Since Foster did not involve any allegations of fraud or a statute specifying that the standard should be clear and convincing in cases under the Uniform Licensing Act, this Court determined that the standard in such cases was a preponderance of the evidence. Since this is not a criminal case, there is no expectation that it would be in the possession of the police or the district attorney. Unlike the scenario you presented, there is no doubt as to what the speaker knew of the issues. This is not about Jimmy's legal problems. Here, leaving aside for a moment the astounding impropriety of bothering her old law professor about a legal question that she could easily find the answer to herself, the tape is evidence that Jimmy altered the Mesa Verde document, i.e., the underlying act, therefore, Rule 11-403 will not exclude it. This is about the bar hearing. Go on to discover millions of awesome videos … JIMMY: I guess. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. The bottom line is, Jimmy will have to be very careful because he DID change the numbers. - You asshole!” immediately before destroying the tape he found. He used to be there everyday and they simply show the conditions that were there when Jimmy cared for his brother. Press J to jump to the feed. This is wrong for several reasons. Thus, absent an allegation of fraud or a statute or court rule requiring the higher standard, the standard of proof in administrative hearings is a preponderance of the evidence. Analysis: Robinhood and Reddit protected from lawsuits by user agreement, Congress . However, it’s much likelier that she may just be pleased that another copy exists, because the tape actually exonerates Jimmy and destroys Chuck’s credibility. I would put all this knowledge into a magic brief-case. Motions aside, that tape will be played.”. An In-Depth Legal Analysis of the Admissibility of the Tape (S03E04) spoiler I'd like to clear up a few things regarding whether the tape is admissible at Jimmy's upcoming disciplinary hearing with the New Mexico Bar Hearing Committee, and what Kim may have meant by her “Bingo!” exclamation. Chuck has had the tape in his possession “under lock and key” since the time it was made. ADMISSIBILITY OF DUPLICATES. FN1: Chuck responds to Kim’s threat to move to suppress the tape by pointing out, “But, Kim, you should be aware because I believe this will be your first disciplinary hearing uh, the Bar Association's standard of proof is far more lenient than what you're used to. Stefan Riße exklusiv: Die Reddit-Absprachen sind illegal, aber charmant. United States v. Sides, 944 F.2d 1554, 1563 (10th Cir. Reddit gives you the best of the internet in one place. You said the things you did to make him feel better, which mitigates the admission of guilt, at the very least. In this conversation, both Jimmy and Chuck acknowledge the possibility that Jimmy is just making up the confession to make Chuck feel better. You do realize you just confessed to a felony? Jimmy even explicitly tells Chuck that he is trying to make him feel better. As to the issue of confusing the jury, Chuck's mental state and credibility, and Jimmy's intention behind his confession are directly applicable to the underlying issue of what fact findings the Committee will make as to whether Jimmy altered the documents or not. No. I would've made Nixon proud. Benford's law, also called the Newcomb–Benford law, the law of anomalous numbers, or the first-digit law, is an observation about the frequency distribution of leading digits in many real-life sets of numerical data.The law states that in many naturally occurring collections of numbers, the leading digit is likely to be small. For anyone needing a free video resource on how to recover FEMA damages please check out the following link: https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/disaster-relief-top-5-mistakes-in-filing-with-fema. I thought you'd just say, "Oh, crap, I made a mistake," and go on with your life, like a normal person! 