|
GamingHyena posted:How's this for arbitrary? Welp
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
GamingHyena posted:How's this for arbitrary? I just looked up third degree felonies. How many drunken bar fight + 2 possession charges people do you have in for 25 year minimums?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
I'd hesitate to charge that poo poo. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 14:42
|
|
|
A. We’d never be able to get the video in without the cop (or someone else who was present) to lay foundation. (Assuming they can.) And depending on the video I might not put it in at all. (Obv give to defense as part of disclosure) but depending on camera angles and such... but not calling the cop = idiotic. We also would not be allowed to have him narrate other than identify people in video. “That’s me. That’s sgt bob. That’s a witness we later identified as Susie Smith” etc. what is actually happening = question of fact for the jury. B. I’ve said it before itt. I’ll say it again. gently caress elected judges. gently caress elected DAs. C. Unless it’s an agreed upon plea (which the court still has to accept) judges always do the sentence here and there is a sentence review board as a matter of right to make sure sentences are consistent across the state. Some judges are known to be harsher sentencers than others. But it can’t be crazily out of step. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 15:02
|
|
|
i continue to believe that texas's court system is one of the most hosed up in the western world not even just their criminal system, how the gently caress do you not have a real motion to dismiss in civil cases
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i continue to believe that texas's court system is one of the most hosed up in the western world Word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 15:07
|
|
|
Expert disclosure literally 2 days before trial. Are you loving kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i continue to believe that texas's court system is one of the most hosed up in the western world I thought Texas added a motion to dismiss in 2013? But you are not wrong re: Texas systems generally (not that I can talk from here across the Sabine).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I thought Texas added a motion to dismiss in 2013? But you are not wrong re: Texas systems generally (not that I can talk from here across the Sabine). They did, except that it has mandatory-fee shifting for the prevailing party, it's worded in a way that makes it unclear if it matches FRCP 12b6 or has a higher standard, and from what I got told by local counsel when I wanted to file a motion to dismiss that would be a slam-dunk in federal court there's so little precedent (due to mandatory fee-shifting) that texas courts just default to denying them rather than risk getting overturned on appeal. So nobody files them, so there continues to be no real precedent. So if you file a motion to dismiss the court is probably going to hem and haw and just deny it and send it to the jury rather than risk getting overturned on appeal, and for that privilege you'll get to pay the plaintiff's lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So if you file a motion to dismiss the court is probably going to hem and haw and just deny it and send it to the jury rather than risk getting overturned on appeal, and for that privilege you'll get to pay the plaintiff's lawyers. That does sound like Texas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Texas Motion to Dismiss: Yeah, its a Rule 91a motion and its garbage. No one ever uses it - I've literally seen it filed once in the 5 years since its been enacted, over hundreds of cases, and OC withdrew the motion by agreement because of the fee shifting. It should be more aptly described as a, "Here, let me pay you $1,500.00 for no reason" motion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
All elected judges should be lawgoons with no regard for whether they keep their job and a yearning to spend more time painting their 40k collection.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
As weird as Texas can be sometimes, it has never decided if its Pro-litigant or Anti-litigant. Tort Reform in the 90's cut the legs out from under all kinds of Personal Injury work, where as Discovery Reform in the 90's was a huge boon to Plaintiffs. Things like the 91a Motion were hamstrung by the Plaintiff's Bar to the point that its completely ineffective, yet the CPRC Ch. 27 "Anti-SLAPP" motion from a couple years ago has been used and broadened to great effect against Plaintiffs. Basically, we don't know which side of the fence we are on, I think, and the Supreme Court keeps changing its mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:As weird as Texas can be sometimes, it has never decided if its Pro-litigant or Anti-litigant. Tort Reform in the 90's cut the legs out from under all kinds of Personal Injury work, where as Discovery Reform in the 90's was a huge boon to Plaintiffs. Things like the 91a Motion were hamstrung by the Plaintiff's Bar to the point that its completely ineffective, yet the CPRC Ch. 27 "Anti-SLAPP" motion from a couple years ago has been used and broadened to great effect against Plaintiffs. that quirk where you could resurrect a claim that had expired based on the statute of limitations by naming someone else, adding the party that the statute of limitations had expired against, then dropping the initial party was really something i dont recall exactly how it worked but it was the stupidest civil procedure thing i'd ever heard
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 17:36
|
|
|
