Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[dcbc 14473]

Strategerical question for trial lawyers.  Do you dare object as non-responsive, or just let the word salad grow?

I'm appellate, but definitely the latter.

[atomheartbevo 89656]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

In the event of trump’s death, we need to be prepared for 3 significantly sized groups of Maga:  the ones that think he was murdered by the deep state, the ones that think he is still alive, and the smallest group is the ones that understand an old man died. 
 

how will they interact with one another?

Like this (smallest group that thinks an old man died is the woman on the right).

 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Like this (smallest group that thinks an old man died is the woman on the right).

 

 

Why is that woman dressed like Beetlejuice?  

[YGIFS 19450]

Good catch.  and her coloring is even a little fucked up.  Or she's there to referee the catfight.  I'm guessing the three of them together smell like somebody ate about 18 deviled eggs, and took a hot shit in the middle of a Sephora 

[RDCanecutter 26413]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Good catch.  and her coloring is even a little fucked up.  Or she's there to referee the catfight.  I'm guessing the three of them together smell like somebody ate about 18 deviled eggs, and took a hot shit in the middle of a Sephora 

Am I... supposed to stop... doing that?

[Pato del Muerto 52489]

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

Nah. None o this.

What's gonna happen is that Bay of Pigs survivors living inside mechanical spider bodies are gonna swarm through the drop-ceiling of the courthouse, drop down in an elderly Cuban mechanical-spider chain, snatch Trump up and then spirit him away through vestigial canals that predate Ponce de Leon.

When next seen, Trump will be throwing out his jaw Mussolini-like from the balcony of Cinderella's Castle in Disneyworld, with spider-Cubans lurking on the towers and battlements. On signal, hundreds of gym-burly Proud Boy Second String will reveal themselves among the tourists, rush to form a perimeter around Trump, while assembling plastic ghost-guns they had pre-placed disassembled among the shrubbery.

In the inevitable mayhem that follows, the Florida National Guard closes in on the park, led by DeSantis, who strikes a Crossing-the-Delaware pose in the jungle cruise but slips off the railing and is dragged beneath the ride. The mechanical spider-body Cubans call in air support that fails to make a difference and are picked off one by one. The Proud Boys fall back inside the castle and hack loopholes in the walls to shoot out of. Unfortunately the plywood and stucco construction combines with the muzzle flash of hip-held automatic weapons, and within a Scaramucci of seconds the building combusts like a roaring Roman candle.

At least, that's what they want you to think caused the fire. Only Trump, among the chaos, looked up with his keen gaze, and spotted the laser-like flash of an object thousands of miles overhead. "Et tu, Ivanka..." he muttered as the floor fell away.

I’m sold. I want to see this happen irl. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

2 hours ago, CowboyFred said:

One of the best pieces of advice I got from a mentor was to just shut the fuck up.

Same advice I got as a young team lead who had to can some guys because of budget cuts.  VP-Eng sat in with me for the first round, and on a coffee break he said "you need to shut the fuck up after you tell them they're laid off and their severance is $X.  You're just making it worse for them."  I never forgot that.  

[RDCanecutter 26413]

[BamaATL 16593]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Same advice I got as a young team lead who had to can some guys because of budget cuts.  VP-Eng sat in with me for the first round, and on a coffee break he said "you need to shut the fuck up after you tell them they're laid off and their severance is $X.  You're just making it worse for them."  I never forgot that.  

I've unfortunately have had to do this as well, quite frankly the best thing you can say is pretty much nothing for a lot of reasons, the main one being a wrongful termination suit; especially if you are in an at will state.  Give no reason and do it as a lay off, even if there is a reason.  Cut and dry and wish them well.  It fucking sucks.  

[Huckleberry 32857]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Same advice I got as a young team lead who had to can some guys because of budget cuts.  VP-Eng sat in with me for the first round, and on a coffee break he said "you need to shut the fuck up after you tell them they're laid off and their severance is $X.  You're just making it worse for them."  I never forgot that.  

 

25 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I've unfortunately have had to do this as well, quite frankly the best thing you can say is pretty much nothing for a lot of reasons, the main one being a wrongful termination suit; especially if you are in an at will state.  Give no reason and do it as a lay off, even if there is a reason.  Cut and dry and wish them well.  It fucking sucks.  

Man, now jimmyjazz will look like Jonah Hill in my head forever.

 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

12 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Man, now jimmyjazz will look like Jonah Hill in my head forever.