721. Kim said she would object to the tape being admitted, on the grounds that there are issues with its chain of custody. I admit I hadn't considered the problem from this angle, and I agree that this would be part of the analysis, but I think that the tape is easily distinguishable from your story. if the law affects the likelihood of customers buying the good or using the service. If Chuck is proven to be a crazy person, his accusations will hold little weight. URBS/PLSI 513 / GEOG 658 "Politics, Law, and the Urban Environment" Richard LeGates . There is plenty of evidence for this in their conversation from the Season 2 finale: JIMMY: What if I told you, you didn't make a mistake? Wishful thinking! Legal changes can affect a firm’s costs (e.g. CHUCK: Are you telling the truth, or are you just trying to make me feel better? One possibility is that she might be under the misconception that the duplicate was not “evidence” so Jimmy is therefore not guilty of destruction of evidence. But you feel better, right? Reddit [ˈrɛdɪt] ist ein Social-News-Aggregator, eine Website, auf der registrierte Benutzer Inhalte einstellen bzw. It is national oil company of Malaysia, vested with t… Because if they do, then so would Jimmy perjuring himself if questioned about whether or not he actually changed the numbers. LEGAL RESEARCH, LEGAL WRITING, AND LEGAL ANALYSIS: PUTTING LAW SCHOOL INTO PRACTICE Suzanne E. Rowe∗ When I began law school, I thought my goal was to master— and memorize—every case, statute, and rule I would need to practice law. The purpose of reading cases is to learn what the law is so that knowledge can be used to resolve conflicts which arise in analogous (but usually somewhat different) fact situations. We can poke holes in the custody throw doubt the voice on the tape is even yours. They state in relevant part: RULE 11-1002. We don't make any commission for providing this resource.We're an educational legal startup :), https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/649238096/how-to-help-those-affected-by-hurricane-florence, Press J to jump to the feed. Contractual issues. It all went down exactly like you said I mean, exactly. The u/legal_analysis community on Reddit. If he uses the "I just told my brother what he wanted to hear on that tape...it wasn't true" then he just lied under oath (or at least to the hearing). Rule 11-403 says. There is no reason why admitting a duplicate rather than the original would be unfair to any party, so this will not be an issue. Kim deserves Mesa Verde Not you, not HHM. By Tom Hals. GRAY AREA. JIMMY: Oh, yeah? And now it doesn't anymore.” Chuck’s references to putting up the foil sheets all over his walls, his need to hide in a Faraday cage, his obvious delusions about electricity, and most of all, his admission that his mind is no longer working, will all destroy his credibility as a witness, so the Committee should disregard his testimony. I appreciate your summery but a lot of it is still over my head. Even if she wrongly believes that only an original is evidence, the survival of the original is still good news for Jimmy. Each state in the USA has its own government structure and legal scheme. Here, (1) Jimmy made a representation as a statement of fact by changing the numbers, (2) he knew that this representation was untrue, (3) he did so with the intent to deceive Chuck and induce him to misstate the address to the Mesa Verde representatives, and (4) Chuck actually did rely on the altered document and lost the client, so there is no question that Jimmy stands accused of fraud, thus, the clear and convincing standard will apply. Rule 1003 permits the duplicate to be admitted into evidence if A) the original would have been admitted, B) admitting the duplicate would not be unfair, and C) there is no question as to the original’s authenticity. JIMMY: I ratfucked you. CHUCK: For Christ's sakes, Jimmy, stop humoring me. I sure as shit wouldn't be telling you otherwise. A) Would the original have been admitted? Rule 403 most certainly does not say that evidence of the underlying act can be excluded if it is more prejudicial than probative. Also, as explained below, denying the tape’s authenticity would undermine Jimmy’s best argument: that his so-called “confession” was actually just an attempt by Jimmy to say whatever he thought would make Chuck feel better, considering that Chuck appeared to be suffering a severe delusional episode. SHARES. What'd he say? Sauter v. St. Michael's Coll., 70 N.M. 380, 384–85, 374 P.2d 134, 138 (1962). It is true that many disciplinary cases involve allegations of fraudulent conduct and thereby, under Foster, a clear and convincing standard of proof is appropriate. Yes, exactly. The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. It's wearing me down! Legal Problem Solving and Analysis Legal problem solving — identify-ing and diagnosing problems and generating strategies and tactics to achieve client objectives — is a le-gally trained person’s most basic function. An original writing, recording, or photograph is required in order to prove its content unless these rules or a statute provides otherwise. If there were no tape, as Jimmy points out. Viele übersetzte Beispielsätze mit "legal analysis" – Deutsch-Englisch