Lawyers, has an Opposing Lawyer Accidentally WON YOUR CASE for you? - Reddit Podcast

lawyers has there ever been a time the opposing Council accidentally proved your case for you and what happened my favorite is a story from Jerry Spence for those who don't know he's a famous trial attorney a witness on the stand was claiming he had suffered injuries to his arm because of a city bus accident Jerry asked him to demonstrate to the jury how far he can lift his arm after the accident the witness makes a feeble effort of lifting his arm then Jerry asks the witness to demonstrate to the jury how far he could lift his arm before the accident he lifts his arm much higher the jury laughs and the case is over domestic violence case where the husband beat the wife senseless landlord tried to evict wife for breach of lease due to the beating landlord claimed wife violated lease terms by allowing police to be called to property and causing A disruption my argument was that as a domestic violence victim wife is covered under vawa and the property is HUD subsidized also MD law refers to domestic violence protections too landlords counseled during his opening talked about how my client was beaten and the police were called in an ambulance Etc I just stood there looking at him when he finished judge asked if I had anything to say my response know your honor I believe opposing counsel has said everything that needs to be said judge smiled and ruled in my client's favor landlord can't evict a domestic violence victim my family did foster care for a few years and we fell in love with the last girl we took in now my younger sister she was required to keep in regular touch with her emotionally and physically abusive birth mom the intention being for them to avenge actually reunite this woman was a horror every single time they interacted she'd spend the duration painstakingly shredding my sister's self-confidence my parents worked hard to establish a strong Rapport and a supportive environment and she blossomed under their care she's one of the most resilient people I know when the state tried to return her to her mom she didn't want to go so my parents made a claim for guardianship this seemed like it would be an uphill battle here we were a family of randos trying to steal a kid from her rightful mom we were really afraid that she would have to go back and that her crappy family would systematically undo all the hard work she'd done rebuilding her self-esteem fortunately her idiot mom decided to represent herself at the guardianship hearing I wasn't in the room but I heard the audio recording later on and it's incredible how thoroughly this woman shot herself in the foot here are some highlights she kept trying to testify while cross-examining people example would it surprised you to learn that blah blah blah the judge called route for this like six separate times and she just kept doing it she would admit to various incidents of emotional abuse but then try to argue that it was all Justified because her daughter was being a b word she'd ask Witnesses for example and wouldn't you be angry if your daughter did XYZ yes or no my personal favorite and the best example of her proving our case it is absolutely not true that I hit my daughter with a wooden spoon I only tried and missed I'll prove it I can show you the mocking left on the door frame needless to say we won guardianship my sister never has to see that awful woman again unless she damn well pleases I worked as an intern for a lawyer construction laws in France are quite strict in regard to the neighboring of historical monuments the city was denying a permit for heavy modification of the House of our clients they were arguing that because you could see the house from the church's Bell Tower modifications were impossible as a support they kindly linked us to a 360 picture from said Bell Tower we as kindly pointed to them that our client's house was indeed not visible from the top of the church building permit was greenlit the following day not a lawyer but I am a former insurance fraud investigator we were at a hearing before the WCB I had something like 18 hours of video spread over a two-week period of a claim in doing Roofing work the problem for me was that the video didn't get a clear face shot normally what we liked to do was get in close show the face for a positive identification and then zoom out bonus if the claimant was wearing distinctive clothing that could easily be tied to him because of where this guy lived all I could do was show someone who matched his description getting out of a truck registered to him every morning he wore a hat he had a beard and he had neither at the hearing so the company lawyer is prepping me and basically letting me know to be on point because the claimant's attorney is almost certainly going to challenge the fact that it is his client in the video if the video got tossed the case was lost about two minutes into the hearing claiman's attorney agrees to stipulate to the fact that it is his client in all of the video all of it our attorney was shocked that was pretty much the only leg he had to stand on claimant's attorney was in incredibly smug right after this like it was no big deal evidently his strategy was to show that his client wasn't really a professional roofer since he was doing the roof the wrong way he tried to get me to answer questions about Roofing I refused as it was beyond the scope of my work and he just wouldn't let it go after about an hour of back and forth over this the judge finally said counselor it doesn't matter if your client is doing the work well what matters is that he has stated numerous times and under oath that he cannot work whether he's doing it for free for cash or for fun has no bearing on the fact that he's doing Roofing work while collecting compensation benefits which he was awarded because he couldn't do Roofing work the guy lost and had to repay a bunch of benefits after a few of those hearings I began formulating a