Big **sigh**. Sometimes it’s just a shitty job, even if you do it well

It’s not a question of being ineligible...it’s a question of whether lawyers can get you off the panel because of potential bias. If you were a potential juror in a sexual assault case and disclosed you were the victim of sexual assault, a defense lawyer would probably ask to have you excused. Judge could ask you more…

That seems like some bad lawyering right there. Or the judge wouldn’t let them ask. But 99% of the time lawyers want to know if you can personally relate to the case at hand so they can boot or keep you depending on whether they think your potential bias works for or against their client.

I’m not yet 40 and my grandparents were born as far back as 1902....she’s older than I am...I dunno, sounds possible - but math isn’t my strong suit. If you come from a family like mine where women have babies ‘late’ it seems pretty plausible...

I would actually be curious to know how many civil cases there are in relation to criminal cases. I’m not saying you are wrong but I’d be curious to know how many people who are not willing to press criminal charges then chose to pursue a civil case. In the abstract, I’d counsel a client that civil case can be just as…

Ha they can seem arbitrary for sure. Most of the time they’re pretty effective and you can see the logic behind them working. Unfortunately it seems like the cases that make it into public discussion often involve some exception to that rule and make the legal system seem more messed up than it is. Which isn’t to…

Unless you need one.

‘Not guilty’ in a court of law and ‘innocent’ are not the same

Well let me be clear I’m speaking generally so there could be reasons specific to this case that make that particular settlement agreement more or less relevant. But in general you can’t look to a past situation as evidence of what happened in this situation (in most cases, there are obviously exceptions). It would…

Well the burden doesn’t just shift to the defense and that’s not all she has to prove. She has to prove each element of a claim. If she does then the burden shifts to the defendant to prove the events of an affirmative defense. Generally speaking. Evidence has to be more relevant than prejudicial - judgment calls. …

The woman in me says ‘ew’ but the lawyer in me thinks ‘smart’.....

If they didn’t think he did anything wrong, do you think they saw anything wrong by taking photographs?

I don’t necessarily disagree but is it rape if she said verbally yes but really didn’t want to say yes and didn’t express that? I’m not sure that fits the legal definition. just because it ain’t right dont mean it ain’t legal. Don’t slay me for saying that, it’s a terrible situation and I’m trying to understand what…

But this isn’t criminal defense. It is a civil case. Right or wrong there are different standards and you can get away with a lot more in a civil case. Not that it makes is morally acceptable but he’s defending himself against a different kind of claim. There’s a lot more explanation that could go into it but as an…

JESUS WTF?

So the fact she was married is the ONLY reason she wouldn’t fuck you, you tiny handed greasy cheeto looking mother fucker??????

50

So as a woman I find this beyond atrocious. As a lawyer, I’m also beyond horrified at his simultaneous doubling down on his belief in the guilt of the young (minority) men originally convicted in the Central Park jogger case. Watch Yusuf Salaam’s interview on MSNBC. That he is so calm and eloquent is a miracle in…

So no.

Are you a little black girl? If not, irrelevant