Wörterbuch und Suchmaschine für Millionen von Deutsch-Übersetzungen. View 28 934 NSFW pictures and videos and enjoy LegalTeens with the endless random gallery on Scrolller.com. Stop trying to talk everything right. Kim revealed her original strategy for dealing with the tape back in Episode 2, when she said: KIM: So just got off the phone with my old Crim-Pro professor. So, if I'm understanding this right, Kim is happy that the tape still exists so she can use it against Chuck. To analyze case law, you must determine which parts of the story are relevant to the issue presented to the court that made the decision. Agree. The last element to address in this PESTEL analysis of the USA is the legal environment. Reddit. RULE 11-1004. Tbh, I'm a little surprised with how on board with all this Kim is becoming. As Kim explained in Episode 2, Jimmy’s best strategy is to take the position that he made up the confession just to comfort his delusional brother and reassure him that he wasn’t losing his mind. 'Cause that brain of yours is chugging along at 1,000% efficiency. While you are certainly right that the rule only excludes evidence that is unfairly prejudicial, not just evidence of a crime which harms the defendants case, the rule is also used in cases where the evidence has questionable pr9bative value due to the circumstances of the evidence itself. I think we can get the whole thing bounced under 403. LinkedIn WhatsApp ... LEGAL ENVIRONMENT: The Court System of Argentina consists of Federal and Provincial court systems. Chuck will testify that Jimmy is the one whose voice is on the tape, and Chuck, Howard, and the private investigator can also testify that they heard Jimmy say, “You taped me? First, the standard of proof refers to the standard by which the Hearing Committee will make their findings, not the analysis by which they would consider a suppression motion. I was hoping some other lawyers would chime in. A. all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith... Rule 1002 requires that the tape be produced as evidence of the confession, rather than Chuck’s testimony of the confession alone, for example. Chuck does have a recording of Jimmy confessing to doing this; however, since Chuck was in the middle of an insane delusion at the time Jimmy made the confession, Jimmy can claim that he was lying to Chuck about altering the document, and that he really only wanted to reassure Chuck that he wasn't losing his mind. Hamlin, Hamlin, McGill More like Scrooge and Marley! Facebook Share Twitter Share Email this article Print Article. Hey Everyone, This sub has exploded with anger over the handling of ESL Genting and ESL’s decision to issue DMCA takedown notices to a wide array of streams broadcasting the games on Twitch. In addition, I wonder about the status of the courtroom they will be appearing in--will they take precautions against electricity while Chuck is present? JIMMY: I am saying it to make you feel better. Although Reddit has stated platform-wide rules - including no illegal content or soliciting or facilitating illegal transactions - the service relies heavily on community-based moderation. Jimmy emphasizes how Chuck got every single detail exactly right, which supports the argument that he was patronizing Chuck. Yes. Would a duplicate tape be admissible if Jimmy had destroyed the original? I did it for Kim! Thank you for your reply, Counselor. So you can relax, okay? But, oh, no! It helps Jimmy because Chuck is accusing Jimmy of altering the Mesa Verde document, which, if true, will cause Jimmy to get disbarred (aka, not allowed to be a lawyer anymore). It was me. anbieten können.Ein Inhalt kann entweder aus einem Link, einem Video, einem Bild, einer Umfrage oder einem Textbeitrag bestehen.Andere Benutzer können die Beiträge als positiv oder negativ beurteilen. Do you feel that all of these standards would also apply to a Disciplinary Hearing though? Contracts do not have to be in writing on a formal document and signed to be legally binding. LexRead, A practical book for learning legal research, analysis and writing, it emphasizes the rigors of legal research, as well as provides analytical and writing skills which can be readily applied in practice. REQUIREMENT OF THE ORIGINAL. The essential elements required to prove fraud are (1) that a representation was made as a statement of fact, (2) that the representation was untrue and known to be untrue by the party making it or that it was recklessly made, (3) that the representation was made with intent to deceive and for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon the representation, and (4) that the other party relied on the representation and was induced thereby to act to that party's injury or damage. Jimmy can use them to show he thought his brother was ill and needed care. By Kim’s logic, evidence of wrongdoing would always be inadmissible, since it’s always prejudicial, and the worse the underlying act is, the more prejudicial the evidence of that act would be. So, can I, uh, tell Howard you're not quitting or retiring or whatever? It is generally used by philosophers and thinkers to develop new concepts or to re-interpret the existing ones. He can say that everything on the tape was to make Chuck feel better, but if they say "So you didn't change the numbers?" Find communities you're interested in, and become part of an online community! However, if Jimmy had destroyed the original and Chuck was lying about having the original in his possession, Chuck could still testify about the content of their conversation, because the exception set forth in Rule 11-1004 would block Rule 11-1002’s requirement that the tape be admitted as well (which makes sense, since it has been destroyed). Not a legal judgement over the charges. This is an important distinction because the Committee will still have to follow the same analysis set forth here when determining whether to admit the tape, regardless of how much proof is needed to support their final determination, so a lower standard of proof would not make the tape any more or less likely to be admitted. A subreddit for the business and practice of law, catering to lawyers without the support network of a large firm, and **not** generally for legal analysis or substantive case discussion. Chuck can’t only introduce the portions containing Jimmy’s confession, because the entire tape is admissible under Rule 11-106, which says. The reason why i tell this story here is that i think, as you note, there are many many problems with the tape evidence, that it creates a trial within a trial to sort them all out (how crazy was chuck, what were jimmys motivations for making these statements, ect) that the better course of action is to require proof of the underlying acts themselves, and lets determine whether jimmy tampers with the mesa verde files by submitting direct evidence of that, not using this questionable tape. So it kind of makes all the other legal maneuvers moot. If a party introduces all or part of a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other writing or recorded statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. I edited the introduction sentence to clarify this. Was passiert, wenn sich wild gewordene Privatinvestoren in Internetforen absprechen? So I guess Kim and Jimmy's ultimate goal is to prove that Chuck is a whackjob. CHUCK: Jimmy. Well, as we know New Mexico is one-party consent, so Chuck had a right to make the recording. Method of conceptual analysis Conceptual research is related to some abstract idea(s) or theory. II. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that must “instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re Sedillo, 84 N.M. 10, 12, 498 P.2d 1353, 1355 (1972). **Even failing that, its probative value doesn't outweigh how prejudicial it is. Jimmy: I did it to help her, but I honestly didn't think it would hurt you so bad. I had a jury trial some time ago where opposing counsel was desperately trying to admit into evidence a letter made during prelimiary negotiations of a claim wherein my partner foolishly made some inaccurate statements of fact regarding the claim, which oc was trying have treated as admissions by the jury. My brain, my mind it used to be, you know, it used to work! Legal analysis does not only happen in terms that involve specific legal action (though it is these legal actions alone that can establish precedents), but also enters in legalistic discourse through academic means, which can also be cited to support legal arguments (though they carry significantly less weight than precedents). This is about his license. Kim knows this and is understandably pleased, because the tape helps Jimmy more than it hurts him. I changed 1261 to 1216. The judge wouldn't let us kick it under 407 as a statement during compromise negotiations, because technically the statements were made in a related matter, not the "same claim" as some federal case law suggested was required (though i still belive it was excludable under 407). 