was privileged information on the phone, is likely an ethical violation. But unless he retains Sidney Powell I can't imagine a legal malpractice suit. We would have won the trial, despite my client's repeated purjuring of himself and calling the jurors names, if only his lawyer kept violating the law by withholding discovery from the other side, isn't a great argument.

Thanks. This whole thing seems so weird to me procedurally. I'm a lawyer, but not in TX, and I've never seen the punitive stuff come into play during the initial trial. Or that the jury could ask the witnesses questions. And if I'm recalling correctly, the admission on liability was entered by the court due to Jones not providing discovery, and not because he just admitted liability. But the "good" side of admitting liability from a defense standpoint is that the defendant's motives and stupidity shouldn't be before the jury. I need to stop spending so much time on this in any event, but I can't look away from this shit show.

So is this on punitives? If there's no question on liability, why is any of this relevant? Shouldn't it all be about the harm the plaintiffs suffered, not what Jones did?

Does the jury verdict need to be unanimous? It sounds like the first two questions are from a right wing lunatic juror? But the rest of the questions are far more rational.

Impeached Jones about his lies about how much money his company made---many times more than Jones testified to. And then asked if Jones agreed with his lawyer's statement that $1 would be sufficient to compensate the plaintiffs.

Jesus. Beyond the hate he spews, how does anyone listen to him? His voice is worse than nails on a chalkboard.

As someone who's never seen his show, does Jones always sound like this? Or is he about to give the judge and the jury Covid?

In your spare time do you read? Elite! Or do you watch TV? Not Elite!

Absolutely. And the blame lies with the lawmakers and their useful idiots who vote for them because they think they'll be able to afford a yacht with Magats in power. I'm critical of hospital administrators they way pilots were critical of other pilots on the 737MAX thread. Because I work in hospital risk and I can't imaging telling physicians on our staff some of the stuff I'm seeing is said here. And I really didn't mean to bring it up, and surely wouldn't have if I saw Ana's post, or thought it could be construed in any way as excusing what the lawmakers in those states are doing to women there. But all that said, I'm in a state in which the right to choose is protected, working for a secular institution, and these are decisions I don't foresee having to make, at least until 2025, when MAGA gets control of the federal government.

So much this. And to clarify my earlier post, which I made not having read Ana's drivel as he's been on my ignore list for a while. I'm troubled by hospital administrators making these decisions and I wish they'd do more to stand up for their medical staff and employees, and the patients at their facilities, for whom these decisions should not be made by administrators in the first place. I'd like to think if I was in the administrator's shoes I'd tell my medical staff to provide medically necessary care and we would defend them in any suit or prosecution that followed, while screaming from the rooftops about this. But I'm a billion times more angry that any of these people are being put in the position to have to make these patient care decisions based on irrational laws designed to punish women, and to push medical providers who care for women from practice (at least in "red" states), and risking patients' lives and mental and physical health over demagoguery.

So much this. I work in hospital risk management, but thank god in a blue state, and I can't imagine telling a doctor to do anything other than what is in the patient's best interest under those circumstances. And then probably hire outside counsel to proactively litigate the issue.

Probably the least important point in all the horrifying shit in this post, but how MAGA are these hospital lawyers and the other doctors. I can't imaging telling a physician in that position to do anything but what's medically appropriate for the mother, and that we'd appoint doctors to represent her if some asshole DA wants to go after her. If nothing else, and from just a hospital risk standpoint, that's one hell of a med mal suit they're risking if mom dies from bleeding or sepsis or whatever other preventable cause of death that's coming.

We already have prisoners convicted of drug crimes for that.

I'm old enough to remember when the GQP was going to disavow him after the "grab her by the pussy" tape was released, and a bunch of them (briefly) pulled their endorsements of trump and there was speculation pence would drop off the ticket. Now, Donny Two Scoops has tried to get pence killed, and pence still supports him, and Donny rewrote their entire platform to read "whatever trump wants."

All true. But Rhinebeck's in the Hudson Valley, not that far from the city, with a lot of ex-NYCers. I'm surprised the Kushners would want to go there.

Here you go.

It’s true. Benny Thompson just announces it at the hearing

Sure. But my clients wouldn't also have first bought off the judges making the decision on the concealment of evidence charges.