General Law and Lawsuits

[chancery]

Thanks!

[Sam the Centipede]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how if she had to tell people the differently named character was her, she could possibly have been defamed.

"Innuendo" is a term of art, meaning capable of discerning the subject. Like if I say "twice impeached convicted felon," innuendo lets you know to whom I'm referring.

In her complaint, she says once tweeted (pre-show) a notable line from the show. People then found that tweet and deduced she was the "based on a true story" part of the story.

I don't have Netflix so haven't seen the show. The Guardian has a piece Baby Reindeer in court: the two words that might have saved Netflix $170m worth of grief
which states

At the very start of the series, Baby Reindeer bills itself as “a true story”; a decision that seems more and more reckless as time goes on.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd have queried that decision, simply because adding two words to say "based on a true story" conveys almost the same message to the viewer without inadvertently implying that the details are checked and correct.

[noblepa]

I don't understand her "right to publicity" as the basis for a legal cause of action, but it's probably some new law in California.

IANAL, but I believe "right of publicity" is a real thing in the law. It refers to a person's (usually a celebrity) image being used commercially without their consent. IOW, while a celebrity can't prevent paparazzi from photographing them going into a restaurant, they can prevent the restaurant owner from using that photo in advertising.

Of course, I have no idea if it applies in her case.

[bob]

I don't have Netflix so haven't seen the show. The Guardian has a piece Baby Reindeer in court: the two words that might have saved Netflix $170m worth of grief
which states

At the very start of the series, Baby Reindeer bills itself as “a true story”; a decision that seems more and more reckless as time goes on.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd have queried that decision, simply because adding two words to say "based on a true story" conveys almost the same message to the viewer without inadvertently implying that the details are checked and correct.

It isn't a bad take. "True story" means "this really happened." So any fiction contained therein actually is a lie.

Whereas "based on a truth story" means "some parts are false." So, in a defamation suit, the defendant could argue, "no reasonable person would have believed this to be true."

[raison de arizona]

Whoa.

BREAKING: Young Thug’s lawyer, Brian Steel, was ordered into custody after he was held in contempt for not disclosing his source.

Steel's arrest followed the lawyer refusing to disclose the source of a private conversation between the judge, the DA, and a star witness.

“You got some information you shouldn’t have gotten,” Judge Glanville told the rapper’s attorney.

“You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” Steel told the judge.

As reported by AJC, the witness in the lengthy racketeering trial, Kenneth Copeland, spent the weekend in jail after refusing to testify on Friday.

Steel said "he heard that prosecutor Simone Hylton reminded the witness that he could actually be held until all 26 defendants have their cases disposed of, regardless of how long that might take."

“If that’s true what this is is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for,” Steel told Glanville.

“I still want to know, how did you come upon this information,” Glanville asked. “Who told you?”

“What I wanna know is why wasn’t I there,” Steel remarked.

Judge Glanville ordered the attorney to be remanded into custody and stated that proceedings would continue.

@PhilHollowayEsq remarked on X: "This is an utter disgrace. Glanville has let his pride interfere with judicial temperament in my view. Brian Steel is one of the most reputable lawyers you will ever find."

"Judges can't just jail lawyers for doing their job," he added. "Judges can't have secret meetings with DAs either."

Steel had a remark for the judge on his way out of the courtroom.

“You are removing me against his will, my will, and you’re taking away his right to counsel."

[raison de arizona]

Surprised no one has anything to say about Brian Steele, it seems pretty big in LawTwitter. Anyway...

Alexander Morris, a member of the Motown group, Four Tops is suing a hospital alleging he came to the ER with chest pains and instead of treating him they put him in a straight jacket believing he was mentally ill when he told them he was in the Four Tops.

[Sam the Centipede]

Wow, that was awful! Even if a patient sends delusional in claiming to be a celebrity, that is no reason to restrain them, to deny them appropriate medical treatment, to lock them up, not even to demand a psych evaluation.

When it one allows for that story being one-sided, it is clear there was massive racism and several people should be kicked out from their jobs for ethics violations.

Our European hospitals have security personnel of course, but their role is generally to just "be there", back-up. They certainly know not to be aggressive.

► Show Spoiler

We were recently training some medics recently in stressful scenarios in a medical simulation suite (instrumented mannequins, beeping machines, etc.). The learning objectives were about managing when overloaded, using one's team, etc., the sort of thing pilots do in aircraft simulators. One scenario had an agitated relative who refused to leave Resus while CPR etc. for cardiac arrest was happening. Not one of the young doctors suggested "call security", well done them! Some managed the situation better than others: our preferred – but not mandated – course of action was to keep the relative nearby if they really wished, with someone engaging appropriately with the relative to keep them calm and informed.