As a last thing I'm doing before leaving the big-law - I'm putting together a don't be a financial moron presentation for the incoming first years - generally the advice is simple (regardless of your student loan burden, max out your 401(k), focus on paying down your student loan debts, don't be that guy who buys a 5-Series with your first paycheck). The thing I'm struggling with is how to advise them regarding an IRA - generally - all big law associates make too much to qualify for any of the tax benefits of a trad IRA and don't qualify for a Roth IRA unless they do a back-door Roth, which can be a little complicated. Generally - big law folks here - how do you deal with your retirement accounts. I never set up an IRA because I never wanted to foot fault a back-door Roth and never saw the benefit of a Traditional IRA - but wanted to get broader input before deciding whether to include IRA info in the presentation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:As a last thing I'm doing before leaving the big-law - I'm putting together a don't be a financial moron presentation for the incoming first years - generally the advice is simple (regardless of your student loan burden, max out your 401(k), focus on paying down your student loan debts, don't be that guy who buys a 5-Series with your first paycheck). Definitely include information about the backdoor IRA even if you don't find it useful for your own situation. Others (myself included) find it extremely useful and could have definitely used the information much earlier than when we got it. You can entice then with the story of Romney's insane backdoor Ira scheme he was running. I'm not big law but between my husband and I we do alright. We max out 401k and Ira, and have a basic long-term account in mutual funds, all in target date retirement funds. That's the easy and safe road that any idiot can figure out how to do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 19:21
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Definitely include information about the backdoor IRA even if you don't find it useful for your own situation. Others (myself included) find it extremely useful and could have definitely used the information much earlier than when we got it. Seconded. There will be people for whom it makes sense and people for whom it doesn't. You don't have to be able to walk them through step-by-step to point out that the option exists and give a general overview. Regarding more general advice, remind them that if they're looking to retire in 30-50 years, they should focus on loads and fees as much as performance these days if they're handling their own money, and discuss financial adviser registration and the fiduciary rule for people who want to outsource that to an adviser (or even for them to remember when they want to do that in ten years). Maybe also talk about the absolute basics - creating an "emergency fund"/backstop, savings vs. spending ratios, carrying credit card balances (and why you really shouldn't), etc - remember there's going to be a depressingly large portion of first years that have gone straight through school, have never lived in the real world and have never been taught this stuff. EDIT (as I realize I didn't answer your initial question): I have a financial adviser that I'm quite happy with - I know I pay some money in advisory fees that I wouldn't otherwise, but I find it worth the money to 1) avoid the stress and time spent managing my own portfolio, 2) rely on his experience on the margins (e.g. choosing between various low-load/fee funds, portfolio balancing) and 3) take advantage of opportunities he has access to that I don't, or don't easily alone (e.g. low-risk PE exposure, non-US exposures). Due to particular circumstances I'm unlikely to be able to take advantage of the tax benefits of an IRA when I'm older, so I don't currently have one. I have a savings account that I automatically kick a portion of each paycheck into and once that account gets chunky enough I send a tranche over to the brokerage account my adviser has access to, which I think of as my "retirement" though it's not tax-treated as such - this is above and beyond an "emergency fund" of a year's rent/living expenses (which I'd advise your first years to get at least get 3-6 months of expenses set aside before doing any of the rest of this but debt service). Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
The long term investing thread can probably help, there’s a fair amount of high earners in there. A tradition IRA is still taxed advantaged, and I think a lot of associates making big law rate will end up making less than big law rates later in life, so I think it’s still important to consider.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:As a last thing I'm doing before leaving the big-law - I'm putting together a don't be a financial moron presentation for the incoming first years - generally the advice is simple (regardless of your student loan burden, max out your 401(k), focus on paying down your student loan debts, don't be that guy who buys a 5-Series with your first paycheck). I would add: ignore all those fee-based financial planners who cold call you and tell you they're dropping by your office anyway so why not meet them and let them buy you a cup of coffee and tell you about what they can do for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Ugh. I hate trial days. But particularly when there's a bunch in a row.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Ani posted:Can't you not contribute to a trad IRA if you max out your 401k? Clearly I need to read the long-term investing thread... Unless you really need the free coffee. For those who are curious: they're often selling a life insurance derivative product which has one major advantage: the commission. It's not an advantage for the investor, mind. Best of those cold calls I ever got was for a 5k bespoke suit. Still hung up on him, but at least it was a moment of levity. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Sep 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
I thought Romney's shtick wasn't the backdoor Roth, but that he blatantly undervalued the assets he was contributing and nobody called him on it (that we know of).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
sullat posted:I thought Romney's shtick wasn't the backdoor Roth, but that he blatantly undervalued the assets he was contributing and nobody called him on it (that we know of).
