What is legal stuff that most laymen ought to know?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Then they shouldn’t interrogate you. The point of Miranda is to confirm that you know of your right to not participate in the investigation, but it’s told to you in the context of asking you to give up those rights. If it’s not clear that you aren’t understanding this, then the police run the risk of having whatever you say get suppressed because you didn’t make a knowing and intelligent waiver of your rights.

(From a practical standpoint, police will usually have you sign a piece of paper that memorializes the fact that you were advised of your rights, understand them, were not made any promises to give them up, and are voluntarily choosing to waive them in order to speak with the police)

And, if in response to the question “do you understand these rights?” you ignore the question and just start telling what happened, you’ll likely be deemed to have made a voluntary statement, and it will he hard to argue that it was a coercive interview unless there’s some extraneous facts to show that you really were confused about what was going on.

22

There’s an episode of Hill Street Blues where Belker arrests a mime.

Jump to 23:20 or so.

23

And a medical power of attorney, perhaps with as detailed of a health directive as you are willing to draft. Don’t make your loved ones deal with the trauma of deciding what care you would or would not want. A general power of attorney for financial matters can be useful as well.

This is very good advice (as is the part about never entering into a deal without a written contract). You do not have to pay someone else’s debt, pretty much ever. If you are unsure, ask for advice from a professional.

Not really a “legal” item, but related to a written contract, never pay 100% up front for anything that will take more than a day to complete. You have very little recourse once you’ve paid, and good luck ever getting your money back.

24

And if he asks, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” What is your yes/no answer to that, assuming you never beat her?

25

If your lawyer doesn’t object to that question, find a new lawyer.

26

I understand that refusing the breath test usually results in a automatic license suspension/revocation - but in my state , DWI/Driving while Ability Impaired can be anything from a traffic infraction to a felony punishable by up to seven years in prison depending on the particular circumstances *. If I might be over the limit, I’d rather get the license suspension than take the test and give them proof that I’m over the limit. ** It’s possible that I can get convicted of the traffic infraction without the breathalyzer based on the officer’s observations , but I can’t see how they would prove that my BAC was over .18 without something in addition to the officer’s observations.

* the actual BAC, whether a child under 15 was in the vehicle, the type of vehicle , previous convictions etc.

** Just to be clear, I don’t drive if I’ve had even one drink

27

“I’m sorry, I can’t answer that question because I don’t beat my wife. Can you please rephrase the question?”

When your lawyer objects to the question, he or she is just preserving it so the can be argued later with the judge, if it gets to that. Meaning, at the depo, even after the question has been objected to, the witness is still supposed to answer, in case the objection is later overruled (the only exception being an objection to attorney client communications).

With that in mind, the lawyer can still clue the client not to answer a bad question:
Lawyer: “I object to the form of the question, but you, my client, can answer, if you can.”

Savvy clients will then say, “I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you mean. Can you rephrase the question?”

Alas, not all clients are savvy. It’s hard to get them to balance “use your common sense” with my advice not to help the other side by giving extended answers or volunteering information.

So, no, you don’t need to respond to “how old are you?” with “well, I don’t have specific recollection of when I was born, but based on what my parents have consistently told me since I was a child, I’d say (and this is just an educated guess) than I’m 43.”

But, if you’re asked some question about how your business operates, or what you saw, or what transpired (you know, the types of things that are litigated over), being careful and circumspect is important. And if the opposing attorney is making unfounded assumptions, correcting him at a deposition just gives him time to correct them. We’ll give the “yeah, buts” to all of these questions, but at a later time.

28

While my lawyer is objecting and demanding sanctions, I stand up and walk out, shaking my head in disgust.

29

It’s a fair point. If you are totally smashed (2 or 3 times the legal limit), it might be worth it to take the license suspension and refuse.

But if you are close? I’d give it a go. Part of the defense argument is that you don’t give the sample until an hour or more* after you were last driving, and alcohol metabolizes over time, so you were actually much lower when last driving.

*as part of a valid breath test, there is a required 20 minute observation period during which the officer is supposed to make sure you don’t drink water, put anything in your mouth, or regurgitate

30

Good point, I have seen many heirs screwed out of their inheritance, because no will.