It was heartwarming to see that most of these young doctors considered the agitated relative as a person who also needed care, not as an irritation to be swatted away.

[sugar magnolia]

Whoa.

BREAKING: Young Thug’s lawyer, Brian Steel, was ordered into custody after he was held in contempt for not disclosing his source.

Steel's arrest followed the lawyer refusing to disclose the source of a private conversation between the judge, the DA, and a star witness.

“You got some information you shouldn’t have gotten,” Judge Glanville told the rapper’s attorney.

“You’re not supposed to have communication with a witness who’s been sworn,” Steel told the judge.

As reported by AJC, the witness in the lengthy racketeering trial, Kenneth Copeland, spent the weekend in jail after refusing to testify on Friday.

Steel said "he heard that prosecutor Simone Hylton reminded the witness that he could actually be held until all 26 defendants have their cases disposed of, regardless of how long that might take."

“If that’s true what this is is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for,” Steel told Glanville.

“I still want to know, how did you come upon this information,” Glanville asked. “Who told you?”

“What I wanna know is why wasn’t I there,” Steel remarked.

Judge Glanville ordered the attorney to be remanded into custody and stated that proceedings would continue.

@PhilHollowayEsq remarked on X: "This is an utter disgrace. Glanville has let his pride interfere with judicial temperament in my view. Brian Steel is one of the most reputable lawyers you will ever find."

"Judges can't just jail lawyers for doing their job," he added. "Judges can't have secret meetings with DAs either."

Steel had a remark for the judge on his way out of the courtroom.

“You are removing me against his will, my will, and you’re taking away his right to counsel."

I'm not even a lawyer but I know this is some bullshit. If I was the one who repeated the conversation to the attorney I'd be terrified of what the judge would do to me if/when he found out I was the one who told the lawyer.

And for those of you who are lawyers, will/how fast will he get a mistrial for this apparently blatant move by the judge? Can Glanville be forced to call a mistrial or is totally up to him whether to continue and the defense just has to wait to file an appeal after the verdict if he's found guilty? Can the attorney file an appeal to his own contempt of court? Is there some sort of interlocutory appeal for the defense if Glanville doesn't declare a mistrial?

[Maybenaut]

[quote="

I'm not even a lawyer but I know this is some bullshit. If I was the one who repeated the conversation to the attorney I'd be terrified of what the judge would do to me if/when he found out I was the one who told the lawyer.

And for those of you who are lawyers, will/how fast will he get a mistrial for this apparently blatant move by the judge? Can Glanville be forced to call a mistrial or is totally up to him whether to continue and the defense just has to wait to file an appeal after the verdict if he's found guilty? Can the attorney file an appeal to his own contempt of court? Is there some sort of interlocutory appeal for the defense if Glanville doesn't declare a mistrial?

I’m talking about mistrials only - I don’t know much about contempt and the due process involved.

Mistrials are tricky things. The defense is more likely to get a ruling for a mistrial if the misconduct was committed by the prosecutor, a juror, or a witness. A judge is exceedingly unlikely grant a mistrial based on his own conduct. And on appeal after the trial (I don’t think there’s any interlocutory appeal of a denial of a mistrial), assuming the defendant is convicted, the issue will likely be not whether there should have been a mistrial, but the underlying issue giving rise to the mistrial motion.

[Rolodex]

I'm not sure I'm following this Young Thug lawyer situation correctly. This is my impression; please let me know if I have misunderstood.

The judge and the DA had a conversation with a witness (who is in jail because he refuses to testify for whatever reason). So then the defense attorney confronts the judge with knowledge of this conversation (and maybe knowledge of the contents of that conversation). The judge doesn't like that the defense attorney knows about this conversation and holds him in contempt.

If this is right, why would a judge and DA have a private convo with a witness? Is that normal (or at least not illegal or unethical)? Do I have the situation right?

[Maybenaut]

I'm not sure I'm following this Young Thug lawyer situation correctly. This is my impression; please let me know if I have misunderstood.

The judge and the DA had a conversation with a witness (who is in jail because he refuses to testify for whatever reason). So then the defense attorney confronts the judge with knowledge of this conversation (and maybe knowledge of the contents of that conversation). The judge doesn't like that the defense attorney knows about this conversation and holds him in contempt.

