# I am confused about Alex Jones' lawyer's "mistake" in sending all of Jones' phone contents to the plaintiffs **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 4, 2022, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096 "2022-08-04T15:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/141 "2022-08-05T21:49:44Z")
Right. In this scenario, the police in the other county did all their own legwork tracking down my partner, getting the warrant, and getting those texts. My idiot partner saved my contact info with my real name, which is unusual enough that the police were able to identify me. They looked me up and realized I’m out of their jurisdiction, so they contacted the cops in my county and saved their sorry fourth-amendment-violating butts. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/142 "2022-08-05T21:53:17Z")
$45million in punitives (from the jury). We’ll see what Judge does with that. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/143 "2022-08-05T21:55:37Z")
Well, it might not be enough to _actually_ bankrupt him, but it sends a message. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/144 "2022-08-05T21:59:57Z")
Note, too, that this is the first of three civil trials. There’s another in Texas and a third one in Connecticut. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/145 "2022-08-05T22:38:29Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > No, the “you” in “what are you gonna do, call them up to the stand and ask them how they’re doing?” was meant to refer to the prosecutor. The prosecutor would have a hard time coming up with questions the defendant would actually have to answer, so there’s not much point in the prosecutor trying. There’s not much point in the prosecutor trying, BECAUSE THEY CANNOT call the accused to the stand unless they are cross examining after the defense has put the accused on the stand. This is the point you seem to be missing. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/146 "2022-08-05T22:56:59Z")
Can the lawyers from those trials request the phone records from this trial? ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/147 "2022-08-05T23:04:21Z")
In case it hasn’t been mentioned, the prosecution cannot call the defendant to the stand. If the defense puts the defendant up there, then the prosecution gets a whack at him. I am not _even_ a lawyer. This is like basic introductory civics 101. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/148 "2022-08-05T23:14:24Z")
They can’t demand it, but can they make a private request, with the stipulation that the request would not be made public if turned down? Mr. Jones _does_ like to run his mouth off at the most inopportune times, y’know. ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/149 "2022-08-05T23:48:02Z")
It’s unlikely that Jones and others would all be tried together, with others being simultaneously tried for multiple crimes, some of which Jones was involved in, and others with which he isn’t involved but has personal knowledge of. Such a mega-trial would probably be broken down into multiple smaller trials. But if it weren’t, it might be possible that, in a trial where Jones was one of the defendants, he might be called as a witness to one of the crimes of which he has knowledge but no involvement. Or, as I alluded to earlier, he could be called to testify as to one of the crimes with which he was involved, if he were given immunity. Now, if he is smart and knows his rights and wants to stay out of jail, he’ll work with his lawyer in advance to cut a deal to get leniency on the crime(s) he did in exchange for his testimony regarding all crimes of which he has knowledge. If he’s smart and knows his rights, and if he’s more loyal to the others than to himself, _and_ if he’s willing to essentially lie, then he might, when called to testify about a crime he has knowledge of but wasn’t involved with, plead the fifth. He’s not actually allowed to do this, because he doesn’t believe the answer would incriminate him. If his lawyer advised him to plead the fifth, knowing the answer wouldn’t intimidate him, that would be an ethical violation. Now, practically speaking, he and the lawyer would likely get away with this, because of the substantial deference given to fifth amendment pleas. But there’s a difference between what you can get away with, and what the law actually allows, and this falls into that gap. But what if Jones isn’t smart and/or doesn’t know his rights? Suppose he’s being tried as a mere accessory after the fact for hiding one piece of evidence implicating one minor player in the January 6 shenanigans. But it turns out Trump gave all the orders for everything that happened and some more terrible stuff that didn’t. And suppose Trump called Jones on the eve of trial and told him everything. And suppose the prosecutor somehow found out about this. Here’s how it might play out: In the movie version, the prosecutor calls Jones to the stand, the whole courtroom gasps, and Jones’s lawyer leaps to his feet, sputtering. The judge yells “counsel, my chambers, now!” In the real life version, the prosecutor just asks for an in-chambers conference, knowing this is gonna be a whole thing and not wanting to piss off the judge with a bunch of unnecessary drama. Once in chambers, the prosecutor explains the situation. Defense counsel is given an opportunity to confer with his client. Perhaps a continuance is sought and granted, to give the parties a chance to work things out. But ultimately, the prosecutor is allowed to call Jones to the stand and ask what Trump said in that phone call. And if Jones refuses to answer, the judge will probably send the jury out and explain to Jones that he has to answer unless the answer would incriminate him. And if Jones, having boned up on the law by reading this thread, proudly tells the judge “of course it won’t incriminate me, but I’m a defendant; therefore I don’t have to testify if I don’t want to! You can’t make me take the stand at all!” Then the judge will explain again what I’ve been trying to explain, and if Jones continues to insist that the testimony wouldn’t incriminate him but that he still won’t give it, the judge could hold him in contempt. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2022, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/150 "2022-08-05T23:51:33Z")