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
I've got a coworker at my gov job who is in talks with a biglaw firm to join the firm as junior counsel. I thought this was a little strange because I always thought you would lateral over and become an associate and maybe subtract a class year or two based on experience in the practice area because you were coming over from a government gig. Is this actually common nowadays or is this firm just weird?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
William Munny posted:I've got a coworker at my gov job who is in talks with a biglaw firm to join the firm as junior counsel. I thought this was a little strange because I always thought you would lateral over and become an associate and maybe subtract a class year or two based on experience in the practice area because you were coming over from a government gig. Is this actually common nowadays or is this firm just weird?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
gvibes posted:How senior is the person? Not totally uncommon if someone is old (maybe 6+ years our of LS) and not expected to be on partnership track. They've been licensed for three years I think and have a bit under two years experience in the practice area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 00:41
|
|
|
The firm could be playing around with their titles. The firm I was at converted all their staff attorneys to “Senior [practice area] Attorney.” So it could just be their title scheme for non-partner track. See if other people at that firm have the same title and compare experience levels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i continue to believe that texas's court system is one of the most hosed up in the western world Please. Would a hosed up legal system force defendants to pay police officers for the privilege of testifying against them at trial? Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 102.011 posted:(a) A defendant convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor shall pay the following fees for services performed in the case by a peace officer:
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
Also cool and good: funding public defender budgets 100% and exclusively from revenues from fines imposed on conviction. Definitely not an inherent conflict of interest for someone’s lawyer to only get paid if they plead guilty. Definitely not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's kindof like crack charges/sentencing vs powder cocaine. For those that don't know, crack is made from powder by cooking it with baking soda or something to make it into smokeable rocks. 1g of crack by definition has less cocaine in it than 1g of powder cocaine. Crack, though, almost always carries with it a significantly harsher sentence. I wonder why
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
One of the few things I remember from Crim are the wacky sentencing cases for drug possession. A few tabs of LSD in a jello mold? Congrats, you will be sentenced as though you made pounds of LSD. Tray of weed brownies? Oh, you better bet we're gonna get your rear end for that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 03:08
|
|
|
Possession with intent to distribute cocaine or heroin is like 7 grams or two days worth of heavy use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Please. Would a hosed up legal system force defendants to pay police officers for the privilege of testifying against them at trial? How about using defendant fees to fund a lobbyist for the DAs?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 03:52
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I wonder why Sorry sir, I didn't do the reading. Can I pass on the question?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
Lote posted:Possession with intent to distribute cocaine or heroin is like 7 grams or two days worth of heavy use. Is there actual statutory presumptions re intent to traffick from just amounts of controlled substance possessed
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 05:55
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Is there actual statutory presumptions re intent to traffick from just amounts of controlled substance possessed That would be dumb so someone probably does that, but if a legislature just wants to be tough they can just set a relatively low “large amount” threshold where they treat possession and sale the same. Realistically though, there are tons of ways to prove intent to sell based on cash, “buy books”, circumstances of an arrest, etc. It should be a really large amount before the state’s case is just “amount is inconsistent with personal use.” Disclaimer: I am not a Texan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 07:17
|
|
|
in nsw australia if you get caught with above a certain amount of controlled substance they can charge you with supply even if they dont actually catch you supplying it to another person, however the defence only has to prove innocence on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, so it's harder to get a conviction when i did jury duty a year or two ago i swayed some of the other jurors with the argument that if the dude still had drugs on him at the time he got caught, in the place he got caught, he was either the worlds worst salesman or he was deliberately keeping them for himself
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:That would be dumb so someone probably does that, but if a legislature just wants to be tough they can just set a relatively low “large amount” threshold where they treat possession and sale the same. Realistically though, there are tons of ways to prove intent to sell based on cash, “buy books”, circumstances of an arrest, etc. It should be a really large amount before the state’s case is just “amount is inconsistent with personal use.” Yeah, but if you have a scale and some weight, it is sales. God forbid you buy your drugs in bulk (we're not talking a kilo here) like every american buys everything and verify you aren't being ripped off by some POS drug dealer. Of course, so many low level drug dealers are just small time addicts trying to keep themselves high than the monster portrayed in the media that even if they were dealing they should get the same programs and treatment as the possession people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
Here we have police randomly stopping people on the street, putting some drugs (in the precise amount that is necessary for it to become a criminal offense) into the person's pocket, and then go on with the conviction. Jail time guaranteed. No, no one is safe
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Also cool and good: funding public defender budgets 100% and exclusively from revenues from fines imposed on conviction. Aaaaaand. Another time my state proves its superiority. PDs by statute must be paid the same as prosecutors of equal seniority. Also determinations on expert funding and such is done by an independent commission of judges (recuse on questions in their own district) and lawyers (no PDs or prosecutors) appointed by the legislature. Same commission makes PD hiring decisions and handles other matters affecting PDs. There is a mirror commission to handle prosecutor poo poo. Same model, different members.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2018 11:10
|
|