Lawyers, When Did The Opposing Party Prove Your Case? (Reddit Stories r/AskReddit)

lawyers has there ever been a time the opposing counsel accidentally prove your case for you and what happened my favorite is a story from Jerry Spence for those who don't know he is a famous trial attorney a witness on the stand was claiming that 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 up his arm after the accident when 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 up his arm before the accident he lifts his arm much higher the jury laughs the case is over not a lawyer but took my bills landlord to small claims court he's on SSI and I'm his cancer Victor we sued her for over four thousand dollars after she just decided she didn't like him and change the locks on his apartment door she also stuffed all of his belongings into trash bags and dragged them out to the curb this was all done the day after she cashed his rent check it all started because she was letting herself into his apartment with no notice and was going through his stuff while he was gone when I found out about this I told him to let her know that was not okay he did and that's why she kicked him out I'm very organized and presented the judge with a folder containing photos receipts short videos on DVD in the sheriff core logs as well as a concise timeline of events the landlord showed up with her son and countersuit for the exact same amount we were suing them for claiming that the apartment was trashed there were holes in the walls and they would have to repair everything before being able to rent again during the hearing the judge asked for evidence of the damage to the room the son whipped out his cellphone and showed a video panning and walking around the room the video showed my bills apartment obviously still being lived in his stuff was all still there and no visible damage but there were a lot of posters and things hung on the walls when the judge looked at the video he asked where is the damage the son replied you can't see it it's behind all of the posters the judge frowned and looked at the video again and then said did you take this video when he was still living there at this the son replied yes this was the clincher the judge then asked did you ask his permission to enter the apartment to take this video silence we were awarded the full amount this should be a lot higher up I'm glad your brother is safe now 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 least terns 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 Vaughn the property is HUD subsidized also mdl off SBV protections to landlords council 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 no your honor I believe opposing counsel has said everything that needs to be said judge smiled and ruled in my clients favor landlord can't evict DV victim that landlord sounds like a garbage human I worked as an intern for a lawyer construction law 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 degree picture from said bell tower we as kindly pointed to them that our clients 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 or the claimant doing roofing work the problem for me was that the video didn't get a clear face shot normally what we like 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 a show some 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 earth or hearing so the company lawyer is prepping me and basically letting me know to be on point because the claimants 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 claimants attorney agrees to stipulate to the fact that it is his clients 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 attorney was 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 garlis turn 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 worked for a PI some of our most lucrative work was surveillance of personal injury claimants one guy was supposed to be unable to remove his surgical collar from around his neck we got some great footage of him doing so and sporting a rich deep suntan I had to go to court over a financial dong 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 went at me as he left saved me about 9k pounds nice chapter what a great act that lawyer solicitor had every right to argue their case and try to win but instead made sure a kid didn't get screwed a plus person 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 cases obviously Bulls but the dumbest man I've ever met and my life won't dismiss we go to trial during closing arguments that a says this case is a circumstantial evidence case during my closing I slapped the jury instruction on the projector that says 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 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 his invest 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 of 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 early 2011 went to trial in 2014 wife got around 10% 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 in 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 counsels gets a big-time expert to testify that the business sold off forty five million dollars based on evaluation but should have sold for seventy million dollars of the husband had twenty five million dollars in real estate in the transaction we get that testimony and then realize the 1996 valuation of the business was done by the same expert this is the absolutely most perfect catch-22 I have ever seen so now we ask okay so was the evaluation wrong in 1996 or is it wrong now experts 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 information do you have now that you didn't have in 1996 answer 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 arse and we won when I first started practicing I handled a custody case where my client mum 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 services officers house late at night and trying to kick her door in my public defender wife not a redditor or I'd get her to speak for herself was trying a case where the defendant was accused of filling fraudulent prescriptions now keep in mind PJ's 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 clients 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 abuse to fill it which belongs to the defendant defendant maintains that someone still has it and is using it because they look similar but never reported théodore stolen 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 go through the usual routine of establishing who she is where she works was this Thea dues that day etc finally the prosecutor asks a pharmacist if the person who attempted to fill the prescription that day is in the courtroom no oops did the judge immediately dismiss the case 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 exception to hearsay rule but you needed someone familiar with the creation and maintenance of the records to get them admitted I attacked the witness 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 counsel complained that their witnesses had to go way out of their way to get 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 name of the talk 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 saying how everything was the same I then pointed out to the judge that half the provisions were different in that my client had never signed that form the judge asked if we were really accusing him of forging my clients 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 arguments needed Rowe those guys were either incredibly stupid or stupidly confident in their skills of trickery but you have been visited by the coffee cat subscribe for more many mornings of easy awakenings I publish new videos every day until then check another video or don't either way have a great day you magnificent people

Channel: Updoot Everything

Views: 695,409

Rating: 4.8941736 out of 5

Keywords: #updootst, updoot, reddit, r/askreddit, askreddit, ask reddit, r/, \r, r\, best of reddit, reddit stories, reddit story, top posts, funniest posts, funny, funny posts, funny reddit stories, funny askreddit, reddit funny, askreddit funny, askreddit stories, reddit stories 2019, people of reddit, sub, reddit cringe, memes, comment awards, dankify, toadfilms, updoot everything, updoot reddit, chill, story, stories, lawyers, accidental win, stupid attorney, opposing counsel, accidental proof

Id: RM5ABCrzd28

Length: 14min 36sec (876 seconds)

Published: Sat Jun 22 2019