Don't even try to tell me you haven't had to do the same . . .

[Biff Tannen 45677]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

 

Man, now jimmyjazz will look like Jonah Hill in my head forever.

 

Oh this is what I already thought he looked like.

[TexasEd 8066]

8 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I mean, his cult still thinks JFK Junior is alive and coming to their rescue so…..all of them?

They’re confused with RFK Jr

[YGIFS 19450]

Okay, so he's gonna get Covid and pass away but nobody will believe it because his cousin and uncle are still alive.  And the U.S. Government will literally be run in exile by?  You guessed it!  The Dead Kennedys.  Who will be headlining the inauguration of President Joe Exotic.  Because why the fuck not with this fucking computer code?

[SizzleChest 8283]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Why is that woman dressed like Beetlejuice?  

It’s Ethel Beavers.

[Woland 733]

I think Trump is more afraid of his creditors than he is of Jack Smith.

[Beau Vine 54215]

3 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

Alina didn't get paid, huh?

[Sawbonz 27548]

3 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

In the event of trump’s death, we need to be prepared for 3 significantly sized groups of Maga:  the ones that think he was murdered by the deep state, the ones that think he is still alive, and the smallest group is the ones that understand an old man died. 
 

how will they interact with one another?

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I was kind of hoping for a Jim Jones sort of thing.  Save the rest of us a lot of trouble.  

[Sawbonz 27548]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Same advice I got as a young team lead who had to can some guys because of budget cuts.  VP-Eng sat in with me for the first round, and on a coffee break he said "you need to shut the fuck up after you tell them they're laid off and their severance is $X.  You're just making it worse for them."  I never forgot that.  

[YGIFS 19450]

Miss Cannon, are you telling us absolutely everything?

"Not exactly, he also sold Iranian military plans to Saudi Arabia and Russia for a lien on a class B condo project."

 

[Gatorubet 30219]

18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

God help me, now when I see this I hear Freebird playing in my head. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

"In the federal system, there is no such thing as trial by surprise. Prosecutors are obligated to turn over the bulk of their evidence. There is a legitimate question of timing. What is unusual here that they front loaded the turnover. There is a lot to be said for putting on displays of strength of your case to a defendant, and to a defendant like Trump who never faced accountability before, this is going to lead to a real moment with his lawyers, where they will have to level with him about what he is facing, if he chooses to go ahead."

Joyce Vance on MSNBC

Link to video in the story

[TwiceHorn 31452]

16 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

"In the federal system, there is no such thing as trial by surprise. Prosecutors are obligated to turn over the bulk of their evidence. There is a legitimate question of timing. What is unusual here that they front loaded the turnover. There is a lot to be said for putting on displays of strength of your case to a defendant, and to a defendant like Trump who never faced accountability before, this is going to lead to a real moment with his lawyers, where they will have to level with him about what he is facing, if he chooses to go ahead."

Joyce Vance on MSNBC

Link to video in the story

Another thing, prosecutors are constitutionally obligated to turn over everything "exculpatory."  Meaning maybe tending to show innocence.

Somewhat astonishingly, prosecutors still find themselves making judgment calls on what they have to turn over and what they don't, that is, what is and isn't exculpatory.  And that often doesn't end well for the prosecution -- as well it shouldn't. 

Just about every shit conviction that's overturned by Innocence Project and similar involves violation of this constitutional obligation by the state.

And, sometimes, defense lawyers can make a mountain out of a molehill and secure an acquittal or retrial on kind of bullshitty grounds (meaning evidence that is technically, in some small way, exculpatory, but highly unlikely to have changed the outcome of an otherwise fair trial).  Sidney Powell was attempting to do that with Flynn and making an unholy mess before he got pardoned.

Some DA offices have an open file discovery policy:  if the state has it, you can see it.  The feds, by and large, do not, and still leave it to individual office and case-by-case determinations.

So, not only is Smith dropping bombs, he's insuring the integrity of any conviction here.

Edited June 23, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[mchookem 16328]

4 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

Nah. None o this.

What's gonna happen is that Bay of Pigs survivors living inside mechanical spider bodies are gonna swarm through the drop-ceiling of the courthouse, drop down in an elderly Cuban mechanical-spider chain, snatch Trump up and then spirit him away through vestigial canals that predate Ponce de Leon.

