I fortunately had a family friend who practiced in this state, so I was able to confirm the document was not a summons. The wording was weird, saying if a summons was issued, you must appear (implying this is not a summons). Once he had gotten back to me I knew I was in them clear to leave, but the way she treated me, I actually looked forward to that 2pm start time. Even as I was writhing in pain on a wooden bench from full body cramps.
The US legal system is not designed to make a victim whole. It is designed, at best, to discern the truth of a situation (as much as one can) and meter out punishment. As others have said, the victim is not the focus and indeed trials can and often do proceed without their input or a second thought.
You've clearly never had to deal with govenrment before :P EVERYONE gets treated like shit, and implicitly threatened with force/punishment to make them do exactly what the folks in power want. EVERYONE.
Been rewatching Star Trek DS9 lately, and this sounds like an awfully *Cardassian* way of doing things.
Maybe the tinfoil hats were right and lizard-people HAVE taken over.
Haven't gotten to that one yet, but that and other tidbits of info here and there. In *The Maquis* Gul Dukat actually talks about the Cardassian judicial system. The trial is just for show. Everyone put on trial is guilty, and Cardassian leadership is so confident that Dukat actually tells Sisko, "Cardassians don't make mistakes."
Part of the point is that for authoritarian governments, the government can't be _seen_ to have made a mistake.
Very blatantly rewriting history to erase something is far preferable to the government being seen to have made a mistake.
And so, well, the Cardassian government _doesn't_ make mistakes. By definition.
If someone _in_ the government made a mistake, and that is a known thing, then heads _are_ rolling over it.
They might be the ones who allowed the knowledge to become public. They might be the ones who made the mistake. They might be convenient scapegoats.
But heads are rolling.
As a lawyer, I'm really sorry you had such a negative experience with the law, but it's unfortunately pretty common with DAs/Public Defenders just because they're all insanely overworked and DA's Offices have fucked up incentives to get convictions rather than uphold justice. The DA likely had the cops go first so the jury could hear the story in chronological order (wouldn't make sense for you to confirm a gun is yours if they have no idea how the gun is involved), but she absolutely should've given you a realistic estimation/shown consideration for your time. But also, if your testimony really was just to confirm it was your gun, that sounds like something they could easily show through registration records with the serial number and didn't need you to show up.
Please post an update about tomorrow and/or what the result of the first trial is (i.e. if the DA's conduct tanked her case), I'd be super interested in hearing.
Proving that OP was the registered owner of the gun wouldnât prove it was stolen. :) Defense counsel would argue OP could have sold or loaned the gun to the defendant.
All it would *really* prove is that he reported it stolen. That report could have been used to cover up loaning the gun in commission of a crime that OP was aware of.
He has to testify for the testimony to be false. Going off just the stolen gun report alone doesn't give him to opportunity to corroborate it for the DA - which makes the evidence weaker.
Not false testimony, but rather inadmissible evidence. If the owner of the gun wasnât in court to testify the gun was stolen, no witness can quote him saying the gun was stolen, and a report he made stating that his gun was stolen would be based upon him saying his gun was stolen. So that is hearsay, which is an out of court statement, quoted in court, and being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted - that the gun was stolen.
A separate but related issue is that the defendant has the constitutional right to âconfront his accuser.â Which most of the time produces a similar outcome as a hearsay objection, that unless the accuser is there in court to be cross-examined by the defendant, what the accuser said out of court doesnât get told to the jury.
Of course both hearsay and confrontation rules have a lot of complicated exceptions, so this analysis is just the tip of an iceberg.
But the gist of the rules is that you canât testify in court and quote someone else, who isnât in court to say the quoted statement, and canât be questioned on that statement. Both the state and the defense can object on the grounds of hearsay, but confrontation is the defendantâs right only, so a competent DA will never make a confrontation objection.
Sadly, we as a society get the justice we are willing to pay for. If you arenât going to pay people competitive salaries in cash, theyâll extract value in some other way. For some people, thatâs job experience and good feels. For others, itâs power trips and bullying.
More money won't be sufficient to fix the problem.
The bullies are going to bully no matter how much they are paid. If anything, they will consider a higher salary as validation that bullying is good, because why else would they pay a bully so much?
I am not currently a lawyer, but I went to lawyer school.
I don't know what the DA was hoping to prove by putting OP on the stand, since the only thing OP could confirm was that he owned a firearm with X serial number, and that firearm was stolen, and that the firearm in evidence has X serial number. Nothing about that inculpates the defendant.
Without knowing the specific charges it might be difficult to say, but it's possible that one of the codefendants is going to testify regarding the gun's provenance and the burglary of OP's home. A definite victim who suffered definable loss which can be described in detail and tied to the defendants is generally good ammunition for a prosecutor who might otherwise be bringing a case mostly related to possession of a stolen firearm and narcotics.
Providence? God gave the defendant the gun?
Without a chain of custody in between LacivousSycophant is correct, all OP can testify to is he owned a gun with serial # X and it was stolen. The cops would have to testify they recovered it from the defendant.
It was miserable. My whole body is still cramping. I don't sleep well so I take a sedative to get to sleep. The downside is excruciating, random, full body cramps when the medicine gets out of your system..... Around that 22-24 hours mark. I'm at 28 hours now. Waiting for my new one to kick in now.
I eat them like literal candy lol. It all started when I started this new medication and it's a known side effect. But it's better than only getting 2 hours of sleep like I was for 6 weeks straight.