1991) (“Relevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair prejudice, substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant matter under Rule 403.”) (emphasis in original). I think all the back-and-forth about the tape obscures the fact that Jimmy is going to be lying to the hearing. I argued that should this evidence be admitted, when then would have to go down the rabbit hole of showing what the partner knew when the statement was made, and it would turn into another trial within a trial, when there was the opportunity to just keep the "admissions" out, and instead make oc prove the case through testimony of first hand witnesses, not through alleged admissions of counsel eho only had secondary knowledge of facts. I do not agree that holding a "trial within a trial" would be part of the 403 analysis, because even if it does cause delay, that delay wouldn't specifically prejudice Jimmy, and the probative value of the tape, assuming its authenticity, is tremendous. But I am in a hurry so I cant now :-/. C) Is there any question as to the original’s authenticity? von Citywire Redaktion 02. I doctored the copies. B) Would admitting the duplicate be unfair? It was me. It's a perfectly plausible explanation for why Jimmy would confess to a crime he "didn't commit", and there is a good chance this will protect Jimmy from disbarment, while simultaneously discrediting Chuck (or perhaps even sparking an investigation by the Bar into whether Chuck is fit to continue practicing law). Since Chuck is the one who made the tape, and will testify accordingly, and no one else had or accessed it until the time he turns it in, there probably won’t be any chain of custody issues.FN1 (see comments). What could be more probative than a tape recorded confession? After all, she has already demonstrated that she is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence, when she made such a fundamental error in her analysis of 11-403. Federal courts include the Supreme Court, 17 appellate courts, and district and territorial courts on the local levels. Chuck has been known to be able to survive lights and batteries when he knows he can screw Jimmy over, such as the meeting with Mesa Verde where he stole them from Kim. (Cavusgil, Knight& Riesenberger, p.13). Finally, Kim practices civil law, which employs the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the stringent “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of criminal law or the “clear and convincing” standard that will apply here, so even if the preponderance standard would apply here, it would be no different than what Kim is used to. Once they know of a tape, they will want to hear the tape. But, yes It's the truth. Legal analytics is a procedure that enables actionable information from legal data, such as lawyers’ reports, law firm reports, judge reports, court analysis, and others, which is contained in the form of case documents and docket. if new systems and procedures have to be developed) and demand (e.g. Besides, it's your word against mine. “These walls are plaster and lath completely invisible to the radio spectrum. I have suspected for a while now that associating with Jimmy will destroy Kim's career and result in her disbarment, and this event may be the catalyst. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. PETRONAS, the acronym for Petroliam Nasional Berhad is a petroleum multinational corporation headquartered in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia which was incorporated on 17 August 1974 under the Companies Act, 1965. How to Do A Legal Analysis of a Fact Situation. On the other hand, the only possible evidence to bring the authenticity of the tape into doubt would be Jimmy’s testimony that he never made any such confession, so the Committee would likely find the tape to be authentic and allow it into evidence. -Matter of D'Angelo, 1986-NMSC-052, 105 N.M. 391, 392–93, 733 P.2d 360, 361–62. RULE 11-1003. Presented with Reddit's user agreement, a Warner Bros. spokesman declined to get into any legal analysis except to say it "has obtained exclusive rights to Rome, Sweet Rome." New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, More posts from the betterCallSaul community. yeah, all the arguments about the tape seem to be ignoring the key issue that you point out. He will have to either admit he did (then he's disbarred), or blatantly lie to the faces of the State Bar, which would also be disbarable if they can catch him in the lie (Kim might have to also lie on his behalf which could be difficult, the Copy shop guy is still out there, Ernie, etc). He is likely referring to the fact that in New Mexico, disciplinary hearings use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Rules 11-1002 through 11-1004 of the New Mexico Rules of Evidence (which are identical to the federal rules) are the rules that govern this issue. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND TERMINOLOGY' ARTHUR L. CoRaiN Professor of Law, Yale University Every student of the law must be equipped with certain fundamental concepts and with certain terms in which to express them. You'd go to such lengths to humiliate me? Legal analytics is the application of data analysis methods and technologies within the field of law to improve efficiency, gain insight and realize greater value from available data. Stefan Riße, Kapitalmarktstratege bei Acatis, analysiert den Vorgang. See also, State v. Otto, 2007-NMSC-012, 141 N.M. 443, 448, 157 P.3d 8, 13 (“The purpose of Rule 11–403 is not to guard against any prejudice whatsoever, but only against the danger of unfair prejudice.” State v. Woodward, 121 N.M. 1, 6, 908 P.2d 231, 236 (1995) (citing 1 Kenneth S. Broun et al., McCormick on Evidence § 185, at 780 (John W. Strong ed., 4th ed.1992)). I'm gonna go call Howard. I. Chuck’s plan to play up his delusions will backfire on him, because Jimmy will use all of his delusional ranting to attack his credibility. Not only that, the rest of the tape is devastating to Chuck’s reliability. It is insane how you got every detail exactly right. ....That fucks Chuck over but how does that help Jimmy and his legal problems?.. It's wearing down my faculties! I paid the kid at the shop to lie for me. She worked her butt off to get Mesa Verde while you and Howard sat around sipping scotch and chortling. That's what I need…[Crying] It's this goddamned electricity! Those were put behind him last episode. Yes. I'd like to clear up a few things regarding whether the tape is admissible at Jimmy's upcoming disciplinary hearing with the New Mexico Bar Hearing Committee, and what Kim may have meant by her “Bingo!” exclamation. Agreed, great points all around. Does that clear things up? Chuck said. The interesting part in this scenario is that if Chuck decides not to bring their conversation to the Committee’s attention, Rule 11-1004(A) would prevent Jimmy from testifying about what was said, since he would at that point be the proponent of the evidence, who destroyed the original in bad faith. Evidence is not unfairly prejudicial “simply because it inculpates the defendant.” Id.") Second, while it is true that in an attorney disciplinary hearing, the standard of proof is ordinarily preponderance of the evidence, when the attorney has been accused of fraud, a higher standard of proof applies: clear and convincing evidence. Finally, the recorded evidence that Chuck was in the middle of one of the most severe delusional episodes Jimmy had witnessed, will lend credence to Jimmy’s claim that he was just trying to comfort Chuck and persuade him to return to HHM. If not, hearing the Chuck recorded on the tape going on about his space blanket project might be another ingredient to damaging his credibility while he stands before the court with the lights on. Eventually i got this judge to keep it out under 403, arguing that the probative value was so low because of the context of the statement--the partner had access to no discovery when the statement was made and therefore couldn't truly represent the facts, and that there was a danger of confusing the issues before the jury. No. To warrant a finding of misconduct in contested cases, the facts must be established by clear and convincing evidence… [I]t is only where allegations such as fraud are involved or where the clear and convincing burden has been established by statute that such a higher burden is allowed in civil cases. when she knows that's the case. I think it was mentioned at some point that the Committee members knew and respected Chuck, so there's a good chance they will accommodate him. At the appellate level, the courts are concerned with legal issues, not questions of fact. KIM: But you went to him worried for his mental health. I don't see why there'd be a long drawn-out argument about how he got them, etc. ADMISSIBILITY OF OTHER EVIDENCE OF CONTENT, An original is not required and other evidence of the content of a writing, recording, or photograph is admissible if.

Acrylic Powder Suppliers Trinidad, How To Unlock Fatalities In Mortal Kombat 9, Benefits Of Having A Black Dog Astrology, Average Protection Period Real Estate, How Do Snakes Get Mites, Bounty Hunter Bootcamp Lydia, Sinigang Na Salmon Sa Miso Calories, Craziest Eve Online Stories, Fisher-price Infant-to-toddler Rocker Cover, Wooden Decking Edge Trim, Case Western Pediatric Dentistry, Hard Truth Toasted Coconut Rum Price, Affliction Warlock Shadowlands Rotation, Mother And Baby Elephant Quotes,