> [@Atamasama](#): > > I can only speculate that he either felt that the lawsuit was so baseless that he couldn’t lose (which is silly; that would only work if the suit had been thrown out at the beginning) or that there was no point in showing up because the trial was being railroaded by the left. That is what he’s selling his audience. I’ve seen this from that crowd not only with suits but with criminal cases such as shootings, for instance: loudly claiming that _in a just world, there would be no case to begin with, because this is my God-given RIGHT_. That it is so obvious [Person X has absolute freedom to say anything]/[Person Y had the absolute right to shoot the scary “thug”] that _there being a case at all is an injustice_ and the defendant should not even be bothered. > [@](#): > > There is definitely some cognitive dissonance. He said, “We are determined to see that these cases are heard on the merits.” But how can you do that when you don’t even show up? By using classic DARVO and reversing victimization planting in his marks the notion that a trial on the merits has to be about challenging _the plaintiffs’_ merits. That he would welcome a trial in which _he_ would put the families on the stand to bully them on _his_ schedule and terms, or which would just be a platform for him to further propagate his bullshit. It takes advantage of the confusion about burden of proof and requirement to respond between civil vs. criminal that the bulk of the population suffers from. > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > This way, he gets to continue his childish fact-free ranting and claim he didn’t _really_ lose the case. Exactly. “They did not beat us in fair battle, we were betrayed by those in High Places.” Gotta grant it to him, that one’s been a classic for a hundred years. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/151 "2022-08-06T00:11:02Z")
> [@Horatius](#): > > Jones is so desperate for the attention and approval of people like that that he’ll screw himself over in the process of trying to get them to like him. Sux to be him, then. Life isn’t middle school where you can ingratiate yourself to the mean girls and have nothing happen off of the school grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/152 "2022-08-06T00:11:06Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > In the movie version, the prosecutor calls Jones to the stand Once again, THIS CAN’T HAPPEN! How can we take anything you say on legal matters seriously if you keep making this fundamental mistake? ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/153 "2022-08-06T00:22:37Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Once again, THIS CAN’T HAPPEN! How can we take anything you say on legal matters seriously if you keep making this fundamental mistake? I think that’s why it was said the “movie version”; movie trials get the details wrong all the time. ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/154 "2022-08-06T03:03:50Z")
OK, let’s try another bizarre hypo. Jones is criminally charged for, I dunno, something criminal. He doesn’t get along with his criminal attorneys any better than he’s gotten along with his ten consecutive civil attorneys, and he demands to represent himself. He is so confident in his invincibility that he actually wants to take the stand, and tells the prosecutor to go ahead and call him. So, come trial, the prosecutor calls him to the stand. The judge is maybe a little nervous about this and calls a recess to make sure Jones understands his rights. Jones affirms that he does and that he’s fine with this. On what basis do you think the judge can refuse to let the prosecutor call him to testify? Here’s the text of the fifth amendment with the relevant sections bolded. > **No person** shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor **shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself** , nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The language matters. Both the “compelled” part, and the “against himself” part. Remember, in my first bizarre hypo, Jones isn’t being called as a witness against himself; he’s being called as a witness against Trump. It’s not about whether you’re the defendant; it’s just that the overlap between being a defendant and being asked a relevant question that could incriminate you is almost 100%. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/155 "2022-08-06T03:17:06Z")
From the ABA link above: > In a criminal case, the witnesses presented by the defense may or may not include the defendant. Because the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against self-incrimination, the prosecution cannot require the defendant to take the stand and explain what happened, nor can it comment or speculate on the reasons the defendant has chosen not to testify. The jury will be instructed not to take into account the fact that the defendant did not testify. If the defendant wants to testify he must do so by himself, the judge won’t allow the prosecution to call him as a witness. In your scenario Jones could testify in his own defense, and then the prosecution would cross examine. The defendant isn’t a witness, he’s the defendant. He can’t be called as a witness against Trump because Trump isn’t on trial. Can you post a single example of the prosecution ever calling a defendant to the stand? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/156 "2022-08-06T03:47:24Z")
> [@Esprise\_Me](#): > > On what basis do you think the judge can refuse to let the prosecutor call him to testify? The prosecutor does not “call him” to the stand. The defense does. The prosecutor may then cross-examine. I suppose in bizzaro-world , the defense might call up their own client and then not ask him any questions at all… But that simply does not and will not happen. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/157 "2022-08-06T04:12:11Z")
