The contents accidentally sent to Sandy Hook parents' lawyer

quote:

"You know what perjury is?" the lawyer asks.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

The amount of money being gathered by those claiming "entertainment" immunity from truth is staggering...

That man is a straight up monster.

"accidentally"? or a disgusted paralegal or....

I don't care if it was an inside job, an outside job, or straight up carelessness, I just want him to see the inside of a jail cell for at least twenty years.

He’s only 48.

I do worry about how they can end this guy once and for all. If he declares bankruptcy, can the parents still collect compensatory damages? What if he moves out of the US?

He's lucky I wasn't on that jury.

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
He’s only 48.

Wow, he looks a lot older than that. Quite honestly, I don't understand how he hasn't had a stroke or something by this point. He looks so ridiculously unhealthy.

Re: the attorney goof-up, maybe an honest mistake, maybe not. I am reminded of a time back in the 1980s when Intel and AMD were going through one of their countless copyright legal battles. At some point the AMD lawyers left all sorts of documents on the hotel "office area" FAX, which were discovered by an Intel employee. So it does happen.

I think I read that the defense asked for a mistrial, saying that the family’s lawyer should have returned the texts immediately without reading them. I wonder if the “accident” was a Hail Mary by the defense because they knew they were already in deep doo-doo.

I don’t know what the clawback rules are in that jurisdiction. But normally, an attorney can’t automatically take advantage of a mistake by opposing counsel. At a bare minimum, the attorney who wants to claw something back has to show appropriate steps were taken to avoid the goof, and they have to ask for a clawback.

It sounds like either these were materials previously requested but not produced, and I didn’t see Jones’ lawyer leaping to his feet to object. It seems too late to object now, and I am not seeing a basis for a mistrial the defendant caused.

I watched a bit of the testimony when the phone texts were revealed, and the prosecutor made a point of saying that he had told the defense attorney they had received the texts and the defense attorney didn't make any type of formal objection. There was a legal term for "formal objection," and my impression was that in the absence of such an objection it was kosher for the prosecutor to present the information during cross-examination. I remember thinking it was a truly awkward moment for the defense attorney, who sat at his desk with his head down as this was going on. Was all of that deliberate? Beats me. It seems unethical for a defense attorney to deliberately throw a case just because they're losing, but maybe it's something that does occur.

All I know is that I've rarely if ever seen it in "Law and Order."