At least in CA, if the will is simple " I leave everything to my wife" you can do a holographic will, without a lawyer, or a notary or a witness.

“I can’t answer that with a yes or no answer. Or I do not understand that question” They can’t force you to answer just yes or now.

31

Is this only for defendants or all depositions? Such as a neutral witness? Victim?

~Max

32

A witness or victim to a crime will just give sworn statements to law enforcement. An interview is not a deposition.

If you are in a deposition, you are almost certainly a party to a lawsuit, and the person who is taking your deposition is the opposing counsel.

In the rare instances where a person is being deposed in a criminal case, it’s still probably being taken by opposing counsel. Depositions are by their nature antagonistic.

ETA: I guess there can be witness depos in civil cases, too, as I think about it. But if you were a cooperative witness, you wouldn’t need to sit for one. You can just talk to the people. So if you are being deposed, it’s still likely an antagonistic process.

33

Drivers with dashcams should know about laws relating to “spoliation of evidence”. Obviously, dashcam video can be useful in showing that you were not at fault in a traffic incident.

But if you are suspected of being at fault and it’s found you had a working dashcam whose video has conveniently disappeared, under spoliation of evidence rules it can legally be presumed that the absent video showed you to be in the wrong.

Disclaimer: IANAL, and these rules no doubt vary with location.

34

On further reflection, since this question is going to end up being discussed in front of the judge, maybe I’d just channel Bill Burr and respond as he would.

35

Since I’ve brought up the topic of depositions, and tried to give you a sense of how a lawyer would prepare a client to be deposed…there’s a semi-famous (real) deposition, where a person had quite obviously been told that they needed to be very specific and make sure that the lawyer was precise, which has been re-enacted for your viewing pleasure.

The deponent insisted on clarification on the meaning of “photo copying machine”. The lawyer trying to take the deposition proceeds to lose his shit.

36

Just how do they stop one from regurgitating?

37

It’s not so much that they to stop them as they have to start a new 20 minute period in order to get an accurate test.

38

Even at a deposition I retain the right to object to the form of a question. In this case it’s a compound question (did you previously beat your wife, and do you still do it). It’s also asking about a crime, spousal abuse, so there are 5th Amendment grounds to object and instruct the client not to answer.

39

Yes, you are right, but the person is still obligated to answer after an objection is made. A decent lawyer would recognize his mistake and rephrase. Or, the witness will follow her lawyer’s lead and ask the other lawyer to refine the question.

But if the lawyers don’t agree on what constitutes a “compound question”, there’s no person to resolve that dispute at the deposition - nobody’s getting the judge on the phone. All you can do is present the record later to the judge, and if your opponent is being unreasonable ask for sanctions. That’s why you object and then answer (unless it’s attorney client communications, in which case the lawyer should instruct their client not to answer)

In my experience, this is something you should be careful with. If it’s material to the civil case, your opponent may be entitled to an “adverse inference” based on your refusal to answer. Civil cases are decided by the preponderance of the evidence, so that may be enough to make the difference in the outcome.

So, let’s suppose you are sued for civil damages arising out of an allegation that you beat your wife. If you refuse to deny that you did beat her by invoking the 5th amendment, you may be avoiding a confession under oath that can be used to convict you of a crime, but you are sort of conceding the point in her civil case against you for money damages, especially if she has injuries and a consistent story.

So, if you really didn’t beat your wife, I’d suggest denying it when asked at a deposition where she’s suing you for having done so.

40

Hopefully, if I have prepared my witness properly, she will remember that this objection means that she should say she can’t answer it. Of course they don’t always. I have to say though, in all the depositions I have defended, I have never had opposing counsel refuse to reword a clearly compound question. Now that I say that, I am sure it will happen in the next one.

Sure, but if the answer is going to be: “yes, I used to beat the hell out of her and I probably will tonight, too” then the adverse inference is better than the answer. If the answer is going to be “never have and never will” then I wouldn’t need to raise the objection.

In any event, I was thinking more of a situation where counsel tries to bring it up in an unrelated case, i.e. not between the husband and wife, just to belittle or embarrass my client.