Been reading more about this weird piece of information as the day went on: > [@](#): > > Reynal applied for admission pro hac vice — for the Jones case only — in Connecticut on July 6, 2022, [court records show](https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23093304). Pattis told Judge Bellis during a July 14 [hearing](https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23170903) that Reynal held “a unique position of confidence” and “trust” with Jones and that his own relationship with Jones showed signs of “strain.” > > By July 26, however, Pattis told Bellis that Reynal [would not be appearing on behalf of Jones](https://lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/connecticut-judge-balks-at-defense-attorney-musical-chairs-as-sandy-hook-families-seek-to-tie-alex-jones-to-white-supremacy/) in Connecticut and said Reynal wished to avoid the [fees and taxes imposed on out-of-state counsel](https://www.jud.ct.gov/sgc/faq_prohacvice.htm) who appear in select Connecticut proceedings. Regardless, Reynal was issued a Connecticut attorney registration number, according to an [attorney search page](https://www.jud.ct.gov/attorneyfirminquiry/attorneyfirminquiry.aspx) maintained by the Connecticut Judicial Branch and to the judge’s [order](https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=23286833). In short, some are arguing that Reynal’s CT petition may have been done under fraudulent pretenses, to briefly attach himself to the CT case as to get evidence which could help him with his TX case. The scope of the hearing is about medical records, so the above isn’t going to be explored. But, you know… many people _are_ saying… ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/158 "2022-08-06T04:46:24Z")
I’ve read through this thread and unless I missed it, I don’t see any mention that it was _not_ Alex Jones’s cell phone which was sent to the Texas attorney but an image of the _hard drive belonging to the Infowars attorney in the Connecticut case_, Mr Pattis, mentioned above. Blankston, the Texas attorney, effectively got the CT trials defense records. Their internal memos. The shit they didn’t hand over in discovery. As well as 2.2 gigs of text and email data from Alex Jones’s phone. As well as medical records they weren’t allowed to have, much less distribute. This isn’t just a cell phone, it’s 300 gigs of Infowars’s lead attorney’s hard drive. And Reynal just… gave… it up. So, here’s what happened from what I can piece together: 1. Reynal comes on board the Texas case, I think the 11th lawyer on this one case. 2. He has to get up to speed, quickly. 3. A petition is filed in CT, joining Reynal to the CT case in early July, 2022. 4. … this is probably when the data is given to Reynal… 5. Late July 2022, Reynal withdraws the petition, saying he didn’t want to do the time, expense, and taxes. 6. Now Reynal knows the strategy of what’s happening in CT and, hopefully, can do a variant of the same in TX. 7. Oops! ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/159 "2022-08-06T05:17:39Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > I’ve read through this thread and unless I missed it, I don’t see any mention that it was _not_ Alex Jones’s cell phone which was sent to the Texas attorney but an image of the _hard drive belonging to the Infowars attorney in the Connecticut case_, Mr Pattis, mentioned above. There are something like 3 or 4 threads on this case, and yeah it has been mentioned more than once. It’s huge. ---
**Author:** ![Esprise\_Me](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprise_me/32/2947_2.png) [@Esprise\_Me](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprise_Me)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2022, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096/160 "2022-08-06T05:45:36Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The prosecutor does not “call him” to the stand. > > The defense does. The prosecutor may then cross-examine. I suppose in bizzaro-world , the defense might call up their own client and then not ask him any questions at all… But that simply does not and will not happen. This is getting tiresome. Yes, that is how it plays out in practice. But that is not what the constitution mandates. Incidentally, the reason the prosecutor can cross-examine the defendant once his own lawyer has put him on the stand is that the defense has opened the door and thereby forfeited the privilege. If the defendant takes the stand to testify to one specific thing–“I was 3,000 miles away the night of the murder”–that does not give the prosecutor carte blanche to interrogate the defendant about every time he might ever have broken the law in his entire life. You know that, right? So why would you think that the defense attorney putting his client on the stand and then not asking him a single question would allow the prosecutor to do something he otherwise couldn’t do? And yes, we are in bizarro world. Nothing like Alex Jones’s horrifying campaign to destroy the lives of the Sandy Hook families has ever been seen before. Nothing like the January 6 insurrection has ever happened before. I for one could not have imagined such things a few years ago. I don’t think I can now imagine every ridiculous scenario that might unfold over the next few years. We have been enjoying a world where people in power commonly observe a kind of buffer around the laws–they refrain from doing things they aren’t technically, specifically, clearly legally prohibited from doing, because that’s just the way things are done. But that world is crashing down around us. It’s a good time to go back and review what the laws actually say, as opposed to how they’ve historically been observed. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-am-confused-about-alex-jones-lawyers-mistake-in-sending-all-of-jones-phone-contents-to-the-plaintiffs/969096.md?page=9)