When next seen, Trump will be throwing out his jaw Mussolini-like from the balcony of Cinderella's Castle in Disneyworld, with spider-Cubans lurking on the towers and battlements. On signal, hundreds of gym-burly Proud Boy Second String will reveal themselves among the tourists, rush to form a perimeter around Trump, while assembling plastic ghost-guns they had pre-placed disassembled among the shrubbery.

In the inevitable mayhem that follows, the Florida National Guard closes in on the park, led by DeSantis, who strikes a Crossing-the-Delaware pose in the jungle cruise but slips off the railing and is dragged beneath the ride. The mechanical spider-body Cubans call in air support that fails to make a difference and are picked off one by one. The Proud Boys fall back inside the castle and hack loopholes in the walls to shoot out of. Unfortunately the plywood and stucco construction combines with the muzzle flash of hip-held automatic weapons, and within a Scaramucci of seconds the building combusts like a roaring Roman candle.

At least, that's what they want you to think caused the fire. Only Trump, among the chaos, looked up with his keen gaze, and spotted the laser-like flash of an object thousands of miles overhead. "Et tu, Ivanka..." he muttered as the floor fell away.

 

[The Dog 44022]

 

[tx 3 putt 76912]

[South Austin 52476]

Remember some of those clowns who filed the election lawsuits?  I don't doubt there are lawyers out there who actually said those things to Trump.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9324]

2 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Remember some of those clowns who filed the election lawsuits?  I don't doubt there are lawyers out there who actually said those things to Trump.

I can think of only one lawyer who definitely would speak that way.

[Js1 85313]

1 minute ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

I can think of only one lawyer who definitely would speak that way.

[tx 3 putt 76912]

That’s 100%’his aides / enablers feeding him be and dumb ass believing it 

[Pancho 44759]

 

[Brisketexan 105098]

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Strategerical question for trial lawyers.  Do you dare object as non-responsive, or just let the word salad grow?

While the obvious answer is "yes," that's actually a hard one to answer in the moment, and it's best to mentally pre-prepare for the possible scenarios.  The lawyer mind CAN default to "but, that's against the rules!" (I recall well having that dilemma when dealing with a young and earnest DOJ lawyer years ago -- she objected to EVERY opposing exhibit, "but they don't comply with the rules!")  A good trial lawyer tempers that by remembering two things: 1) the "rules," esp. of evidence, are exactly what the judge in THAT courtroom, at THAT moment, says they are.  If the judge says it's admissible, then it is.  Cases very, very, very rarely get flipped on the basis of an evidentiary ruling....and 2) use the rules, or decline to use them, strategically.  Sure, what he's saying is non-responsive and is cluttering the record.  But it's also making clear to the jury that he's a deranged pathological liar, so even anything GOOD he testifies to should be disregarded (for example).  Let him ramble.  It helps your case, and because it's him testifying, it can't create reversible error.

16 hours ago, CowboyFred said:

One of the best pieces of advice I got from a mentor was to just shut the fuck up. People hate silence and fill that silence with words. I’ll ask a question, they’ll answer, and then I may sit for 20-30 seconds and they’ll start with a “well actually…” 

Bingo.  One of the things I teach young attorneys, and witnesses, right out of the gate.  One of my favorite "questions" is a long pause and a barely perceptible head-nod, indicating "go on."  And for so many people, human nature is to do exactly that...."well actually, blah blah blah."  People naturally want to fill uncomfortable silences.  So, give them ample opportunity to do so, and they will.

 

Back to the topic at hand - any attorney who lets Trump testify at his criminal trial is committing malpractice per se.  I say with some hypberbole, but also all seriousness.  As a witness, he is so awful, so much of a fountain of self-incrimination, that to put him on the stand is a strategic decision that ZERO reasonable attorneys would take.  And if he is insisting on doing so, you fucking withdraw if at all possible.  In any case, you provide him, in writing, your strong recommendation that he NOT do so, and that if he chooses to testify, it is against he clear advice of counsel.  He will then try to fire you, which the court may or may not allow if it's late in the game.

Which I think is exactly what's going to happen.  He'll either have lawyers dumb enough to let him testify, or his lawyers will tell him not to, and he'll do it anyway in spite of their advice.

[texasdago 7573]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

A user said the accordion hands are a tell for when he is lying...

 

 

[4th&Five 41526]

Another tell is when he's speaking.  Seriously, he never stops lying.

[jimmyjazz 45903]

When he gets into that higher pitched sing-song voice you know he's making it up on the spot.

