Jump to content

lemonlime

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lemonlime

  1. Damn. She was such a huge part of my childhood. And I was lucky enough to see her in concert a few years ago. She still sounded the same as in the 80s.
  2. If you want a nice cliff notes on who's racist on this board, check out the first few pages of this thread.
  3. Why are you stunned? These are the same people who think we should buy Greenland, you should drink Clorox to prevent Covid, and windmills cause cancer. And now they're making medical decisions for the rest of us.
  4. Another saving grace on this is that CT is a great state for plaintiffs in general. Punitives may be capped, but I'm not sure there's a better state in the country to bring a suit, at least for compensatory damages. Jury verdicts and settlements there tend to be very high.
  5. Why would the J6 Commission not learn of the phone copy? I'm not suggesting he should have destroyed the phone copy. Or kept it secret. Or left any of it to Raynal or Jones. Just that perhaps it shouldn't have been revealed as a gotcha moment in the middle of trial. I think he got caught up in the publicity, and maybe could have done a better job. But coulda woulda shoulda. I'm more disturbed by all the people fine with throwing out privilege because Jones is a bad guy. It's like the people who argue we should have punitive bail amounts because someone out on bail ran people over with a car. Making policy decisions based on how the worst of the worst act is not helpful to anyone. And no I don't think those 2 hold outs would have changed. I do question what quantum of damages the other 10 would have assessed had there been different trial tactics. And I'm not sure what direction that goes in, but I'm floored by the same people yelling about what a travesty the low jury verdict was praising the plaintiff counsel a few posts later for questionable tactics.
  6. Plaintiff's asked for $150M, and got $4.1M. I'm not sure why the dichotomy is between "getting the gimp" or being a "good collegial gentleman" or the assumption that "getting the gimp" helped Bankston's clients. They right now got their clients a small fraction of the damages they asked for, in what should have been a slam dunk case, in which the defendant had already been found liable. And they may have provided Jones grounds for appeal to get rid of even that $4.1M verdict. But, they got a lot of tweets about the "Perry Mason Moment" and 5 minutes of fame for the attorney. And, to be clear, had Bankston gone to the court with the phone first, the text messages he cross examined Jones about would have still been available for cross examination. It was discoverable information that should have been disclosed months earlier. Hell, he might even have obtained more cross examination material because he likely wouldn't have even had to have waited 10 days to look at the contents of the phone, leaving himself 2 days to review a shit ton of information. He would have only lost his dramatic moment ripped from an LA Law script.
  7. Right. But there was nothing privileged in the emails Bankston obtained. He could have impeached Jones on them regardless. It would have been less of a surprise gotcha moment. But it would have happened. When one side is a clown car, the best litigation strategy is to come across as sober, serious, and respectful of the law.
  8. I'm also not sure as I think on it more that Bankston didn't do a disservice to his clients by playing it a little loose with the rules. It's not like they got a huge verdict. Does anyone really think the jury verdict would have been even less had Bankston not had his Perry Mason moment? When one side is filled with clowns, the best litigation strategy is to be the grown up in the room, and come across as ethical and in the right. Instead, we people playing games on both sides, albeit one side a helluva lost worse games. Bankston could have applied to the court, seeking sanctions for Raynal hiding the phone and raising the privilege issue with the judge, and he still could have gotten the moment of cross of Jones where he caught him in lies, but without the pointless showboating.
  9. This. Regardless of whether Reynal shit the bed, and he obviously did, Bankston has his own ethical obligations. This is an extreme case with egregious actors on the defense side, but horrible policy in general to not be really careful if you ever get anything that may be privileged. Hell, even here, regardless of the fact that Jones isn't even getting his just desserts no matter what, Bankston apparently improperly received confidential medical information belonging to other Sandy Hook parents, and god knows what else was on the phone.
  10. Doesn't the jury also have to be unanimous in the punitive award? So that they only got 10 for the $4M doesn't seem like a great omen.