If this is right, why would a judge and DA have a private convo with a witness? Is that normal (or at least not illegal or unethical)? Do I have the situation right?

I think the contempt stems from the defense counsel’s refusal to tell the judge how he learned about the conversation. There are times when an ex parte conversation is appropriate, but given the 5th and 6th amendment implications, it’s really rare in a criminal trial. And the judge usually makes an air-tight record of why he thought it necessary for an ex parte conversation with the DA and a witness.

[Rolodex]

I mean, the defense attorney could have found out in a lot of different ways.
* the witness tell his friend/family member who tells def atty
* the witness tells the attorney or someone in his office
* some prison guard tells the atty or tells his friend/wife who tells the atty
* another prisoner tells the atty (or tells someone who tells the atty)
* any of these folks puts it on socmed and someone in the def atty office sees the post
* the witness tells the defendant who tells his attorney

Does it matter whose witness this is?

I don't know the rules about this, but it seems the judge is just pissy that the def atty won't tell him. Is there any legal reason why the def atty should have to disclose that...or, rather, is there some legal reason he could have for keeping that information confidential?

I've gotten intrigued by this situation!

[raison de arizona]

LOCK THEM ALL UP! Feels a lot like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar, and rather than deal with the hand in the cookie jar, it becomes all about who snitched?

[sugar magnolia]

So only the lawyer (who apparently has a legal right to know about ex parte conversations) and the person who told him about the sketchy ex parte conversation are the only 2 to face (or serve, in the case of the lawyer) any time in jail? For bringing to light something that is pretty much written in stone as illegal? Did these people actually go to lawyering school?

[RTH10260]

Attempt to bribe a juror

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

I got hooked on the Mass. v. Karen Read alleged murder trial 3 weeks ago when I couldn’t figure out what actually happened. Still hooked and obssessed.

No, there is too much. Let me sum up. Alleged hit and run leaves Boston police officer allegedly dying in the cold on another Boston police officer’s front lawn. No one sees this. Frame job. Corrupt Mass. State Trooper lead investigator and superiors. Southern Gothic family with Boston accents running the town. FBI investigation of the tiny town where this happened. FBI provides investigative materials to both sides creating decimating cross Xes of prosecution witnesses due to droning, incompetent prosecutor (think Vogon poetry reading). Medical examiner still says manner of death is undetermined even tho investigators bullied her to determine this a homicide. After 22 days of trial ME has not yet testified. Lead investigator texts all his buddies everywhere all the time starting on the first day of the investigation about the “retard”, “whack job”, “c u next tuesday” defendant who “leaks poo” (she has a colostomy bag), who has no butt”. Superiors get texts and one superior “likes” one of the texts. No reprimands. Cross-x of lead investigator continues today. “The whole world is watching. The whole world is watching”, including me.

[sugar magnolia]

I'm with Rolodex....intrigued by this situation. The judge has apparently decided that the leaky mouth culprit is the attorney who representing the witness. Based on that he says the issue is that she (lawyer Bumpus) broke attorney-client privilege, without mentioning all the other people who were in the meeting. Doesn't that automatically make it non-privileged?

Steel was also the second person he's held in contempt. The witness was also held in contempt after pleading the 5th after he'd been granted immunity. An underlying murder is one of the main points of the case against YT and the witness (Copeland) had already been charged with that murder, but the charges were dismissed. So the guy who has reportedly committed a murder is actually in jail for keeping his mouth shut. And the attorneys are all pointing fingers at each other for unethical stuff. The prosecution (Love) is accusing Copeland's defense attorney (Melnick) of witness tampering by basically "conspiring" with Steel through some sort of magical facial expressions. Now Melnick is threatening to report Love to the GA bar. At one point, after several minutes of back and forth with the judge about whether she had filed a notice of appearance (she says she didn't, it was a courtesy for Melnick) or if she had to now file a notice of withdrawal (he says she does) she tried to tell the judge she had been fired by Copeland before his testimony began. The judge says it doesn't matter and she won't be officially withdrawn for 10 days. She asks to approach the bench and he says no. Then re-considers and allows her and the state to approach. (As an aside, I was surprised to see the judge have to tell the court reporter he wasn't allowed to be there. Isn't that sort of the point of approaching the bench, so it isn't transcribed?) She's also been ordered to appear at the show cause hearing on the 25th. One of the YSL attorneys sitting behind Steel also said that he had heard the same thing about the prosecution being aware of the witness planning to plead the 5th if he was put back on the stand, but it was outside the courtroom right before he entered. The judge started saying the problem now was with the attorney for not reporting it and cut him off before he even finished saying what he started. "I got a problem with you now. I would suggest you don't say any more." This same attorney says he did report it to Steel. I have no idea if there is some kind of official chain of command for reporting comments like that, but based on the judge's response, it's obvious that reporting it to the defense attorney isn't it.