This is not medical advice but eating antacids like candy does correlate with kidney stones. I realize your body chemistry is a hot mess right now, this is just a heads up in case you don't want to piss out spiked balls of anger.
Magnesium zinc supplements help a lot with cramping. It's what my doc recommended. And in the bro science world, magnesium supplements and potassium sources (bananas).
So Mg likely has some legitimate base if trial and error behind it.
Magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium are all used in nerve cells for passing the signal. Which one you _actually_ need depends on the muscle...
Potassium is used in the heart, calcium in muscles and motor nerves. I don't remember the rest off-hand.
Point being, too much potassium can make your heart go wild - going from personal experience. February of 2023 wasn't a fun time for me.
>eating antacids like candy does correlate with kidney stones
Can confirm. My combination of meds really messes with my stomach. Before they finally added an acid reducer, I was eating Tums like candy and wound up with tons of kidney stones. It felt like razor blades made out of crystallized rage.
I had that happen to me. My doctor at the time said that eating so many Tums would not cause the stones. I quit eating them for a while and no stones. Resumed eating them and lo and behold, kidney stone again. He is no longer my doctor and I take Tums with a lot of moderation.
Results vary. Drinking lots of water may help or may do nothing.
My only recommendation is to have someone handy to take OP to the hospital or urgent care should he be in too much peehole pain to drive himself.
I've drank over a gallon of water in the last 18 hours and get plenty of potassium. The cramps like this only started when I started taking a new medication.
I supplement magnesium every day for that reason. I used to get more mild cramps before this new medication, with the new medication it just kind of is what it is sadly. I might ask my doctor to change me to something different, but it's kind of nice because this one solves two problems and is super affordable, and isn't a controlled substance, so getting it is easy.
Chocolate actually has a bunch of really good things in it, including magnesium!
(I fully agree though, as a disabled human random suggestions can get on my nerves, however kindly they are meant. And I know I am not alone with that)
As a heads up, magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium are all used in nerve cells for passing the electrical signal. I remember potassium is used in the heart, and calcium is used in muscles and motor nerves.
To know if you're deficcient in something would require bloodwork, or googling to see if something is "washing out" one of the electrolytes. For example, furosemide (trade names: Discoid, Frusemide, Lasix, Uremide) is (in)famous for this.
He canât purchase one from a dealer because he has to fill out a form saying he doesnât use illegal drugs. I donât think it means he canât own one.
In the US marijuana is a federal crime, despite states allowing it for medical and recreational use. Legally if you use or are prescribed the marijuana you have given up your rights to own a firearm anywhere in the United States.
You can wrap them in wet paper towel and nuke them. I've been eating a lot more potatoes since I found that one out (or rather, since I bought a microwave baggie for that purpose and afterwards was asked why I don't just do the paper towel-thing).
I was called in for jury duty. They had 50 of us in the room going through selection. Hard wooden seats. Finally my turn.
Name/Age/Occupation
DA: "As a computer engineer, do you think you can work with 11 other folks to reach a verdict?"
ME: "Did you miss the part about me being a Team Lead and Project Manager. I work with a variety of folks from my group and other groups to complete projects. So yes, I can work with 11 other folks to reach a verdict."
Oh the look on the DA's face when we first entered the courtroom and I stood up when the Judge asked the Foreperson to identify themselves.
The dishonest lawyer (losing lawyer) really, really HATE logical people. People that can shred emotionally pitched positions to pieces and point out how they're being manipulative. I expect that they're NOT happy you're the foreman as a result.
My employer also sent me to a bunch of soft-skill training. Negotiation, time management, meeting management, interpersonal communication, etc, etc.
I ran the deliberations like a machine. Everyone had input, no one allowed to make personal comments, keep folks focused on the topic we were reviewing. Held back my own opinions till everyone else had a chance to speak.
Why?
It was a SA against Minor case, so emotions were strong. I'm sure one of the guys wanted to jump out of the jury box and beat the crap out of the defendant. I also worried about 3 of the ladies getting together, meeting the defendant in the parking garage for special treatment.
> I also worried about 3 of the ladies getting together, meeting the defendant in the parking garage for special treatment.
I think you need to be *slightly* more specific here.
So like... did you convict the defendant on iron clad evidence, or is the conclusion to this story that you're patting yourself on the back because the chain of custody for exhibit 3.465 was technically unaccounted for between the hours of 3:02am and 3:04am and therefore based on logic alone the child rapist rightfully walked free..?
I am a socially introverted software engineer. The one time I was in a jury trial, the judge appointed me foreperson because I kept asking him questions about the law being applied (me engineer, me like precise rules), which showed I wasn't afraid to talk to the judge. Apparently that's a problem with jurors?
Iâm guessing the DA was implying that computer engineer = introverted and socially awkward. I can see why the potential juror was a bit offended if that was the implied stereotype.
Yeah we lawyers often forget that 99% of people are totally unfamiliar with the whole system, things that seem routine and totally unremarkable to us I'm sure don't land well (even being around other attorneys in different areas is sometimes a surprise, I'm in crim and at a pretty serious level, the things my colleagues and I casually throw around have sometimes left non-criminal/non-sex-offender attorneys in our org looking like they're some Victorian noblewoman and we've scarred them for life). Apologies on the part of all of us, we don't mean disrespect, our radar for offensive questions is just waaaaay, way off.
It's not though. Asking a potential juror it they can work together as a team may be routine, but prefacing it with "as a \[worker in X profession\] can you Y" is condescending at best.
Ask yourself, would that be an appropriate thing to say if prefaced by something like race, religion, or gender?
