I’m pretty sure the Sandy Hook lawyers were well aware of the law and their obligations prior to bringing this forth. Given that it was introduced as evidence of perjury, I bet they’re on the ethical ball here.
From a Rolling Stone article:
When Jones attempted to tell the jury he was bankrupt Tuesday during his own testimony, he was admonished by Judge Maya Guerra Gamble for lying under oath.
“You believe everything you say is true, but your beliefs do not make something true,” Gamble said. “That is that is what we’re doing here. Just because you claim to think something is true does not make it true. It does not protect you. It is not allowed. You’re under oath. That means things must actually be true when you say them.”
Right now, as I type this, Alex Jones is being asked questions to which the opposing counsel knows the answer and he does not. He knows they have more information than he expected, and if he is not sweating bullets it’s because he is legitimately insane.
Speaking of ethical concerns, there is this (also from NBC’s Ben Collins):
I suspect there is a reasonable exception here, considering this is exactly what was requested during the discovery phase and Jones and his team replied “yeah no sorry we can’t find that.” Making a mistake is one thing, whereas accidentally complying with a legal demand one originally intended to ignore is something else.
To be fair, he could be psychopathic instead.
… I stand corrected.
This is from four years ago, but it’s fun, too:
TFW you realize your attorneys are also part of the Deep State…
Lawyer’s questioning from one of those reporter’s twitter feed:
BANKSTON: Did you know 12 days ago your attorney’s messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you’ve sent for the past 2 years? And when informed did not take any steps to identify it as privilege?
So yep, opposing council was informed about their fuck up and apparently didn’t reply. As Cervaise notes since they were required to turn this over in discovery anyway and didn’t, they may have been between a rock and a hard place when they inadvertently disclosed what they were supposed to but said they didn’t have.
Or maybe one of Jones’ lawyers has grown to secretly despise him and they are shooting their own career in the foot to crush him 
. Seems unlikely, but he IS exceedingly gross.
The nectar of schadenfreude is seldom this sweet. This is a fine vintage, indeed.
Apparently, if the other side doesn’t do something about it within a set period of time, the plaintiff’s attorneys can use the evidence. Lawyer on the news is saying that they’ve been able to do this for the last 2 days.
I think he’s screwed.
I’m very happy about that.
Jones needs to go to jail for the rest of his life. Period.
In their follow-up questioning, Jones’s lawyers simply asked him: “Did you trust us to do a good job?” And Jones answered yes.
The attorneys are deeply fucked on a variety of fronts, but this might be a last-ditch attempt to establish a basis for Jones to file some sort of procedural motion on the grounds that he relied on counsel and counsel was incompetent and failed him. Meaning that, if granted, they’ll have to go back and do all of this over again.
Although it may be that the Sandy Hook lawyers “informed” Jones’ lawyers of the mistake as a single sentence that was buried in a 60 page e-mail. I know that’s how I would handle it if I were them.
Can he possibly make that argument when this info was supposed to be handed over in discovery, and they all lied about it?
Not a particularly likely result in a civil case.
No, but a perjury trial should follow.
Also, I hope the judge in the bankruptcy case throws it out. It’s clearly a pile of bullshit.
No backsies!
Seriously though, what would keep a defendant from hiring one incompetent lawyer after another in a string that lasts for decades?
Other than pissing the judge off, of course.
An attorney for the parents of a child killed in the Sandy Hook massacre showed a jury video on Wednesday of U.S. conspiracy theorist Alex Jones telling his Infowars viewers that the jury in his defamation case was full of people who “don’t know what planet they’re on.”
Keep digging, you piece of shit. Keep digging. I hope the members of the jury sue him for defamation once the case is over.
I am unaware of a theory that gets you a new trial in a civil case for incompetent counsel. That’s certainly a thing in criminal cases, where a defendant has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. In a civil case, I think all you would get is the chance to sue your lawyer for malpractice.