[C-Man 27218]

From WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-prosecutors-struggled-over-motives-then-they-heard-the-tape-37a7efed

Quote

WASHINGTON—Justice Department and FBI officials disagreed back in August about whether their investigation into the handling of sensitive documents justified the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. Fewer officials had doubts earlier this month, when prosecutors took an even bolder step: asking a grand jury to indict the former president on 37 counts. 

What turned the tide was an audio tape and other evidence investigators confirmed around February from meetings Trump held almost two years earlier and a thousand miles from the former president’s Palm Beach, Fla., resort, according to people familiar with the matter.

That crucial evidence, along with notes from a Trump lawyer describing his response to the investigation, helped spur prosecutors to push forward with a criminal case, the people said—an unprecedented step that might have been avoided if Trump had cooperated even late last year, as some of his lawyers had urged him to do.

Former Florida Solicitor General Chris Kise, for one, whom Trump hired in the aftermath of the August search, sought a conciliatory tack. He aimed to de-escalate the criminal investigation and head off charges by promising to return all documents, according to people familiar with the matter. He hoped that would give Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Justice Department an off-ramp before the political and legal pileup bound to accompany any decision to indict a former president. 

Such an approach might have found fertile ground at the Justice Department last year. When Garland appointed Jack Smith special counsel in November to take over the probe, investigators had found clear evidence that boxes that might have contained classified documents had been moved after Trump received a subpoena, and weren’t provided to his lawyer searching for such material. But investigators were struggling to identify a nefarious motivation for Trump’s possible retention of national-defense documents even after he was ordered to return them, according to people familiar with the matter. 

At the time of the search and in the ensuing months, investigators had only heard rumors of Trump’s sharing sensitive documents with donors or other political allies, including on his plane, some of the people familiar with the matter said. They hadn’t established whether such claims were credible. 

An image showing boxes of records stored in a bathroom at Mar-a-Lago is included in the indictment. PHOTO: JUSTICE DEPARTMENT/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Investigators had obtained no evidence that Trump was trying to use the information to help his business or blackmail political opponents, and some officials were wary of using such a show of force against someone who, less than two years earlier, had the ultimate authority to classify or declassify whatever he saw fit.  

Before the search, agents in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington field office wanted to give Trump’s legal team the opportunity to have agents search Mar-a-Lago with Trump’s consent and to give Trump’s lawyers a heads-up before executing any search warrant. “We were adamant about, you know, talking to the attorney first,” Steven D’Antuono, who ran that field office until he retired late last year, told congressional investigators behind closed doors earlier this month, according to a transcript of his testimony. “I got overruled in a sense,” he said.

Some officials at the time, even with evidence Trump might have obstructed the response to the May 11, 2022, subpoena demanding the production of classified documents, said their main interest in conducting the Mar-a-Lago search was to return any such material to the government’s possession.

Momentum shifted around February of this year, when investigators got hold of an audio recording of a July 21, 2021, meeting at Trump’s golf club in Bedminster, N.J., where Trump and his aides met with people working on an autobiography of his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. 

In the audio, the former president could be heard showing them a document that laid out a U.S. plan to attack Iran. Trump seemed to be brandishing it to dispute an article published a few days earlier in the New Yorker. That article said Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had tried to stop Trump from attacking Iran at the end of his presidency.

In the recording, Trump clearly stated that he was sharing it despite knowing the information remained classified because he hadn’t declassified it as president. That gave prosecutors direct evidence that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. 

Trump told Fox News on Monday that he didn’t have a classified document in the meeting.

“I didn’t have a document, per se,” he said. “There was nothing to declassify. These were newspaper stories, magazine stories and articles.”

In March, prosecutors used the recording to confront Trump aide Margo Martin, one of several staffers who had followed the former president to Mar-a-Lago from the White House and was in that Bedminster meeting, people familiar with the matter said. Any prospect of a settlement now looked vanishingly remote.    

The Trump team’s line had hardened too. Instead of cooperating with prosecutors, as Kise had urged, Trump heeded the advice of other lawyers and allies who encouraged a more aggressive approach.

A spokesman for Trump, Steven Cheung, said the former president said early on that he would assist the probe. “Sadly, the weaponized DOJ rejected this offer of cooperation and conducted an unnecessary and unconstitutional raid on the president’s home in order to inflict maximum political damage on the leading presidential candidate,” Cheung said. 

Kise and other lawyers for Trump advanced an argument in November that his team is likely to reassert: that any records the former president transferred from the White House were personal papers rather than government documents and that as the departing chief executive, he alone had the authority to determine which ones to disclose.

