Special Counsel Dan Conley recently spoke with Boston Globe Media about the sensational murder trial surrounding Karen Read following her lawyers’ motion to dismiss two charges against her that came after a July 1 mistrial was declared. The article writes: “Conley said the law currently states there’s no verdict until it’s read in open court, meaning the contention from Read’s lawyers that the jury reached verdicts on two of the three charges is ‘not a credible assertion.’ As for holding a hearing to question individual jurors, Conley said, ‘My instincts tell me no, she won’t do that, because it really is invading the province of the jury.'" Read the article here: https://bit.ly/3Y3hxw1
Mintz’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fischer v. United States, where the Court will decide the breadth of Section 1512(c)(2)—an obstruction statute enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal. The issue before the Court is whether Section 1512(c)(2) is limited to evidence-tampering obstruction or has a broader reach and is catchall for all types of obstruction of an official proceeding. The Justices appear split on the issue. One of the topics addressed during the Solicitor General’s argument dealt with the requirement of proving a nexus or natural and probable effect between the obstruction and official proceeding. The Suarez Law Firm identified this as an issue and litigated it during a 2022 federal trial involving a related obstruction statute. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected this summer. #whitecollar #criminaldefense #obstruction Listen to oral argument here: https://lnkd.in/e4T5QKkJ Read coverage from SCOTUSblog here: https://lnkd.in/eBgYDKik
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
💡 In federal practice, there are ways to mitigate the consequences of missing a deadline. However, in Virginia practice, deadlines are typically considered jurisdictional. Meeting these deadlines is crucial to gaining court jurisdiction, while missing them can bar access to the court altogether. Cullen Seltzer provides two recent examples illustrating the dichotomy between federal and state practice here: https://bit.ly/3VXwBZx
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Certified Criminal Trial Attorney 🏛️ TEDx Speaker on Reclaiming Time 🎤 Former Assistant Prosecutor 🚔 Partner @ Bianchi Law Group 🛡️ National TV Legal Analyst 📺 Nothing But The Truth Podcast Host 🎙️
Do You Believe Becky Hill's Denial in the Murdaugh Case? 🏛️ The Alex Murdaugh saga continues to unfold with new twists, the latest being allegations of jury tampering involving court clerk Becky Hill. This brings us to a critical juncture in the pursuit of justice. While I have consistently supported the guilty verdict based on the evidence, these allegations, if substantiated, cast a troubling shadow over the proceedings. Transparency and fairness are non-negotiable in our legal system. Should there be an evidential hearing to place Becky Hill and others under oath for a clear understanding? Furthermore, is transferring the venue necessary to ensure an objective process? What are your thoughts on these developments? How do you view Becky Hill's denial, and what steps should be taken to uphold the integrity of our justice system? #AlexMurdaugh #LegalDebate #JudicialIntegrity #CriminalDefense #DomesticViolence
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
I recently published an article for the Oregon State Bar about an under-addressed topic among litigators - the duty to meaningfully confer prior to motion practice. When I was a younger and greener attorney, I encountered overly-aggressive (and more experienced) adversaries who would threaten discovery and pleading motions over a variety of legal disputes. When I called them over the phone to confer and asked them to provide me with the cases, statutes, or rules that supported their positions, many refused. Oftentimes what resulted was unnecessary briefing from both parties. Sometimes, the briefing lacked legal support. Other times, the briefing lacked focus on the particular legal issue in dispute. Inevitably, the dispute became a mess that the court was left to try to resolve. Needless to say, courts don't like this. It wastes time and energy for a judge to have to resolve a dispute that could easily have been resolved by the attorneys themselves if they honestly discussed the legal support for their positions before firing off a motion. It clogs already over-burdened court dockets. It also creates unnecessary legal expenses for the parties themselves. To "meaningfully" confer means to put your legal cards on the table and discuss your authority explicitly. You have your cases. I have my cases. Let's talk about them. Sometimes, this can result in resolving the dispute altogether. Other times, this can at least result in narrowing the legal issue for the court. Regardless of the outcome, it makes for better practice and better lawyering.
Our attorney, Hansary Laforest, has authored an article for the Oregon State Bar Bulletin. The article emphasizes the importance of pre-motion conferral in Oregon state and federal courts and shares a rigorous approach to conferral communications. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gcuxWkVj
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
Real Estate Development Multi-Site Construction Management Consultant| 150+Projects 2w/ 9-Fig Multifamily| Plan-Budget-Negotiate Production Contracts| Resolves-Civil-Arch-Eng. Error Omission and Delay Change Order Claims
If Judge Juan Merchan or Prosecutor Alvin Bragg failed to provide the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the jury in the Trump Document Case, it could be seen as potential jury tampering. One report indicates that the Trump Attorney requested specific information on the law, which the Judge disallowed, claiming it was already covered in the case. Why did the Judge not provide the jury documents to the jury? Additionally, what was the Federal charge in question, considering the State lacks jurisdiction over Federal charges? #LegalSystem #TrumpDocumentCase #JuryTampering What do you think?
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Check out the latest Eastern District Roundup in the New York Law Journal from my partners Samuel Butt and Thomas Kissane!
Schlam Stone & Dolan partners Thomas Kissane and Samuel Butt recently published an article in the New York Law Journal on several significant decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Judge Eric R. Komitee denied a preliminary injunction to a defamation plaintiff, Judge Gary R. Brown denied a prisoner’s pro se petition to have his sentence vacated under 28 U.S.C. §2255 and Judge Frederic Block denied a motion by defendants to access frozen funds in an action brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). See full article below.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Founder and CEO of Cooking Up Investments LLC and Ingegneria LLC! I love engineering, collegiate tutoring, stock trading, long-term investing, fitness, and mentoring!
Before a legal case occurs there is very important procedure called a Voir Dire. This is crucial to eliminate jurors with bias from a case. Note below that the Trump case had two lawyers. In no universe is a judge, who actually wants an impartial case, going to allow two lawyers to sit on a jury. Lawyers, by nature of their numerous cases and academic background, should NEVER sit on a jury. They are going to swing the bias one way or another. One is awful… let alone two. The very element of trial by jury has been compromised forever by this case. If a jury is just saturated with anti-Trumpers, or even anti-Bideners when the GOP decides to prosecute Biden after he is POTUS, we have an utter collapse of the judiciary.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
-
In here latest video, Helen discusses Lasting Powers of Attorney following a conversation with a gentleman who was updating his Will and his concerns over his health in his older years. #HelenLord #WillWriting #LPA #LastingPowersOfAttorney #ProtectYourFuture
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Important guidance on the "adverse witness rule"... “A court reviews adverse witness testimony differently from the way it weighs the sufficiency of ordinary evidence,” Ortiz pointed out, adding that a court must “‘sift what is uncontradicted from what is contradicted (or inherently incredible).’ If testimony is contradicted or inherently incredible, the plaintiff is not bound by it. On the other hand, if the testimony is ‘clear, logical, reasonable, and not in conflict with plaintiff’s evidence,’ it is binding.” https://lnkd.in/eF-YZPXg
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
More highlights from our panel discussion exploring recent court judgments relating to intermediary use in Family proceedings. Rupinder Jagdev (@DuncanLewis) shares some of the impacts solicitors have encountered. Watch all highlights here: https://bit.ly/CCPanel24 @3PBChambers
To view or add a comment, sign in