  11. No. There are still punitive damages.
  12. Is that sufficient for Reynal to say he was clawing it back?
  13. Thanks. To my understanding the cell phone issue is both. The attorney should have released them in discovery, but I'm unsure of which attorney in Jones' string of attorneys would have been responsible for that and also once the death penalty was already given due to the failure to turn over discovery, whether a subsequent attorney would still have an obligation to turn over the delinquent discovery. But the cell phone also contained privileged information, and it was turned over in its entirety, without an assertion of privilege or a privilege log, and even after being advised that the privileged information was sent to plaintiffs, Reynal never asked for it back or asserted privilege over that information..
  14. I thought punitive damages were usually bifurcated from the rest of the trial, though, regardless of whether there is bifurcation between liability and damages. At least in the jurisdiction I practice in, the amount of punitive damages is always bifurcated from everything else, because testimony on the defendants' net worth, earnings, etc. needed to determine how to punish the defendants is irrelevant to the action itself and would be inflammatory to the jury.
  15. It's been a thing since polling in the 2016 election showed dotard with a big lead if only men voted.
  16. I'm wondering what else is on the phone, besides the Sandy Hook stuff. Wasn't Jones an organizer of trump's "rally" on 1/6, and in communication with trump during the time period the other phones have been wiped? And if you're a lawyer in possession of that phone with those texts about an attempt to overthrow the government do you try to find some way to get those communications out there? Or maybe I'm giving Reynal way too much credit, given his performance at this trial.
  17. I would think, although again I'm not in TX so maybe it's different there, but practiced med mal defense, the IIED damages would be (1) bills for psychiatric treatment, therapy, etc., (2) ancillary losses such as lost wages if couldn't work because too upset, maybe for security due to Jones' sycophants harassing them, etc., and then (3) pain and suffering damages, which would be amorphous, and based on what the jury thinks is appropriate based on the plaintiffs' testimony about their suffering. I'm still confused on the punitives aspect, though, as I've only ever seen that as part of a bifurcated trial, and would need economic expert testimony about Jones' assets, revenues, etc.
  18. Yup. Which is why they decided Shelby County v. Holder first. Political moves don't matter if you have Russian style "elections."
  19. I think plaintiff counsel said he notified defense counsel, but defense counsel never got back to him about clawing stuff back. I think the failure to respond, assuming there was privileged information on the phone, is likely an ethical violation. But unless he retains Sidney Powell I can't imagine a legal malpractice suit. We would have won the trial, despite my client's repeated purjuring of himself and calling the jurors names, if only his lawyer kept violating the law by withholding discovery from the other side, isn't a great argument.
  20. Thanks. This whole thing seems so weird to me procedurally. I'm a lawyer, but not in TX, and I've never seen the punitive stuff come into play during the initial trial. Or that the jury could ask the witnesses questions. And if I'm recalling correctly, the admission on liability was entered by the court due to Jones not providing discovery, and not because he just admitted liability. But the "good" side of admitting liability from a defense standpoint is that the defendant's motives and stupidity shouldn't be before the jury. I need to stop spending so much time on this in any event, but I can't look away from this shit show.
  21. So is this on punitives? If there's no question on liability, why is any of this relevant? Shouldn't it all be about the harm the plaintiffs suffered, not what Jones did?
  22. Does the jury verdict need to be unanimous? It sounds like the first two questions are from a right wing lunatic juror? But the rest of the questions are far more rational.
  23. Impeached Jones about his lies about how much money his company made---many times more than Jones testified to. And then asked if Jones agreed with his lawyer's statement that $1 would be sufficient to compensate the plaintiffs.
  24. Jesus. Beyond the hate he spews, how does anyone listen to him? His voice is worse than nails on a chalkboard.
  25. As someone who's never seen his show, does Jones always sound like this? Or is he about to give the judge and the jury Covid?
×
×
  • Create New...