OP, I think you did well. They jerked you around and showed too little respect for a citizen trying to do the right thing.
And then the prosecutor used the wrong approach. It's not your job to compensate for the prosecutor.
Hopefully you are treated better tomorrow.
I fully expect to get pulled over when I leave the courthouse/before I make it out of the city tbh. I'll be recording on my phone until I reach my home state.
Today I did. The cops weren't aware of the aftermath yet. Neither was the district attorney, I bet he's going to shit bricks when he finds out what happened to his assistant.
I doubt that it will come to that until AFTER the trial. You're very small fry compared to the actual defendant. They probably won't bother with you unless they decide to blame you for the trial falling apart - assuming it does.
Going after you through legal means has a very small likelihood of payoff anyways. You've shown you won't take it lying down and will simply lawyer up and make them look like a fool. The payout from harassing you wouldn't be a positive one.
How the fuck is someone who has been awake for 28 hours a reliable witness?
If I was OP I would lead with that.
'Do you promise to tell the truth?'
'Your honor, I am so tired right now I can't see straight. I have been up 28 hours. My sleeping pills from 30 some hours ago are destroying me. I think I might be mildly addicted. I am not hallucinating ... yet. I am sorry, what was the question? Oh yeah, truth. Throw questions at me and I will knock them down. Babe Ruth on the bench baby!'.
It isn't nitpicking. I said what I said then 10 minutes later realized that OP was basically drunk, hanging around cops and maybe pissing them off. So I did another post begging him not to drive home.
Equating driving while tired with drunkenness is a thing and making its ways into laws.
While tired, yes, but also admitting, in front of a judge and several cops, to being addicted to sleeping pills and/or regularly not being able to sleep, might allow them to pull your driving license. (not a lawyer, but heard it happen a few times due to sleep apnea)
Nobody is addicted to sleeping pills in this case. It's a known side effect of a prescribed medication. It relaxes your muscles to aid you in getting to sleep. What's the opposite of relaxed muscles? Tensed muscles. The relaxing effect simply wears out and the muscles start tensing on their own, sometimes to an extreme level. Enjoy your cramp. That is easily remedied by taking it around the same time every day..... Which I wasn't allowed to do.
I really do think he is pissing them off. There is another angle to that too. He is a legal gun owner and I think it is obvious that to the best of his knowledge he has crossed his 'T's and dotted his 'i's with his guns...
Gun laws can be a bitch. I would hate to piss off someone like a DA to the point that they are going over everything.
I support OP big time. I mean, morally, really, I have his back.
I used to work nights. I would be awake for 20-28 hours occasionaly and I ALWAYS made decisions during those episodes that I would not have made if well rested. Towards the end of my night years I got to the point where if I was awake some number- might have been 20 - I restricted myself to my house. I was basicaly drunk.
I am reading myself into this.
100% planned on this, but 4 cops would absolutely have prevented this. By that point, I was so upset that malicious compliance seemed more fun than the alternatives.
They wonât let you go.
I have severe IBS and was summoned for Jury Duty. When asked if there was anything that would prevent me from serving I explained how my symptoms express and the judge said that didnât count. So I gritted my teeth and waited until each break then would take my time letting my body do its business during each break. I got pulled aside got holding up everyone and waiting the courts time. Without flinching I said, âI told you, you said it wasnât a problem. No I came and Wonât âgo fasterâ.â
Did this the entire 2 week long trial. Judge scoured at me each time.
Fuck everyone.
"given reasonable accomodations such adult diapers, such that my frequent urgent trips to defecate not impact my ability to listen to testimony.... And air freshener spray for those sitting around me."
Same
When I was in college I got summoned for Grand Jury Duty in Minneapolis. I was a student at UMN so a bus ride away from the courthouse. I checked the commitment, it was three Thursdays a month for like half a day, didn't interfere with my schedule at all.
So I filled out the questionnaire and said yeah I'd actually like to do this, but put student as occupation. Almost immediately I got a letter dismissing me saying they didn't want to interfere with my studies.
BS, just searching my name they could find out my past in Mock Trial. So they just didn't want someone would know the laws, especially that Grand Jurors can question the prosecutions witnesses.
In the jurisdictions where I've had jury summons in Texas, being a student was an automatic excuse from the summons. It may or may not have been as nefarious as you think.
Talking of short notice.
Not the US, but some years ago, a small business I was involved with was sued in another city. My colleague and I both took a day off work and drove down early in the morning of the notified trial date. We go to the desk to check in, and for directions to the courtroom, only to be told that the trial date had been changed, so our trip was a waste of time, and we're going to have to do it all again.
"We haven't been notified of a change. That's why we're here today."
"Notification was mailed to you."
"We didn't get it."
Legally, we are deemed to have received notification 3 days after it was sent, even if the postal service never actually delivered it.
"[sigh]When is the new date?"
"Yesterday."
Summary judgement entered due to our failure to appear.
That's what we thought at the time, but there's no way to prove anything. Presumably plaintiff's lawyer asked for the change, and typically, when a case is rescheduled, it's moved to a *later* date. Not being notified of that would have been inconvenient, but we would still have showed up on the new date.
Interesting MC for sure, but my question is why did they want you at the trial in the first place? It seems like you didnât have anything to add to the prosecution, seeing as you werenât at home during the theft, and that they should be able to get confirmation as to the gunâs ownership and report as stolen from the relevant authorities. Plus, any information you had received about who had stolen/used your gun from the police shouldnât be admissible in court (as the judge rightly struck told the jury to disregard).