Meanwhile, Steel was handed 20 days in jail for criminal contempt, to be served on the weekends, but will potentially be allowed to meet with his client to "work on our case all weekend for all those weekends.” Glanville said he'll speak to the sheriff to see if they can work it out.

It's all very convoluted and confusing and hard to follow at times with all the attorneys involved. Including the 20 or so lawyers who showed up at the courthouse in support of Steel after his arrest. And of course the appeal and bond request for the contempt charge has already been filed. The whole trial feels much more contentious than most. Almost like they're in some sort of reality show competition and make and dissolve alliances at the drop of a hat.

[Rolodex]

The Young Thug trial cast of characters is so large. I don't even know what the trial is about tbh but I think it involves gangs? I think they've had a lot of rapper trials in Atlanta. It's a huge industry there and, unfortunately, seems to attract a large criminal element.

I don't understand the last paragraph of the judge's order. It says:
It is further ordered that the failure of any individuals who were present for the June 10, 2024, ex parte conversation will cause the Court to direct the Fulton County Sheriff's Office to take them into custody and bring them to the bar of this Court.

So my legal filing grammar isn't working, but I'm not sure about what "failure" he's talking about. "...the failure of any individuals..." their failure to do what? When you take out the other language, I don't find what failure he's talking about. Have I missed something?

[bob]

(As an aside, I was surprised to see the judge have to tell the court reporter he wasn't allowed to be there. Isn't that sort of the point of approaching the bench, so it isn't transcribed?)

The primary point is to prevent the jury from hearing the discussions, as not to influence them with the "irrelevant" material.

Whether a court reporter is present for sidebars usually is a matter of custom. But anyone litigating a high-stakes case will want as much as possible on the record, for appellate purposes. Especially in a case that has gone as sideways as this one.

A judge telling a court reporter not to report could be a gift to a defendant (or anyone facing consequences from this trial).

[Maybenaut]

I think he’s talking about the failure to respond to the show cause order.

[sugar magnolia]

(As an aside, I was surprised to see the judge have to tell the court reporter he wasn't allowed to be there. Isn't that sort of the point of approaching the bench, so it isn't transcribed?)

The primary point is to prevent the jury from hearing the discussions, as not to influence them with the "irrelevant" material.

Whether a court reporter is present for sidebars usually is a matter of custom. But anyone litigating a high-stakes case will want as much as possible on the record, for appellate purposes. Especially in a case that has gone as sideways as this one.

A judge telling a court reporter not to report could be a gift to a defendant (or anyone facing consequences from this trial).

I'm pretty sure that his actual words were "I don't think you have the right to be present, sir."

[bob]

I'm pretty sure that his actual words were "I don't think you have the right to be present, sir."

I'm surprised this trial is even still happening. It sounds like the judge might suspect the court reporter of being the leaker. Workplace unpleasantness aside, a defendant has a right to a record.

[realist]

Whether a court reporter is present for sidebars usually is a matter of custom. But anyone litigating a high-stakes case will want as much as possible on the record, for appellate purposes. Especially in a case that has gone as sideways as this one.

A judge telling a court reporter not to report could be a gift to a defendant (or anyone facing consequences from this trial).

Indeed, that seems to be the case today.

I never, however, participated in a case where side bars, discussions in chambers, etc., were not reported, and (at that time) always included in the appeal transcript.

Edit: If as bob posited the judge believes the reporter is the subject of a leak, he has every right to replace the reporter, and deal with it after the trial.

[Maybenaut]

I may have mentioned this before, but the whole notion of sidebars is so foreign to me. Where I practiced, nothing was done off the record (with the exception of in camera review of records, usually in the context of whether they were discoverable, and even those became part of the appellate record). There would be conferences pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial 802 to discuss things like schedules, but nothing could be litigated there.

[sugar magnolia]

Edit: If as bob posited the judge believes the reporter is the subject of a leak, he has every right to replace the reporter, and deal with it after the trial.

Could be, but most of the reports I've seen have said she is the one he blames. And she is the only attorney (or anyone other than the witness) who was ordered specifically by name to be there.