Mintz’s Post

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

💡 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

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

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.

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?

Check out the latest Eastern District Roundup in the New York Law Journal from my partners Samuel Butt and Thomas Kissane!

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.

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

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

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