I guess it depends what her “jury requirements” were. I assume there is a requirement for the lawyer to not be specifically selective on certain grounds. (race, religion, and gender come to mind)
sometimes there is a question about whether the key prosecution witness will appear. (DV victims, usually, but it could be anyone) 1) The defendant shows up at trial. 2) The Prosecutor says “our witness is here and we’re ready to go.” 3) The defendant pleads guilty to something. If the witness doesn’t show, (depending on the other evidence available) the charges are dropped or defendant takes a better deal.
An acquaintance once told me about a different tactic. The defendant did not show when the trial sessions started at 10AM. Then he finally showed up just before noon for a trial scheduled to start at 11AM. Trial was held over until after lunch. (Case was one of a group of vandals who had burned down a local building)
Another lawyer explained it to him this way… “They don’t issue a warrant for non-appearance until after the session ends at noon if he’s still a no-show - so show up at 11:59AM. The defendant’s lawyer was hoping the overloaded overworked prosecutor would simply drop the charges. Fat chance. Or, at least put the trial off for another few months until it can be rescheduled. That didn’t work. The judge is retired, and only working mornings on contract because he’s helping clear a huge backlog of cases. He’s happy to have a trial go into the afternoon occasionally, because he gets more money. Everyone’s playing the system. It’s not justice, it’s a game.”
He punches with the power of kicks!
But I’m not “using” the Sun in any volitional way; it’s shining whether I ask it to or not.
Related story: I got a ticket for speeding for something ridiculous like 2 mph over the limit. A friend said to get my speed calibrated (one of his brothers was a CHP officer). I did and there was enough of a discrepancy that I thought I had a case, so I decided to fight it. I got directed to some weird storefront “court” to file my case, and there was a trainee at the desk. He was really nervous. Like really nervous.
I get my court date and show up with all the other retrobates. Those of us who had already scheduled challenges were chatting, and then one by one they were called up to the very no nonsense judge. If their cop was there, they lost their case. I was still sitting there when they moved on to the people who’d just shown up on the day. I was amused to see some of the excuses, but nobody got off without at least a fine. After a few had finished with the judge I was wondering why I hadn’t been called, so I caught the bailiff’s attention. He talked to the clerk, then to the judge. It took a little time, but finally he came over and said my cop didn’t show, so I won by default. Yay, me!
I’m sure that nervous first-day-guy goofed somehow, and my cop was never notified. But, heck, I’ll take it.
Can I sue because she’s letting her sun trespass on my property against my will? Would it be good enough if I send her a certified letter demanding she stop the trespass?
IANAL but I get the impression that things like this happen every day in every courtroom. It may not be justice in the individual case of Mr. Buidling Vandal, but given the immense power of the state, defense lawyers who play games with the schedule and whatnot are tilting the scales toward fairness in the aggregate.
I saw someone try this in court once. f course, it was for a much different case - about 10 or more over the limit. (I gather the old car had been refitted with larger rims/tires) The judge simply said “It’s up to you to be sure your car is working properly.” Basically, when he tried that excuse the guy was admitting he’d been speeding.
(I had a friend who bought an ancient pickup, back in the 1970’s, with the same problem. “Wow, we were making good time - 75mph all the way.” When we got to the 90-mile point, checked the time, we’d been doing 60mph.)
I fought the last ticket I got - “your wheels did not come to a complete stop at the sign”. It took 4 months for them to get a court date, for 16 months after the ticket. I got there and there were about 20 others waiting too. When they opened the doors, the clerk read off a list - maybe half the names - “your charges have been dropped.” I heard from someone who’d beat several tickets that way, that if you had a clean driving record, they didn’t bother fighting it if you contested a ticket. They were relying on the people who just paid without arguing, to rake in their money.
Just wait until the bill she receives if we ever have another Carrington event.
UPDATE: Afroman has prevailed!
I really, really think the Ohio Bar Association needs to have a word with the attorney(s) who represented the cops in this suit. Anyone who has set foot in any American law school would have known that this case was doomed from the beginning, and should have told the cops so. Seriously, does “well, the check cleared” mean an attorney is free to pursue a dead-end case that’s just going to waste the court’s time?
I can’t speak for the attorneys in this case, but in the vast majority of civil suits like this, the plaintiff’s attorneys are paid per a contingency fee agreement. No victory, no fee. So, the attorneys took on a risky case (that happens) and lost their wager. (this is the reason “frivolous” lawsuits are truly not a problem in our system. Attorneys have a strong incentive to only take cases that have a valid claim.)
Well, frivolous lawsuits filed on behalf of poor people aren’t a problem.
Fair point. We have probably the worst offender as exhibit POTUS.
According to one report, some of the police argued the stress from the mockery had caused their marriage to fail. Afroman’s lawyer put some ex-wives on the stand who testified the song and video had nothing to do with their divorce.
Also, in terms of civil suits, never underestimate the vindictiveness of some clients. They will refuse to listen to the lawyer. Perhaps these plaintiffs thought that their status as law enforcement gave them special status with the judge and jury. (I wonder what the jury demographic was like?)
But here in Canada, the USA has a reputation for frivolous lawsuits (not sure how true) that people will sue at the drop of a hat, especially against large corporations and other deep pockets. They are hoping they will be paid to go away, rather than the corporation risking an unsympathetic jury.
I won’t say it never happens, but it’s rare for the reasons I gave upthread. However, allegations of frivolous lawsuits are very common. One day the defendants will say the claims are frivolous, and the next day they may pay 7 figures. I assure you, large corporations know that “paying someone to go away” would only encourage more lawsuits. They don’t do it.
I would have to see a cite for “vast majority.” Thats not the case in my limited experience. Cases with a possibility of a big payout and a better than reasonable chance of winning or settlement? Sure. Most of the time I’ve seen lawyers requiring a retainer. Especially in this case I couldn’t see it. Afroman doesn’t have deep pockets and at best this was an uphill battle. Only a really bad lawyer would take this on contingency
My only cite is 38 years of representing plaintiffs in civil cases, and being active in groups of lawyers who represent plaintiffs in civil cases. I’ve done this in jurisdictions throughout the United States. I think I’ve had exactly one client who elected to pay me hourly rather than on a contingent basis. I’ve probably heard of 2 or 3 other instances from other lawyers. A tiny percentage. This particular case could very well be the exception, for the reasons you outline.
ETA: If I thought a case lacked merit, I would not sign up for it, even if paid hourly. Life is too short for taking sucky cases. Although of course it happens unintentionally from time to time.
So every case you take is a gamble? You sometimes work for years before you see a dime? I certainly don’t have your experience but the times I’ve run into civil cases the lawyer isn’t willing to take that chance. The exception I’ve seen are the big injury firms you see advertising on tv who make their living off of volume and insurance company settlements. Not trials.
Yes. It’s a crazy life. High risk, high reward. It’s why we try to be very selective on the cases we take, but we still have to live with a lot of uncertainty.
CAVEAT. I’m taking about representing injured people, victims of discrimination, as well as defamation cases and similar things. There are tons of civil cases that are just corporations suing each other (or a variety of other things) which would be handled on an hourly basis.