Chris Kise is member of the Trump legal team who early on advocated a conciliatory approach with the prosecution. PHOTO: WILFREDO LEE/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Prosecutors also obtained evidence that Trump had allegedly shown a classified map related to a military operation to a political ally at Bedminster in 2021, a few weeks after the meeting that was recorded.

While the Bedminster incidents indicate to investigators that Trump had shared information he knew he wasn’t supposed to, they also hint at a potential defense for Trump, by showing his motivation in hanging on to documents that appear to be reminders of his time in office, or as props he would use to make political arguments as he spoke to allies.

Officials also discussed why Trump’s possession of documents was different enough from the ways in which Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Joe Biden handled classified material, ultimately determining that Trump’s deliberate misleading of authorities stood in stark enough contrast to warrant a case. 

To make their case, prosecutors also drew on Trump’s remarks during campaign events in 2016, when his supporters, chanting “lock her up,” demanded that Clinton be charged with a similar crime for storing classified information on her personal email server.

Still, authorities appeared at times to give Trump’s team the benefit of the doubt, including in allowing his lawyers late last year to certify that they had found no additional classified documents at Bedminster, without requiring the FBI to do the search itself. 

In bringing the case, Smith appears to be continuing to take a careful approach, charging dozens of counts but deferring to Trump’s legal team in other ways that are unusual, compared with how the Justice Department treats most federal criminal defendants facing similar charges. A spokesman for Smith declined to comment. 

Prosecutors, for example, didn’t seek to have Trump detained during his arraignment last week and requested few restrictions on his release, allowing him to travel and keep his passport. By then, of course, Trump was a declared candidate, and the front-runner, for the Republican 2024 presidential nomination. 

 

[TwiceHorn 31452]

35 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Kise and other lawyers for Trump advanced an argument in November that his team is likely to reassert: that any records the former president transferred from the White House were personal papers rather than government documents and that as the departing chief executive, he alone had the authority to determine which ones to disclose.

 

They advanced that argument in connection with non-classified documents as a justification for the special master: i.e. there is significant personal material here that must be sorted from Presidential Records.  They did not seriously argue that that justified the retention of classified materials.

And if they make that argument in a criminal court, they'll be laughed out.  Probably even by Cannon.  We really are not talking about the Presidential Records Act anymore.

[The Dog 44022]

 

[Biff Tannen 45677]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

They advanced that argument in connection with non-classified documents as a justification for the special master: i.e. there is significant personal material here that must be sorted from Presidential Records.  They did not seriously argue that that justified the retention of classified materials.

And if they make that argument in a criminal court, they'll be laughed out.  Probably even by Cannon.  We really are not talking about the Presidential Records Act anymore.

Which means to me that they will do EXACTLY THAT.

[Beau Vine 54215]

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Bingo.  One of the things I teach young attorneys, and witnesses, right out of the gate.  One of my favorite "questions" is a long pause and a barely perceptible head-nod, indicating "go on."  And for so many people, human nature is to do exactly that...."well actually, blah blah blah."  People naturally want to fill uncomfortable silences.  So, give them ample opportunity to do so, and they will.

I prep all my witnesses on this tactic, particularly lay witnesses. Shut up and wait for a question. Let the attorney waste his time doing nothing if he wants. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Quote

Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered the first round of evidence to Donald Trump’s legal team in the classified documents case. The evidence includes testimony, documents and a witness list – and the unusual detail of transcripts of Trump’s incriminating “interviews” and “public statements” will be used as evidence.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-s-tv-confessions-pave-path-to-prison-jack-smith-sends-trump-his-own-interviews-in-new-filing-184190021804

I'm in the he'll never be in prison crowd, but his own interviews being used as evidence against him is delicious.

[TwiceHorn 31452]

13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I prep all my witnesses on this tactic, particularly lay witnesses. Shut up and wait for a question. Let the attorney waste his time doing nothing if he wants. 

A long time ago, I had a third party witness (truly didn't favor either side, just had some evidence) on a video deposition.  He would take long pauses after questions, apparently considering carefully both the question and his answer thereto.  It was a little bit irritating and at first I thought it adversely affected his crediblity.  But, by the end, after he had sought clarification of some bad questions without prompting/objection by his attorney, I thought it was pretty effective, even from a credibility standpoint.  He really looked like he was sincerely trying to answer the question put, while also making damn sure he didn't say anything extra.  Probably the most disciplined witness I've ever seen.