list of lawyers I would never hire and ones I would absolutely want on my side I had to go to court over a financial mess-up when I was a student took advice from the University legal support team who said I didn't need a solicitor so I went in alone the judge didn't like this and postponed it for another date so I could prove I'd had more counsel first the other party's solicitor caught me outside the court and said I didn't tell you this but and pointed out a huge error in the financial paperwork that made it very obviously come out in my favor went back to legal support got confirmation that it was right went to the second hearing alone and got the entire thing thrown out the other solicitor winked at me as he left saved me about 9k nice chap I had a misdemeanor possession case I was defending client was driving his mom's car he gets pulled over for playing the stereo too loud there are pills in the center console in a prescription pill bottle the bottle has his mom's name on it client gets arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance without a prescription case is obviously Bull and the dumbest D.A I've ever met in my life won't dismiss we go to trial during closing arguments the D.A says this case is a circumstantial evidence case during my closing I slapped the jury instruction on the projector and say that if a case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is one factual scenario that points to guilt and one that points to innocence the jury must find in favor of the defendant and acquit my client was acquitted this seems like a really nasty move from the cop that arrested this kid none of this needed to ever happen when I first started my firm had me on a case where the client claimed he lost because of ineffective assistance of counsel basically saying that the old lawyer didn't do his job so we prepare an argument based on not asking the right questions not communicating Etc we think it's going to be a tough case but not unwinnable then we get the response to our complaint where the old lawyer argues that he was only ineffective because he didn't have time to prepare for the case and only reviewed it the morning of the original trial he had known about the case for months by the way the judge saw this and during the trial we had essentially asked isn't this the definition of ineffective counsel not giving enough time to your client The Silence from his side of the Court was amazing needless to say the trial didn't last much longer than that thanks opposing counsel I guess you were ineffective for both of you I once had a district attorney indicate to the court that if defense Counsel had included this argument in his motions it would possibly be a valid argument I interrupted him with the page number and heading where it was located I was an attorney for the estate of a husband defending against claims for money by the separate estate of a wife over proceeds from the sale of a business back in 1996. both husband and wife died in 2010. suit was filed in early 2011. went to trial in 2014. wife got around 10 percent of the business in 1996. husband got the rest he had built and operated it for 35 years prior to marriage and sold it seven years into the marriage the whole case hinged on whether the valuation of the business in 1996 was reasonable or not we say you can't value a business 15 years later with all the documents gone and all the main people in the business dead or missing they say they have enough info to show the 1996 valuation should have been higher opposing councils get a big time expert to testify that the business sold the 45 million dollars based on evaluation but should have sold for 70 million and the husband hid 25 million in real estate in the transaction we get that testimony and then realize the 1996 value evaluation of the business was done by the same expert this is absolutely the most perfect Catch-22 I have ever seen so now we ask okay so was your evaluation wrong in 1996 or is it wrong now expert says his 1996 valuation was right based on the information he had in 1996 but his valuation now is more correct which then Bears the question what kind of information do you have now that you didn't have in 1996 I don't know I don't have my file from 1996 nobody keeps documents that long and despite this lack of Records his valuation is somehow more correct now judge basically said the expert was talking out of both sides of his butt and we won when I first started practicing I handled a custody case for my client mom had a problem with Dad smoking around the kids I asked him if he regularly smoked around the kids to which he replied that he doesn't smoke tobacco only weed in the house obviously this raised eyebrows as it is illegal in my state he then went into a long diatribe about how he only follows the law of the streets he actually said this and doesn't recognize the authority of the Court he was currently in front of needless to say mom got full custody especially after dad was arrested for going to the court service officer's house late at night and trying to kick her door in my public defender wife was trying a case where the defendant was accused of filling fraudulent prescriptions now keep in mind that public defenders deal with a lot of shady characters who maintain their innocence with increasingly implausible stories as the evidence gets worse so you can get a bit jaded after a while but you don't have to believe your client's story to represent them vigorously so the prosecution has grainy surveillance video of someone who looks like the defendant getting the prescription filled and the ID used to fill it which belongs to the defendant defendant maintains that someone stole his ID and is using it because they look similar and never reported the ideas stolen my wife is skeptical that the jury will go for that but she's always willing to go to trial if that's what the client wants so perhaps that defense and heads into trial prosecutor brings in the pharmacist who reported