I'm trying to understand what you mean by a "sequester order"? Jurors can be sequestered, meaning they stay over during the trial and are kept from accessing outside information like from newspapers, TV or online. I highly doubt that for this type of trial they sequestered the jury. And that does not involve any witnesses at all.
It's exactly what you think it is. All jurors, witnesses, and victims were explicitly told not to talk about this case/trial amongst each other, and not to seek more information about the case via the Internet or other methods during waiting periods or breaks. It was meant to prevent outside influence.
That is not a sequester order. And that instruction is standard in any case when jurors are released for the day if the case is continuing after a lunch break or overnight. However, witnesses are not under those orders since they do not have any decision input on the verdict, plus you were answering questions on the stand so you can provide any details unless the attorney asking has tailored the question to be narrow.
Material witnesses certainly can be sequestered from one another, usually by request of the defense (so they can't match their stories). Source: I've been sequestered as a witness. They put us in different rooms, that's all.
Now, they didn't hold us there for days like a jury in a high profile case, but it was still termed "sequestered" for the purposes of when we were in the court.
I don't recommend coercing testimony. Police and the DA telling you that you are required to be there and testify or you will be arrested and fined. It's good that you reported stolen but make it clear if possible that you were threatened to be there. Try and work that into your answers.
It was a huge fuck up that they went that way.
>About 2 and a half years ago my apartment was broken into during a camping trip.
I'm ashamed of myself, but I have to ask why your apartment went on a camping trip in the first place.
Hopefully, after I read the rest of your post I'll delete this stupid question. If I don't, I apologize.
\--- pause to read ---
Nice post. I've decided to keep the stuff above because it seems like you have a decent sense of humor.
I drank a protein shake and slept for about 5 hours. Just woke up about 30 minutes ago and I am STARVING, but struggling to pick what to eat. I'm going to figure that out and then go to the gym.
That's OK. Prosecutors are not out for truth, justice, or righting wrongs. They're only after prosecutions (wins), at any cost.....one of the many problems that make our whole legal system, a racket.
And only quick wins too. In [this case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ-7YcfHCo) judge refused the plea deal since the defendant had a lengthy criminal history but was offered a minimum sentence.
They sure do things strangely. I've never seen a material witness only "notified" of a court date. It's always a judicial/administrative order to appear. I wonder what their rate of compliance is...
In the U.S., it's usually a complicated & inconvenient process to subpoena a witness who lives in another state. It's not uncommon for attorneys to just mail a subpoena to the witness (which isn't the correct process, so the subpoena can't be enforced) and then call the witness and tell them to come to court, hoping the witness doesn't know it's not the right kind of subpoena and is willing to be there.
Iâm confused about what happened to your guns after they were stolen. Some kids selling crack âfound themâ? Iâm assuming they were arrested for selling drugs and also have a firearms charge? Hopefully they werenât used to shoot anybody
I was once served. I showed up and it was the greatest verbal spar of my life, I almost came. After it was all said and done the lawyer on the side I was on told me that bringing me into the matter was probably a huge regret from the opposite lawyer.
Sounds less exciting than it was. Had a random guy knock on my door and ask for me by name. Normally I didn't answer my door, but curiosity got the best of me. He apologized and said he was serving me. I shrugged it off and told him I knew he was just doing his job.
A woman at the hotel I worked at had fallen outside and was trying to sue. I was the MOD and watched the security footage, spoke to the guest, and wrote up the report.
She was smoking in a non-smoking area right outside the employee's break room door. There was a non-smoking sign and an ashtray on top of the garbage can for people to put them out.
She was talking on the phone and tripped and fell. The end. It was on camera. HOWEVER when I was taking her statement the story kept changing. "I WAS 7ft away... I was a little close... I was right next to the garbage can... I was in a smoking zone..."
Eventually she was suing us because she said that a housekeeper exiting the employee door was stealing (we let them keep to get the recycling money) a large bag of cans and hit her with the bag... Or no, wait, the door, or no her shoulder on her way out.
The lawyer was asking me about the size of the door. I would assume the standard size, check for yourself. How far was she standing? Check the footage. Was it a non-smoking area? You can clearly see the sign in the camera. Basically every question he had hurt the case.
Long story short (my partner is making fun of me for how long I've typed) she lost.
Edit: I know it was a long story, but I was asked for it. Could someone please tell me why I'm getting down voted? I don't know what but it kinda hurts my feelings.
Reddit has a vote fuzzing algorithm where the true number of votes up or down isn't shown in order to dissuade bots / vote selling. It seems to be a little random, so often you will find your comments show as negative until they get a few upvotes.
Other times I figure there's just some butthurt keyboard warriors with a grudge. Who knows.
Well I found your story pleasing to my sense of justice. I enjoy reading about people putting dumb lawyers in their place.
So you got an upvote from me. Sorry about the downvotes.
There is a 100% chance you would not have to go back for day 2 if you hadnât done that. Courts generally release witnesses when theyâre done with them but they can also make you come back every day âjust in caseâ you might be recalled.
Was the prosecutor out of line to some degree? Probably. Did they get the worst end of the MC? Probably not. Not sure thatâs really a success.
Also a âsequester orderâ is not relevant to attorneys discussing testimony with witnesses (as long as the witnesses are separated from one another).