ETA:  this made me go look the dude up.  At the time, almost 30 years ago, it was a very small company, now it seems to be pretty big and worldwide.  Not surprising, the guy was sharp.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Dahobbs 17534]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A long time ago, I had a third party witness (truly didn't favor either side, just had some evidence) on a video deposition.  He would take long pauses after questions, apparently considering carefully both the question and his answer thereto.  It was a little bit irritating and at first I thought it adversely affected his crediblity.  But, by the end, after he had sought clarification of some bad questions without prompting/objection by his attorney, I thought it was pretty effective, even from a credibility standpoint.  He really looked like he was sincerely trying to answer the question put, while also making damn sure he didn't say anything extra.  Probably the most disciplined witness I've ever seen.

I tell my witnesses to take three beats before answering a question. Inevitably they lose focus and speed up at points in the deposition. But I had one client who, because it was a video deposition, kept a little stress ball under the table. She would squeeze it three times before answering. I've started recommending other witnesses, including experts, do the same because of how well it worked to keep her disciplined and focused. 

[jimmyjazz 45903]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A long time ago, I had a third party witness (truly didn't favor either side, just had some evidence) on a video deposition.  He would take long pauses after questions, apparently considering carefully both the question and his answer thereto.  It was a little bit irritating and at first I thought it adversely affected his crediblity.  But, by the end, after he had sought clarification of some bad questions without prompting/objection by his attorney, I thought it was pretty effective, even from a credibility standpoint.  He really looked like he was sincerely trying to answer the question put, while also making damn sure he didn't say anything extra.  Probably the most disciplined witness I've ever seen.

ETA:  this made me go look the dude up.  At the time, almost 30 years ago, it was a very small company, now it seems to be pretty big and worldwide.  Not surprising, the guy was sharp.

I was sued on a negligent entrustment case and the lawyer provided by my insurance provider made it extremely clear that during the deposition I should take my time, answer the question ("yes" or "no" if possible) and then clam up.  I took that to heart, but it's difficult when you think it's a BS lawsuit (which it was).

[Longhorn_Fan68 33869]

yeah, the best advice ever from a lawyer is just shut the fuck up. don't talk to cops. don't talk to anyone without a lawyer present. goddamn lawyers baking-in their necessity. 🤣

[atomheartbevo 89656]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I prep all my witnesses on this tactic, particularly lay witnesses. Shut up and wait for a question. Let the attorney waste his time doing nothing if he wants. 

Yep, I tell my witnesses to shut the fuck up and if they have to say something, watch what they say if they ever want to see their families again. It's difficult since I don't want to be anywhere near a courtroom when they are testifying and I don't want anybody associating me with them, but I have to just trust that they know I'm serious.

[The Dog 44022]

one of you ELI5 this for us non-lawyers:

(ELI5 - explain like i'm 5)

Edited June 23, 2023 by The Dog

[Brisketexan 105098]

9 minutes ago, The Dog said:

one of you ELI5 this for us non-lawyers:

(ELI5 - explain like i'm 5)

I suspect that is wrong, in that I suspect he didn't even try to get a bond because he didn't have to.

The ELI5 version:

1 -- in order to appeal a money judgment against a defendant, the defendant often has to post a "supersedeas bond," which is a bond that supersedes the judgment while the appeal is pending.  That means that the judgment sits out there, and the plaintiff can't execute on that judgment and seize your stuff.

2 -- BUT, to make sure that while the appeal is pending, you don't burn through all of your assets, so that when the appeal is concluded (presuming the plaintiff prevails), the plaintiff can get satisfaction on his judgment, the bond is posted.  So, the plaintiff can just execute on the bond once he wins on appeal.

3 -- bonds cost money.  If I have to post a $5 million bond, I have to pay a bond premium to the bond company.  Say it's 10%.  AND, that bond is secured by my other assets anyway.  So, now, EVEN IF I the DEFENDANT WIN ON APPEAL, I'm out $500,000 that I paid to the bond company.

4 -- thus, the alternative: I just put up my own cash, if I have it.  I deposit (in this case) the required amount of $5.55 million in the court.  And if I win on appeal, I get the whole $5.55 million back, meaning I'm not out anything (other than the lost time value of that money).

TLDR; posting cash bonds is not unusual, and doesn't mean that you couldn't get a bond.  In fact, it usually means that you have enough cash to handle the whole thing without resorting to a bond.

Edited June 23, 2023 by Brisketexan