the prescription issue goes through the usual routine of establishing who she is where she works was this ID used that day Etc finally the prosecutor asks the pharmacist if the person who attempted to fill the prescription that day is in the court room um no oops my opposing counsel made some off-the-cuff remarks about how their client had to go to another remote office to get all the records they wanted to use against my client that let me know the witness they were trying to use to introduce the records as evidence wasn't actually familiar with the records or the records keeping process in the jurisdiction we were in records were exemption to hearsay rule but you needed someone familiar with the creation and maintenance of the records to get them admitted I attacked the witnesses qualifications to get the records admitted and ended up getting the records excluded I then made a motion for a directed verdict on the grounds they couldn't prove the case without the records and one all because the opposing Council complained that their Witnesses had to go way out of their way to get the records for the court I had a hearing where the opposing party offered an updated contract that my client supposedly signed except it was a horrible copy and barely readable then he assured the judge that the new contract was exactly the same as the old contract except for the party the top the original contract was in his mom's name the new one in his name and the date of the contract itself he made that Assurance multiple times after he exhausted himself seeing how everything was the same I pointed out to the judge that half the provisions were different and that my client had never signed that form the judge asked if we were really accusing him of forging my client's signature since that's a serious accusation I held up the guy's prior conviction for contract fraud and said I absolutely am your honor we won hands down no further argument needed I was about five when this happened but my parents explained it years later there was a series of trees on the sidewalk in front of each house on the street although they were not part of our yard the tree was owned by my parents and they were responsible for it some guy tripped over a branch and was seriously injured he came after my parents for all of the money the dude showed up with a mountain of evidence hospital bills psychologists testimonials a photo montage of his slow and painful recovery Etc apparently his lawyer brandished this stuff like a bat before court my parents lawyer thought he had a good case until the first day of Court when he walked over with a picture and asked is this your tree my parents looked at the photo in disbelief no that's actually not our tree the opposing Council repeated the question it went back and forth a few times until my parents lawyer incredulously provided a picture of their tree which was even to the untrained eye a completely different tree at that point the opposing Council world around and started screaming at his client you said it was their tree case summarily dismissed my parents walked out in shock came home and bought me ice cream all's well that ends well plaintiff was claiming insurance money because he accidentally chopped off his fingers while cutting bamboo with a machete and the insurance company our client refused to pay the insured amount during the hearing the plaintiff attorney began to demonstrate with a rolled up sheet of paper how his client was cutting the bamboo when the accident happened no matter how he tried he could not reproduce the position of the fingers with the alleged cut of the machete the only possible match would be if the plaintiff had deliberately extended his fingers over a plane surface and hacked his own fingers based on this disastrous performance the judge determined an expert opinion was needed and later dismissed the case due to deliberate self-mutilation parents were being sued by their landlord and parents had a countersuit against him parents were moving across country and found this house to rent they did a walk through and everything looks great landlord wants first last security and 1500 because they had a dog and two cats fine it was somewhere in the eight thousand to nine thousand dollar range no big deal for them they're set to move in on a Monday so my mom flies in on Saturday to do one final look over sign the contract and get the key perfect they are now the tenants Monday they arrive and the house is trashed the landlord has moved a bunch of his stuff into the garage shed and one of the bedrooms there's stool in the toilet pee on the floor garbage laying everywhere used condoms I can't really do this justice but my mom took pictures and videos throughout the entire house she calls the landlord and tells them they are not moving in with the house in this condition he tells her to clean the house and he'll buy the first tank of oil for the house it was empty tells her to do it or he's keeping all of the money for breach of contract a lot of back and forth happens and ton of harassing texts and phone calls from him court date comes and everyone's ready to submit their evidence in front of the judge parents have photos text the contract videos landlord only has a contract but his contract is different than my parents he's included a section that states they permit him access to the house for his storage needs and that the tenant is responsible for all on-site cleanup and maintenance after accepting the key the best part was that the date of the signatures on his contract was the date they moved in not the date my mom flew in and signed judge tells the landlord he's a special level of stupid and then the judge's final remarks were about how disrespectful the landlord was to show up in shorts a Hawaiian shirt and flip-flops in his courtroom he never paid a dime then claimed bankruptcy and started a business under a different name two years later I went to his house let out all but 19 PSI from all of his tires and