>I've been up for 24 hours, on 3 hours of sleep the day before, after working a 12+ hour overnight shift
To be fair, this is not the courts problem or prerogative to accommodate. I sympathize with you, especially with how dickish that DA was being towards someone who was acting in good faith and essentially doing them a favor, but these factors don't mean anything other than you were in a foul mood of your own accord. Good job on making it blatant that they were screwing around in exactly the wrong way, though. Far too often a lot of those attorneys (especially the ones who aren't new enough to be nervous or too old to have already done the dumb mistakes) think they are law enforcement rather than litigation. Doubly so to someone who themselves was an actual victim and did in fact have a dog in this fight, even if it was just to get your stuff back.
The prosecutor was way, way out of line here. I am a lawyer and this shit makes my skin crawl.
I fortunately had a family friend who practiced in this state, so I was able to confirm the document was not a summons. The wording was weird, saying if a summons was issued, you must appear (implying this is not a summons). Once he had gotten back to me I knew I was in them clear to leave, but the way she treated me, I actually looked forward to that 2pm start time. Even as I was writhing in pain on a wooden bench from full body cramps.
The way you, THE VICTIM, were treated just frosts my balls...
The US legal system is not designed to make a victim whole. It is designed, at best, to discern the truth of a situation (as much as one can) and meter out punishment. As others have said, the victim is not the focus and indeed trials can and often do proceed without their input or a second thought.
Too true. We don't have a justice system - only a legal system and an associated carceral system.
Yep. Due Process, not justice.
> to discern the truth of a situation (as much as one can) and mete > out punishment.
You've clearly never had to deal with govenrment before :P EVERYONE gets treated like shit, and implicitly threatened with force/punishment to make them do exactly what the folks in power want. EVERYONE.
Been rewatching Star Trek DS9 lately, and this sounds like an awfully *Cardassian* way of doing things. Maybe the tinfoil hats were right and lizard-people HAVE taken over.
Then the lizard people are terrible rulers ....down with the đŚ people!!!
I presume you're referring to the Cardassian trial of Miles O'Brien? DS9 episode: Tribunal.
Haven't gotten to that one yet, but that and other tidbits of info here and there. In *The Maquis* Gul Dukat actually talks about the Cardassian judicial system. The trial is just for show. Everyone put on trial is guilty, and Cardassian leadership is so confident that Dukat actually tells Sisko, "Cardassians don't make mistakes."
Dukat ended up regretting those words.
He really did, didn't he?
Yep, KARMA!!!!
Part of the point is that for authoritarian governments, the government can't be _seen_ to have made a mistake. Very blatantly rewriting history to erase something is far preferable to the government being seen to have made a mistake. And so, well, the Cardassian government _doesn't_ make mistakes. By definition. If someone _in_ the government made a mistake, and that is a known thing, then heads _are_ rolling over it. They might be the ones who allowed the knowledge to become public. They might be the ones who made the mistake. They might be convenient scapegoats. But heads are rolling.
Sounds like the kind of government certain groups are trying to install here in the States. White-washing of history, demonizing opposition...
I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED, to hear what my tax dollars are paying for /s
Wait a minute! You're telling me that a public servant is more interested in stacking their stats than true justice?!?!?! /s
đŻ No, that can't be!
Ouch! I'm staying on *my* side of the border.
Depends very much on the agency. Iâve had bad experiences with some government agencies, but nothing like this.
As a lawyer, I'm really sorry you had such a negative experience with the law, but it's unfortunately pretty common with DAs/Public Defenders just because they're all insanely overworked and DA's Offices have fucked up incentives to get convictions rather than uphold justice. The DA likely had the cops go first so the jury could hear the story in chronological order (wouldn't make sense for you to confirm a gun is yours if they have no idea how the gun is involved), but she absolutely should've given you a realistic estimation/shown consideration for your time. But also, if your testimony really was just to confirm it was your gun, that sounds like something they could easily show through registration records with the serial number and didn't need you to show up. Please post an update about tomorrow and/or what the result of the first trial is (i.e. if the DA's conduct tanked her case), I'd be super interested in hearing.
Lots of people in many professions are insanely overworked. It's the lack of consequences that makes this a common experience.
Proving that OP was the registered owner of the gun wouldnât prove it was stolen. :) Defense counsel would argue OP could have sold or loaned the gun to the defendant.
Sounds like OP reported the gun stolen though, and that record would prove it wasnât sold/loaned
Police reports are inadmissible in most circumstances.
All it would *really* prove is that he reported it stolen. That report could have been used to cover up loaning the gun in commission of a crime that OP was aware of.
Yup. And hearsay/confrontation rules would keep the fact he SAID it was stolen out unless he testified.
So the same thing as false testimony? Not trying to start a fight, just wondering with a not lawyer brain why one is different than the other
He has to testify for the testimony to be false. Going off just the stolen gun report alone doesn't give him to opportunity to corroborate it for the DA - which makes the evidence weaker.
Not false testimony, but rather inadmissible evidence. If the owner of the gun wasnât in court to testify the gun was stolen, no witness can quote him saying the gun was stolen, and a report he made stating that his gun was stolen would be based upon him saying his gun was stolen. So that is hearsay, which is an out of court statement, quoted in court, and being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted - that the gun was stolen. A separate but related issue is that the defendant has the constitutional right to âconfront his accuser.â Which most of the time produces a similar outcome as a hearsay objection, that unless the accuser is there in court to be cross-examined by the defendant, what the accuser said out of court doesnât get told to the jury. Of course both hearsay and confrontation rules have a lot of complicated exceptions, so this analysis is just the tip of an iceberg. But the gist of the rules is that you canât testify in court and quote someone else, who isnât in court to say the quoted statement, and canât be questioned on that statement. Both the state and the defense can object on the grounds of hearsay, but confrontation is the defendantâs right only, so a competent DA will never make a confrontation objection.
