Mistrial does not mean 'this is not going well for us so want a do over".
I’m sure they can try that, but I’m also 100% sure the judge will either say “nice try” if she’s in a good mood, or warn them that they’re on her last nerve if she isn’t.
I suppose I should say that they can’t plausibly claim it as privileged. If they could, they would have, at least once the shit hit the fan.
Yes, that is likely the case.
I also expect that they would need to explain why something is confidential, and the judge would need to accept it as a reasonable explanation. The medical stuff seems like a no-brainer, but I have no idea what would be accepted as okay. And as you said, they don’t have a lot of time to do this.
Also, they just don’t seem to be very good at this even if they did have more time.
Any state standard would be limited by the 4th amendment:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Again, I’m not a lawyer, but everything that I’ve ever seen has taken the stance that if it’s not reasonably related to the criminal accusation at hand then it’s privileged. You’re not allowed to freely root through peoples’ stuff, looking for crimes. You need a reasonable basis for thinking that a crime was committed, you need a reasonable basis to think that you could find information that would help to prove/disprove the accusation in a certain place, and you can only look in that specific place.
For example, in Clinton’s email server case, the FBI had specific search queries that they were allowed to run on her email. They could only consider materials that popped out from exactly those queries. Now if, in those resulting outputs, some other criminal matter happened to be discussed then that could be followed up on. But even there, you would need to go back to the judge and request the right to execute with a new search query.
Effectively, everything is privileged - minus a reasonable expectation that there’s something relevant to the specific topic at hand.
And yet if you let the cops into your house willingly and they see piles of illegal contraband laying around, you have absolutely zero claim to 4th Amendment protection.
It’s not illegal search and seizure when you give something to someone willingly. Especially if you ask them, “Are you sure about this?” And they shrug in response.
That’s fair and that’s certainly the argument that I would use if I had scoured the phone for criminal matters for the two days before the trial.
Besides, any emails or texts or any other type of file dealing with Sandy Hook is probably not covered by that, since they were legally required to hand those over in discovery and claimed the files didn’t exist. Now the judge knows the files exist and any attempt to claim privilege for information they were supposed to hand over isn’t likely to go well.
Any chance that Jones’ lawyer can claim that by saying “disregard the link” that he did respond properly?
As I understand it, they plaintiffs’ lawyers asked for a different link and none was provided. I believe that was how there was implied permission to use the original link anyway.
Wouldn’t they have had to specifically state it was a mistake and there’s material they want kept confidential?
Possibly, a motion to retract or some such.
(I ain’t a lawyer so I don’t know what the proper procedure would be.)
It’s possible that a simple, “Oops, my bad, please don’t,” does not meet the legal requirement.
Maybe it’s like the difference between someone specifically saying they invoke their right to silence, and someone just shaking their head when asked questions. I do know that you have to be explicit about exerting your 5th Amendment rights, an implication isn’t enough. This could be along those lines.
Jury finds 4 million in damages. Pocket change for Jones. He was making that in a week.
Now we wait to see what the Punitive damages will be. Hope it’s a lot more.
And LegalEagle says he’s working up 2 videos about the Alex Jones Mess.
Punitive judgement coming in tomorrow.
I’m hoping for $666,000,000. 
Well, this was predictable. Just like following Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony when the talking point became “the hearings are all hearsay”, now we have the response to today being “wait, so we’re not allowed to have an opinion or be skeptical anymore?”.
I fucking hate 20 - 30% of this country sometimes.
“Anything over $2 million will sink us.”
Have an anchor, Alex. And an anvil for good measure.
He has pulled 68 million out of his company in the past 2 years. The comment “2 million will sink us” was intended entirely for the jury.
Understood. I just meant that if $2M were enough to “sink” him, I’d gladly help by providing the items mentioned. Plus a few sash weights as a bonus.
In one day, he sold $800,000 in shitty merch
Favorite quote from this article:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/04/media/alex-jones-trial-sandy-hook-decision/index.html
“Speech is free, but lies you have to pay for,” the Sandy Hook family attorneys argued to the jury during their opening statements and closing arguments.
And they’re not done yet. Punitive damages in this case haven’t been awarded yet, and there are more lawsuits in work.