super glued the caps on the valve stems I do only civil litigation you would think it would generally be a battle against equals professionals versus professionals it's not I face a fair amount of parties representing themselves Pro Se often otherwise smart people who wouldn't think to do their own Plumbing or operate on their own appendix but have no qualms about impering in court on their own behalf surprisingly they don't know what they're doing one of my favorites from a deposition we didn't pay company X's invoices because we heard they were going through bankruptcy a they weren't and B it wouldn't be a valid defense to non-payments if they had been it happens more often than you would think one attorney that people continue to hire Brian is sort of a legend as opposing counsel four times in six years he has lost cases against my firm where he could have won this is civil litigation but the guy has a knack for spoiling his momentum one in particular the evidence pointed that our client was at fault and we were asked to settle Brian introduced a witness and voicemail to the record we had no knowledge of these and asked to review upon review we were confused as the voicemail had nothing to do with proving their case and made the plaintiff look like a lunatic it was full of incoherent rambling and swearing we allowed the exhibits to be entered and they went over as we expected and we won the counterclaim a guy ended up taking my family to court basically because he'd been dating my mother and things ended so he then takes us to small claims court with an itemized list of everything he'd ever bought the entire family every cheeseburger every KitKat he even billed for things he did like house repairs some of the repairs were terrible and ruined other things he tried to unclog the sink and ended up destroying the main drain pipe for the house now he had bought some more expensive things as well no one asked him to but he was one of the types that loved to show how much money he had and would always talk about his connections and would name drop someone anytime we went anywhere so when he takes us to court with his full itemized list the judge asks him to go first to present his testimony he basically says while I was with them I bought all this stuff I took them to dinner all the time and all this but it was the idea it would be paid back by them judge you bought a child a birthday cake with the idea it would be paid back did you ever say that these things were loans and not gifts him well no but I shouldn't need to that's the normal way people think judge well that's not the way I'd think case dismissed I didn't prosecute this case but I saw it the state was Prosecuting an individual for reckless conduct with a deadly weapon and criminal threatening with a deadly weapon it was a bench trial because the defendant was a foreigner and I guess the defendant was concerned that a jury would be biased against him essentially the state alleged that the defendant waved a gun at two employees of a Dairy Queen and then discharged the gun in the air the defendant was the manager of the Dairy Queen so at the start of the case the state requested a continuance because it could not produce the two employees they had been subpoenaed but didn't show the judge denied the continuance so the state decided to go forward it put on its case but wasn't able to introduce any testimony that the defendant brandished the gun at the employees or that he had discharged it near them there were admissions that he had had a gun that night which he had shown to other people and testimony that that the gun had been discharged State rests defense does not move to dismiss and calls the defendant to the stand I was watching in the gallery with some public defenders because trials were uncommon in that county we immediately begin whispering to each other about how he didn't make the motion to dismiss at halftime the defendant testifies about how he wanted to scare the two employees as a joke then on Cross he testifies how he brandished the gun and what angle he was holding it when he fired defense rests the judge had the longest delivery of verdict that I have ever heard he said something to the effect of it's rare that you find a defendant that convicts himself by his own testimony but that is what happened here without the testimony regarding the gun and the discharge there would be insufficient evidence to convict he goes on and on while the judge was delivering the verdict the defendant was standing obviously he faints and slams his head on the defendant's table he ultimately was taken out of the courtroom on a stretcher and transported to a local hospital there was blood all over the floor the defense attorney who was in his mid-60s looked like he needed medical attention too this would have been an instant ineffective assistance of counsel but he was immediately deported which is the main reason he went to trial because he was also a convicted felon though not charged with felon in possession in this case and ins was only waiting for the conviction to deport him so he was sent back to his home country this was the most messed up thing I've seen in court and have seen some wild stuff I felt bad for the attorney But ultimately contacted lawyers assistants about him because I saw him do other things that were almost as bad as a prosecutor I was worried about his clients who were paying him for the most part as the court was no longer appointing cases to him and his ability to effectively represent them when you subscribe make sure to hit the Bell to turn on notifications put the playlist on in the background to finish listening to all the stories linked at the top of the description and if you like am I the genius give am I the jerk a shot Linked In the description as well either way thanks a lot for watching and we'll see you guys next time

Channel: Am I the Genius?

Views: 1,116,103

Keywords:

Id: POKMQUAdMf0

Length: 22min 9sec (1329 seconds)

Published: Fri Feb 10 2023