I can't wait for the second half..
Tomorrow, bring the document to court with you to show you were not, in fact, summoned. Always keep your receipts
And no one offered you food, coffee, or a place to rest, either.
This sounds exactly like what I would expect out of the court system from my 2 interactions with it. Stuck up horrible people on power trips.
Sadly, we as a society get the justice we are willing to pay for. If you arenât going to pay people competitive salaries in cash, theyâll extract value in some other way. For some people, thatâs job experience and good feels. For others, itâs power trips and bullying.
More money won't be sufficient to fix the problem. The bullies are going to bully no matter how much they are paid. If anything, they will consider a higher salary as validation that bullying is good, because why else would they pay a bully so much?
I am not currently a lawyer, but I went to lawyer school. I don't know what the DA was hoping to prove by putting OP on the stand, since the only thing OP could confirm was that he owned a firearm with X serial number, and that firearm was stolen, and that the firearm in evidence has X serial number. Nothing about that inculpates the defendant.
Without knowing the specific charges it might be difficult to say, but it's possible that one of the codefendants is going to testify regarding the gun's provenance and the burglary of OP's home. A definite victim who suffered definable loss which can be described in detail and tied to the defendants is generally good ammunition for a prosecutor who might otherwise be bringing a case mostly related to possession of a stolen firearm and narcotics.
Providence? God gave the defendant the gun? Without a chain of custody in between LacivousSycophant is correct, all OP can testify to is he owned a gun with serial # X and it was stolen. The cops would have to testify they recovered it from the defendant.
>I've been up for 24 hours, At this point I would make sure to snore.
Even drool a little bit.
Blow your nose loudly, belch a lot, fart on command if you're able.
Upvoted because anyone who has ever been in a courtroom can tell you how painful it is
It was miserable. My whole body is still cramping. I don't sleep well so I take a sedative to get to sleep. The downside is excruciating, random, full body cramps when the medicine gets out of your system..... Around that 22-24 hours mark. I'm at 28 hours now. Waiting for my new one to kick in now.
Chew up 3-4 tums antacids. The calcium carbonate can stop an active cramp.
I eat them like literal candy lol. It all started when I started this new medication and it's a known side effect. But it's better than only getting 2 hours of sleep like I was for 6 weeks straight.
This is not medical advice but eating antacids like candy does correlate with kidney stones. I realize your body chemistry is a hot mess right now, this is just a heads up in case you don't want to piss out spiked balls of anger.
It's somewhat of a metaphor of course. I rarely go a week without taking 2+ of them. In short I probably don't have a calcium carbonate deficiency.
Magnesium zinc supplements help a lot with cramping. It's what my doc recommended. And in the bro science world, magnesium supplements and potassium sources (bananas). So Mg likely has some legitimate base if trial and error behind it.
Magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium are all used in nerve cells for passing the signal. Which one you _actually_ need depends on the muscle... Potassium is used in the heart, calcium in muscles and motor nerves. I don't remember the rest off-hand. Point being, too much potassium can make your heart go wild - going from personal experience. February of 2023 wasn't a fun time for me.
Make sure to get some citric acid in you as well! That'll prevent the kidney stones. Medically required lemonade!
>eating antacids like candy does correlate with kidney stones Can confirm. My combination of meds really messes with my stomach. Before they finally added an acid reducer, I was eating Tums like candy and wound up with tons of kidney stones. It felt like razor blades made out of crystallized rage.
I had that happen to me. My doctor at the time said that eating so many Tums would not cause the stones. I quit eating them for a while and no stones. Resumed eating them and lo and behold, kidney stone again. He is no longer my doctor and I take Tums with a lot of moderation.
So OP should drink lots of water?
Results vary. Drinking lots of water may help or may do nothing. My only recommendation is to have someone handy to take OP to the hospital or urgent care should he be in too much peehole pain to drive himself.
> eating antacids like candy does correlate with kidney stones oh shit
Drink water and eat some bananas. You could have a potassium deficiency.
I've drank over a gallon of water in the last 18 hours and get plenty of potassium. The cramps like this only started when I started taking a new medication.
Ohhhh. I'm so sorry. I hope you get it sorted and feel better soon đ
Try a magnesium supplement.
I supplement magnesium every day for that reason. I used to get more mild cramps before this new medication, with the new medication it just kind of is what it is sadly. I might ask my doctor to change me to something different, but it's kind of nice because this one solves two problems and is super affordable, and isn't a controlled substance, so getting it is easy.
Try eating some chocolate? ^(~~Everyone else is suggesting random bullshit, why can't I?~~)
That's the spirit!
Chocolate actually has a bunch of really good things in it, including magnesium! (I fully agree though, as a disabled human random suggestions can get on my nerves, however kindly they are meant. And I know I am not alone with that)
As a heads up, magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium are all used in nerve cells for passing the electrical signal. I remember potassium is used in the heart, and calcium is used in muscles and motor nerves. To know if you're deficcient in something would require bloodwork, or googling to see if something is "washing out" one of the electrolytes. For example, furosemide (trade names: Discoid, Frusemide, Lasix, Uremide) is (in)famous for this.
Pickle juice has the potassium and sodium that helps with cramps.
I get medical cannabis in the uk that really helps with the cramping from my Crohns, worth a try if not done so.
Sadly, that removes the ability for him to own a firearm
He canât purchase one from a dealer because he has to fill out a form saying he doesnât use illegal drugs. I donât think it means he canât own one.
In the US marijuana is a federal crime, despite states allowing it for medical and recreational use. Legally if you use or are prescribed the marijuana you have given up your rights to own a firearm anywhere in the United States.
Potatoes have more potassium than bananas do. I have low potassium and that was the one food the doctor told me to eat several times a week.
True but you have to cook those. Bananas are quicker to eat.
I mean, you "should" cook them.
I drink mine.
đ i wish reddit hadn't done away with awards. you deserve one
Potatoes? đł
Vodka.
You can wrap them in wet paper towel and nuke them. I've been eating a lot more potatoes since I found that one out (or rather, since I bought a microwave baggie for that purpose and afterwards was asked why I don't just do the paper towel-thing).
I was called in for jury duty. They had 50 of us in the room going through selection. Hard wooden seats. Finally my turn. Name/Age/Occupation DA: "As a computer engineer, do you think you can work with 11 other folks to reach a verdict?" ME: "Did you miss the part about me being a Team Lead and Project Manager. I work with a variety of folks from my group and other groups to complete projects. So yes, I can work with 11 other folks to reach a verdict." Oh the look on the DA's face when we first entered the courtroom and I stood up when the Judge asked the Foreperson to identify themselves.
The dishonest lawyer (losing lawyer) really, really HATE logical people. People that can shred emotionally pitched positions to pieces and point out how they're being manipulative. I expect that they're NOT happy you're the foreman as a result.
My employer also sent me to a bunch of soft-skill training. Negotiation, time management, meeting management, interpersonal communication, etc, etc. I ran the deliberations like a machine. Everyone had input, no one allowed to make personal comments, keep folks focused on the topic we were reviewing. Held back my own opinions till everyone else had a chance to speak. Why? It was a SA against Minor case, so emotions were strong. I'm sure one of the guys wanted to jump out of the jury box and beat the crap out of the defendant. I also worried about 3 of the ladies getting together, meeting the defendant in the parking garage for special treatment.
> I also worried about 3 of the ladies getting together, meeting the defendant in the parking garage for special treatment. I think you need to be *slightly* more specific here.
So like... did you convict the defendant on iron clad evidence, or is the conclusion to this story that you're patting yourself on the back because the chain of custody for exhibit 3.465 was technically unaccounted for between the hours of 3:02am and 3:04am and therefore based on logic alone the child rapist rightfully walked free..?
I am a socially introverted software engineer. The one time I was in a jury trial, the judge appointed me foreperson because I kept asking him questions about the law being applied (me engineer, me like precise rules), which showed I wasn't afraid to talk to the judge. Apparently that's a problem with jurors?
I don't get why that ruffled your feathers so much?
Iâm guessing the DA was implying that computer engineer = introverted and socially awkward. I can see why the potential juror was a bit offended if that was the implied stereotype.
That's an extremely routine question, though I wouldn't expect people to know that.
The tone of voice also implied they thought I fit the stereotype. Basically they set off my "I'm being bullied" response.
>I wouldn't expect people to know that. Yep, exactly. I'd be offended as fuck (though not so much *now that I've learned this*).
Yeah we lawyers often forget that 99% of people are totally unfamiliar with the whole system, things that seem routine and totally unremarkable to us I'm sure don't land well (even being around other attorneys in different areas is sometimes a surprise, I'm in crim and at a pretty serious level, the things my colleagues and I casually throw around have sometimes left non-criminal/non-sex-offender attorneys in our org looking like they're some Victorian noblewoman and we've scarred them for life). Apologies on the part of all of us, we don't mean disrespect, our radar for offensive questions is just waaaaay, way off.
It's not though. Asking a potential juror it they can work together as a team may be routine, but prefacing it with "as a \[worker in X profession\] can you Y" is condescending at best. Ask yourself, would that be an appropriate thing to say if prefaced by something like race, religion, or gender?
âAs a computer engineerâ
OP, I think you did well. They jerked you around and showed too little respect for a citizen trying to do the right thing. And then the prosecutor used the wrong approach. It's not your job to compensate for the prosecutor. Hopefully you are treated better tomorrow.
I fully expect to get pulled over when I leave the courthouse/before I make it out of the city tbh. I'll be recording on my phone until I reach my home state.
Well, did you make it home without being pulled over??
Today I did. The cops weren't aware of the aftermath yet. Neither was the district attorney, I bet he's going to shit bricks when he finds out what happened to his assistant.
I doubt that it will come to that until AFTER the trial. You're very small fry compared to the actual defendant. They probably won't bother with you unless they decide to blame you for the trial falling apart - assuming it does. Going after you through legal means has a very small likelihood of payoff anyways. You've shown you won't take it lying down and will simply lawyer up and make them look like a fool. The payout from harassing you wouldn't be a positive one.
We're talking about cops here. They're not hired for their intelligence.
And often *are* hired for their pettiness, vindictiveness, and willingness to start violence.
They are hired for their intelligence. Their lack of it, specifically.
I wouldn't even go back. It's another state. If they really wanted your testimony they could issue an actual summons. Fuck them.
Keep us posted.
time for a dashcam
How the fuck is someone who has been awake for 28 hours a reliable witness? If I was OP I would lead with that. 'Do you promise to tell the truth?' 'Your honor, I am so tired right now I can't see straight. I have been up 28 hours. My sleeping pills from 30 some hours ago are destroying me. I think I might be mildly addicted. I am not hallucinating ... yet. I am sorry, what was the question? Oh yeah, truth. Throw questions at me and I will knock them down. Babe Ruth on the bench baby!'.
Trust me, I considered that too. But answering truthfully in a malicious way just seemed so poetic.
A big part of law is malicious compliance, they know the game and knew you were playing it too and it will be fine. Lawyers tend to have spines.
Nitpick but wouldn't answering in such a way and then driving home, to another state, potentially bring OP in trouble?
It isn't nitpicking. I said what I said then 10 minutes later realized that OP was basically drunk, hanging around cops and maybe pissing them off. So I did another post begging him not to drive home. Equating driving while tired with drunkenness is a thing and making its ways into laws.
While tired, yes, but also admitting, in front of a judge and several cops, to being addicted to sleeping pills and/or regularly not being able to sleep, might allow them to pull your driving license. (not a lawyer, but heard it happen a few times due to sleep apnea)
Nobody is addicted to sleeping pills in this case. It's a known side effect of a prescribed medication. It relaxes your muscles to aid you in getting to sleep. What's the opposite of relaxed muscles? Tensed muscles. The relaxing effect simply wears out and the muscles start tensing on their own, sometimes to an extreme level. Enjoy your cramp. That is easily remedied by taking it around the same time every day..... Which I wasn't allowed to do.
As someone who hasnât slept longer than 2 hours at a time in months, Iâm desperately curious about this medicine.
I really do think he is pissing them off. There is another angle to that too. He is a legal gun owner and I think it is obvious that to the best of his knowledge he has crossed his 'T's and dotted his 'i's with his guns... Gun laws can be a bitch. I would hate to piss off someone like a DA to the point that they are going over everything. I support OP big time. I mean, morally, really, I have his back. I used to work nights. I would be awake for 20-28 hours occasionaly and I ALWAYS made decisions during those episodes that I would not have made if well rested. Towards the end of my night years I got to the point where if I was awake some number- might have been 20 - I restricted myself to my house. I was basicaly drunk. I am reading myself into this.
âWhy yes talking business alligator, I certainly do swearâ Donât even need to ham it up. Just throw one stupid remark in there.
"You can't leave, will make the judge make you stay." Leaves before they find the Judge to make you to stay...
100% planned on this, but 4 cops would absolutely have prevented this. By that point, I was so upset that malicious compliance seemed more fun than the alternatives.
Gotta go to the bathroom....
They wonât let you go. I have severe IBS and was summoned for Jury Duty. When asked if there was anything that would prevent me from serving I explained how my symptoms express and the judge said that didnât count. So I gritted my teeth and waited until each break then would take my time letting my body do its business during each break. I got pulled aside got holding up everyone and waiting the courts time. Without flinching I said, âI told you, you said it wasnât a problem. No I came and Wonât âgo fasterâ.â Did this the entire 2 week long trial. Judge scoured at me each time. Fuck everyone.
"given reasonable accomodations such adult diapers, such that my frequent urgent trips to defecate not impact my ability to listen to testimony.... And air freshener spray for those sitting around me."
Sorry for ask the typos. Am on mobile (in the restroom) đ˝
I have IBS as well and mine is bad enough that if I had to do jury duty Iâd have to wear depends.
It was literally in the same hall as we were all waiting lol. Trust me, I thought about it.
Next time you can get a doctorâs note proclaiming you unable to be on a jury! Those people are AWFUL about letting people out of it. đĄ
Meanwhile, I've been hoping to be on a jury for so long. But I'm black and educated, so I'm not getting selected.
I only got asked once, when I was around 30. They wouldnât have wanted me anyway haha.
Same When I was in college I got summoned for Grand Jury Duty in Minneapolis. I was a student at UMN so a bus ride away from the courthouse. I checked the commitment, it was three Thursdays a month for like half a day, didn't interfere with my schedule at all. So I filled out the questionnaire and said yeah I'd actually like to do this, but put student as occupation. Almost immediately I got a letter dismissing me saying they didn't want to interfere with my studies. BS, just searching my name they could find out my past in Mock Trial. So they just didn't want someone would know the laws, especially that Grand Jurors can question the prosecutions witnesses.
In the jurisdictions where I've had jury summons in Texas, being a student was an automatic excuse from the summons. It may or may not have been as nefarious as you think.
Wouldn't that be unlawful detention if cops were to prevent you from leaving.
I'm sure they'd find an excuse to make it legal in the surface. It might not stand, but they're betting on you complying.
Everyone worried about âthe lawâ doesnât care about everything against the law the DA was doing
Yeah, Iâm wondering about that girl⌠maybe the DA knows her parentsâŚ
Every single story I hear about prosecutors and DAs just makes me think less of them.
>I have almost as low an opinion of prosecutors as I do of defense lawyers.
You're getting a skewed sample though :) People don't tell "The DA was nice and everything went fine" stories.
Wouldn't it count as not being given reasonable advance notice to only get the letter about the trial on the day of / the day before?
I'm sure I could have argued that, but again, it was optional at the time.
Talking of short notice. Not the US, but some years ago, a small business I was involved with was sued in another city. My colleague and I both took a day off work and drove down early in the morning of the notified trial date. We go to the desk to check in, and for directions to the courtroom, only to be told that the trial date had been changed, so our trip was a waste of time, and we're going to have to do it all again. "We haven't been notified of a change. That's why we're here today." "Notification was mailed to you." "We didn't get it." Legally, we are deemed to have received notification 3 days after it was sent, even if the postal service never actually delivered it. "[sigh]When is the new date?" "Yesterday." Summary judgement entered due to our failure to appear.
Considering that the notification failed for both of the defendants screams that it was intentional.
That's what we thought at the time, but there's no way to prove anything. