Legal Color Commentator. I'm an experienced trial and appellate litigator and I call the shots as I see them.
12 subscribers
Dec 7, 2024 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
An unfortunate side effect of not televising high profile trials is that traditional media often doesn't cover the instructions conference, because it's boring and they don't really understand it. But it's critical to understand why this instruction is worded the way it is.
The effect of this instruction is to provide a decision tree on the issue of justification. If the jury, deliberating on manslaughter, unanimously agrees he acted in lawful defense of others,* they don't have to also consider CNH because justification is a defense to it as well.
Jun 28, 2024 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
Ok, I've been sorting through Mass. law to get a sense of what happened this morning and this thread will address what I've found. Bottom line: So far, it's unlikely that there has been any appealable error.
When a jury can't reach a unanimous verdict, courts can instruct them to continue their deliberations so long as the instruction to do so does not coerce a verdict. This rule derives from US Supreme Court precedent in Allen v. U.S.
Mar 17, 2024 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
I missed all the fun everyone was having watching the Fani Willis hearing, but I did read the ruling. Overall, it seems within the judge's discretion and the law and will not be easily challenged by either side on aooeal. But a couple things did stand out to me.
The finding of no actual conflict of interest concluded that Ms. Willis's testimony about cash reimbursements wasn't entirely incredible. But the judge also seemd to go out of his way not to make specific findings about her credibility, and how it could affect the conflict issue.
Jan 11, 2023 • 9 tweets • 2 min read
Like most people, I'm predicting we'll see a not guilty plea from Bryan Kohberger at this stage. But I don't think an early guilty plea is off the table. Let's look at why.
The decision of plea is his, not his attorney's. It's his attorney's job to counsel him about the potential consequences of the plea to help him make his decision, and then advocate for his decided objective. He bears the risk, so he decides.
Jul 25, 2022 • 21 tweets • 6 min read
Lots of action in the Marilyn Manson case recently! The case has been on simmer since the complaint was filed in March, but now lots of new information is emerging. This is a short thread on where the case is at and the significance of the new filings.
Evan and Illma filed anti-SLAPP motions in April and May. The motions only challenge the defamation claim and 3 of 5 causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The swatting and hacking allegations are unchallenged.
Jul 5, 2022 • 68 tweets • 13 min read
It’s been a while since I did a full legal review of one of Elaine’s briefs. She’s still up to the same old tired tricks! This will be a long thread; if you'd rather wait for the video version, it's in the editing bay and should be ready tomorrow morning.
🧵
As you’ve probably heard, Amber Heard has filed a post-trial motion asking Judge Azcarate to reduce the verdict, and/or set aside the verdict, and/or dismiss Johnny’s complaint. She also asks the court to investigate potentially improper juror service by Juror no. 15.
May 23, 2022 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Because lots of people are asking what happens when Amber Heard runs out the clock on her allocated time, I'm going to take this opportunity to introduce folks to the jurisprudential theory of legal realism. This theory holds simply: The law is what the judge says the law is.
VA clearly recognizes that cross-examination on material issues is a basic right in a trial that cannot be denied simply due to time limits imposed, according to this published precedent.
Getting lots of questions about Rottenborn's question to Johnny on Thursday to the effect of, "Don't you know you're only suing Amber for 2018 statements?" Some have seized on this to claim everything before then is irrelevant. That's not correct, and I'm going to explain why.
In this thread, I will be screenshotting portions of Judge White's letter ruling on Amber's second motion to dismiss, filed March 27, 2020, which you can download from the Fairfax County Circuit Court website here:
There is some weird fuckery going on with the audios. The one played at the end of the day was represented to be defense exhibit 586a, and Judge A confirmed it's in evidence. But what got uploaded instead is numbered defense exhibit 839.
D839 is identified on her witness list as a July 2016 audio. And the audio played at the end of court on Friday was audio we heard in the UK from July 2016. But the audio that was uploaded doesn't contain the portion of the audio played in court.
Apr 22, 2022 • 18 tweets • 4 min read
All right folks, I went down this legal rabbit hole. In this thread is what I was able to find relating to Judge A’s admonition to Johnny at the end of the day yesterday that he is not allowed to discuss his testimony with anybody to include his attorneys.
The rule has evolved primarily in the context of criminal cases, which evaluate the right to counsel guaranteed a criminal defendant under the 6th Amendment. There is generally no 6A right to counsel in a civil case, only a 14th Amendment right to due process.
Apr 21, 2022 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
Approximately 7:24 of exhibit 343: "The one thing" Amber Heard has an issue with with in fights with Johnny Depp is his "disappearing act."
I’m getting a lot of questions about the audio recordings and whether/when they will be admissible. This will be my master thread on this subject to talk about hearsay, why the audio recordings are hearsay, and what hearsay exceptions might allow them to be admitted.
For practical purposes, a statement is hearsay when it is made outside of court. The rule is a little more complicated than that – the statement needs to be offered to prove the truth of what it says – but for now, it’s enough to understand it as an out-of-court statement.
Apr 12, 2022 • 15 tweets • 3 min read
In evaluating the opening statements, it’s important to remember that the purpose of opening is to highlight to evidence you expect to come out at trial. It sets the stage for what the jury expects you to prove, and so plays a critical role in establishing trust with the jury.
We saw very different approaches from the parties. Johnny’s lawyers deliberately chose to depict Amber Heard as “troubled,” rather than to villainize her. Amber’s lawyers are going all in on the “monster” claims.
Mar 30, 2022 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
This will take me more than a quick tweet response to answer, so a short 🧵 I expect this is an objection specifically to self-serving hearsay. Hearsay is any statement made outside of court, offered to prove the truth of what it says, including a party's out-of-court statements.
An exception to the hearsay rule is admissions of a party-opponent. Meaning, if they say things outside of court that are against their interests in the present case, those are not excluded by the hearsay rule.
Mar 25, 2022 • 21 tweets • 5 min read
Quick take on JD's motion for sanctions uploaded today concerning violations of the order compelling forensic imaging of AH's devices.
Ashley Walters is amending her claim against Marilyn Manson to try to defeat the statute of limitations. She alleges that she repressed the memories of abuse until fall 2020.
rollingstone.com/music/music-ne…
There is no question that "repressed memory" therapies are not generally accepted as reliable (or beneficial) in the scientific community.
A thread on propensity evidence, considering the apparent implosion of the civil rape case against everyone’s favorite scumbag, Chris Brown.
yahoo.com/entertainment/…
Human brains evolved as pattern-recognition machines. We have an amazing ability to take new information, compare it to old information, and make predictions by organizing the new information within the framework of our pre-existing knowledge.
