u/A_uniqueusername77

I’m a trial lawyer, and evidence is my jam. So I’m embarrassed to admit this, but I still do not really understand the ritual of judicial notice.

I understand the doctrine. I understand the kind of thing the Court can take notice of. But every time I actually ask for it, the exchange feels like this:

Me: Your Honor, I’d ask the Court to take judicial notice of [Poor Richard’s Almanack reflecting that it was sunny in Philadelphia on July 4, 1759 / the fact that Petitioner was adjudicated guilty of fraud on April 1 in X County / the Secretary of State’s website showing Defendant was administratively dissolved in 2018].

Court: Okay.

Me: …

Court: …

Me: So, just to be clear, the Court is taking judicial notice?

Court: Sure.

Me: …

Opposing counsel: …

Court: …

And then everyone just moves on with no opportunity to respond or acknowledgment at all.

It has gotten to the point where I’ve started testing the limits. I’ll ask the Court to notice some public filing, then describe it with my own editorializing and still no one says anything.

Maybe it’s because notice is for indisputable, verifiable facts that can’t be contested so there’s no need to say anything but still it’s awkward every single time.

EDIT: I’ve made the classic lawyer mistake of making a joke near other lawyers. So yes, I appreciate that some of you are now litigating whether “sure” constitutes a sufficiently clear ruling for preservation purposes.

But, unfortunately, that was the joke. :)

I work in legal aid. I've met some attorneys, one PD and another couple of legal aid eviction defense attorneys, who keep an extra blazer or two on hand for clients to borrow just in case.

I don't believe it would be against my org's ethic guidelines to lend a blazer just for a court hearing, but I was wondering if anyone else does/did this and has any insight to whether it is helpful?

I'm also just wondering logistically about having something for everyone to borrow, which could lead to transferring contagions or lice. Yikes.

So I'm a PD in Indiana. We're going to be one of the last states to ever decriminalize or legalize marijuana.

For those of you who practice in states where it's legal, is there solid case law that eliminates the plain smell rule?

As a side note, there is legal hemp that smells identical to marijuana... to the point where dogs can't tell the difference. I would love to challenge a vehicle search on that basis, but I haven't had a client yet who was willing to be a guinea pig since the prosecutor here is pretty soft on marijuana cases.

Personally I've always thought that plain smell was crap. The odor of marijuana can linger in a vehicle eternally.

This is got those who need additional details:

I am working on a felony burglary case. The victim is a well known doctor in the community. He hired a locksmith to change the locks on an outdoor shed. He wasn’t home at the time, so he gave instructions to the locksmith to leave the bill and new set of keys on his kitchen counter.

When the locksmith does this, he doesn’t stop there. He claims “curiosity got the best of him” and began rummaging through the house, eventually taking several pairs of panties of the doctor’s teenage daughters (the locksmith is in his 40s). The locksmith gives a full confession to police and the act is caught on interior home surveillance cameras.

I spoke with the doctor in my office about the incident several months ago. He was furious (rightly so) and felt like good privacy had been invaded. After going over the legal particulars of the case and some coaxing, I managed to convince the doctor that a probated plea offer would be the most likely outcome. He agreed to this, provided that some conditions were met. I communicated this offer to opposing counsel at a later pre trial conference.

The locksmith’s attorney and I had a phone conversation today about the case. She relayed what she believed to be possible flaws in the investigation and doubts that could be raised at trial. She provided a misdemeanor counter offer as a way to settle the case. I told the attorney that during my prior conversation with the doctor, he wasn’t inclined to accept an offer like that. But, I told her that I would speak with him and get his thoughts on the matter. She then informed me that she had a personal relationship with the doctor and asked me to tell him if he wanted to reach out to contact her. I told her I would let him know.

About half an hour after this conversation, I get a call from defense counsel. I let the call go to voicemail, where she tells me that she herself has called the doctor and gotten him to agree to her counter offer. She also provides a text message exchange between her and presumably the evidencing the agreement. I was not a part to this call nor did I ever give permission for this to take place.

I’m not sure how to handle the situation. I feel that an ethical line has been crossed and that at the very least a conversation with defense counsel needs to be had.

An I overreacting? If not, what’s the best way to handle this?

Would you prefer more educational content or content that tries to be more funny and entertaining that’s still related to criminal defense? 50/50 of each kind? Other opinions to improve the subreddit are also welcome

I have no idea if I’m using the right tag here, so forgive me. They’ve changed and I am somewhere between utterly bamboozled, flailingly angry, and concealing sheer terror when a rule changes without advance notice. I am sure *no one* here can relate to such sentiments.

My wife made me watch Jury Duty when it came out as a form of media based retaliation, and if you look at my prior post here, that was entirely fair of her. We are now rewatching after seeing the new season.

I clearly wasn’t paying enough attention to the voir dire episode the first time around.

There are cartoonish elements of course, but the things that are even somewhat accurate have me rolling even two days after our rewatch.

“I am famous and have too much to do and bought everyone lunch.” Nope, not a distraction. You’re in, juror number whatever.

“I’m a retired person with nothing else to do but uh… it’s just not my thing. I don’t want to do it.” Thank you for even showing up and thank you for your time, you have a lovely day. You are dismissed.

Bonus points for, “There is something inside of me that needs to come out.” By goodness am I intimately (and against my will) familiar with the things people need to “come out of them.” It’s their butt, WAY too much of the time. Is it usually a baby coming out of where it should be coming out? Yes. But too often it isn’t a baby and that’s not where it’s coming out.

How do you recover from a crappy hearing? Yesterday I had a hearing for my client and it did not go well - Court overruled my requests and literally rolled her eyes at me as I was speaking. I’m so upset. My client will be fine, just seems unfair and so unprofessional. Why do we have to respect the judges so much when they don’t show us the same courtesy? This was on a procedural issue that I felt should have been continued for a further hearing, but the Court refused. I am both frustrated professionally and feel a bruise to my ego as other colleagues were there watching. How do I get over this??

Taking a deposition of the plaintiff in my first PI case this week. Car crash case where the central dispute is whether P ran a red to cause the crash and whether the accident caused his alleged neck injuries.

What are some of your favorite lines of questioning for such plaintiffs?

Just finished an infuriating trial and need to vent. My client got absolutely fucked by the judge during jury deliberations. Wanted to know if it's possible that anyone is able to provide a different perspective to temper my rage, because I am still seeing red over this one.

My client inadvertently proceeds through a red light at an intersection and there is a cop right behind him who lights him up on the spot. Client immediately pulls to the side of the road, and then into a parking lot as instructed. But then suddenly he floors it and takes off.

Cop chases but breaks off pursuit after about 30 seconds because of speeds and it's just a red light violation. A few minutes later, police helicopter sees client's passenger throw a gun out the window on the freeway. Client exits freeway, and parks car. He and passenger run in opposite directions but are both ultimately apprehended and arrested nearby.

Client is mirandized and invokes. No statement given whatsoever. Does exactly what one would hope.

At trial, despite the danger, he testifies that he initially was pulling over because he had no reason to run. No reason, that is, until the passenger pulls out a gun that client was previously unaware of, and threatens client. Passenger demands that client flee from police or else "Imma pop you n*****."

On cross, prosecutor commits clear Doyle error, asking if client told police about the threats. Objection sustained. Three questions later, DA asks again about whether client told the police about the threats. I don't even have to object this time -- judge jumps in with a bark: "SUSTAINED." Co-counsel then tries to pull the same shit.

We of course get a duress instruction. DA must prove beyind a reasonable doubt that client didn't flee from police because of the threats.

After 2.5 hours of deliberation, jury sends a question: Did client tell police when he was arrested about the duress? Was there any report from the arresting officer about this? Did client make any statements prior to his testimony, at all, about the duress? (emphasis added.)

The judge's proposed response is of course a simple, "There is no evidence regarding any prior statements by client." And naturally DA and co-counsel are okay with this. I argue that judge needs to instruct, among other suggestions, that every person has an absolute right to remain silent and not to speak to the police, and the fact of that silence absolutely cannot be used to conclude that testimony is untrue or to infer guilt in any way. I argue that the DA and co-counsel planted the idea that client's silence at arrest meant his testimony was recently fabricated with their blatantly improper questions, and the jury appears poised to grab ahold of that implication and run with it.

The judge declines my suggestions and gives his originally-proposed response. He says, effectively, that all he can discern is that there is at least one juror who is wondering if they missed evidence of something. That he's not going to "speculate" why the jurors are asking this, and that the question does not ask about the law so it would be improper of him to provide legal instruction in his response. He says I could have asked for an admonition and instruction on the point when the improper questions were asked during cross of my client, but that it is somehow now "too late" for that. And of course this makes me feel like an absolute idiot for not doing that, but now that we know where the jury is obviously headed how are we not correcting their misconception?

So the response gets sent and the jury immediately convicts. Shocker.

I have a jury trial coming up where my client is charged with assault. However, my client was on his own and the “victim” and another guy were in my clients face. There’s video showing the incident with my client engaging with one of the guys and eventually landing a punch. It was basically a mutual fight between the two as they both engaged with each other at the same time, but because my client is the only one who connected a punch and the “victim” reported it to police, my client got charged (comical). What type of voir dire Q’s should I focus on? I haven’t done a self defense before, but I want to focus on it being 2v1 and they were yelling threats in my client’s face.