I recently went through my first deposition, and I can attest to how stupid people can be. Even though I intellectually knew exactly how to answer deposition questions, I found myself elaborating in answering questions anyway.
But more importantly, as paying subscribers I feel that we deserve the assurance that if either Josh or Ken (or both) find themselves in serious legal trouble that they will ignore this wise advice and instead fulfill their duty to entertain us, by speaking publicly and derisively about their case on the podcast.
I certainly understand that there would be a desire to avoid judgements against yourselves, and any accompanying monetary penalties or even jail time, but y'all wouldn't betray us like that, would you?
Wow, a content warning needed on your example of how not to get your lawyer interested in your case. We have the same frustration in medicine because God bless them but some people cannot answer a question directly. I once saw a man get an angiogram because it was easier than asking for a third time exactly when this chest pain started.
I'm wondering about the risk, particularly in big federal cases, of a client's "Doctor Google" searches serving to prove a mens rea requirement. Is it something that sometimes happens?
The best legal advice I ever received was when my lawyer was to wait 3 seconds (“Thousand one. thousand two...”) before responding to a question while on the stand. BTW it was about real estate, not criminal.
So… hang on, let me get my Notes app started… DON’T hire the Alabama Hammer just because he screams the phrase at the TV while holding a sledgehammer. Got it.
Thanks for the info. I fall into the category of being a boring, middle class rural American. But I'm also the kind of person who chatters more and more when nervous, so knowing when to SHUT UP with law enforcement is a good lesson for me!
Here's a set of questions about legal mechanics I'd be interested to hear tackled: when you're seated on a jury, what's being asked of you on a strictly practical level, and what tools are you provided to accomplish that task? My understanding is that jurors aren't generally supposed to communicate amongst each other until after the arguments are completed, when deliberations begin, and that this is also the main window for jury instructions, but are jurors given anything to frame the presentations they're being shown before that point, or is that down to the lawyers' summary speeches? For written evidence like deposition transcripts and expert reports, when are the jurors expected to read these documents? For that matter, when do they get the actual text of the indictment, or the verdict form that they're going to be filling out? Are materials provided for note-taking? Especially for an extremely complicated case like the first-round Oathkeepers prosecution that finished a month or so ago, where you have half a dozen defendants charged with a varied array of crimes based on varied underlying facts, what precautions are taken to ensure that a mixed verdict (like the one we actually got in that case) is the result of a careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, as opposed to confusion, compromise, and Solomonic abdication?
Obviously this varies somewhat by district and even by judge, but as someone who thinks a lot about both how to present complicated bodies of information and ways in which the legal system tends to malfunction, it's a topic I'm very interested in that I've had a weirdly difficult time actually finding answers about.
You mention that it's ok to discuss things with your spouse. I would be (academically) interested in more about that. I have heard that my state (Washington) has a law that prevents spouses from being forced to testify, and even allows a defendant to suppress testimony from a spouse, unless the spouse is a victim (e.g. DV).
Can you share any stories for how umbrella insurance did or did not work for clients and what it actually does well vs. what the sales brochure implies?
How To Be A Good Client
The is *GREAT*. I now feel fully prepared to commit a Federal Crime. Thanks, Ken!
I recently went through my first deposition, and I can attest to how stupid people can be. Even though I intellectually knew exactly how to answer deposition questions, I found myself elaborating in answering questions anyway.
Very interesting episode, thanks for making it.
But more importantly, as paying subscribers I feel that we deserve the assurance that if either Josh or Ken (or both) find themselves in serious legal trouble that they will ignore this wise advice and instead fulfill their duty to entertain us, by speaking publicly and derisively about their case on the podcast.
I certainly understand that there would be a desire to avoid judgements against yourselves, and any accompanying monetary penalties or even jail time, but y'all wouldn't betray us like that, would you?
Wow, a content warning needed on your example of how not to get your lawyer interested in your case. We have the same frustration in medicine because God bless them but some people cannot answer a question directly. I once saw a man get an angiogram because it was easier than asking for a third time exactly when this chest pain started.
A rolodex!
Can you buy a rolodex anymore?
Instead of "Doctors" you probably meant "Engineers". AMIRITE?
I'm wondering about the risk, particularly in big federal cases, of a client's "Doctor Google" searches serving to prove a mens rea requirement. Is it something that sometimes happens?
Thank you for this information. Many of us would not know what to do if ever faced with a criminal legal situation. I shared this episode.
The best legal advice I ever received was when my lawyer was to wait 3 seconds (“Thousand one. thousand two...”) before responding to a question while on the stand. BTW it was about real estate, not criminal.
So… hang on, let me get my Notes app started… DON’T hire the Alabama Hammer just because he screams the phrase at the TV while holding a sledgehammer. Got it.
Thanks for the info. I fall into the category of being a boring, middle class rural American. But I'm also the kind of person who chatters more and more when nervous, so knowing when to SHUT UP with law enforcement is a good lesson for me!
OK, Ken, who makes the worst client, a doctor or another lawyer? During my career I'd say it was a dead heat.
Here's a set of questions about legal mechanics I'd be interested to hear tackled: when you're seated on a jury, what's being asked of you on a strictly practical level, and what tools are you provided to accomplish that task? My understanding is that jurors aren't generally supposed to communicate amongst each other until after the arguments are completed, when deliberations begin, and that this is also the main window for jury instructions, but are jurors given anything to frame the presentations they're being shown before that point, or is that down to the lawyers' summary speeches? For written evidence like deposition transcripts and expert reports, when are the jurors expected to read these documents? For that matter, when do they get the actual text of the indictment, or the verdict form that they're going to be filling out? Are materials provided for note-taking? Especially for an extremely complicated case like the first-round Oathkeepers prosecution that finished a month or so ago, where you have half a dozen defendants charged with a varied array of crimes based on varied underlying facts, what precautions are taken to ensure that a mixed verdict (like the one we actually got in that case) is the result of a careful consideration of the arguments and evidence, as opposed to confusion, compromise, and Solomonic abdication?
Obviously this varies somewhat by district and even by judge, but as someone who thinks a lot about both how to present complicated bodies of information and ways in which the legal system tends to malfunction, it's a topic I'm very interested in that I've had a weirdly difficult time actually finding answers about.
Great podcast! STFU is sooooo pertinent to so many areas of life, though not all. Knowing the difference is Shaman level wisdom.
You mention that it's ok to discuss things with your spouse. I would be (academically) interested in more about that. I have heard that my state (Washington) has a law that prevents spouses from being forced to testify, and even allows a defendant to suppress testimony from a spouse, unless the spouse is a victim (e.g. DV).
Can you share any stories for how umbrella insurance did or did not work for clients and what it actually does well vs. what the sales brochure implies?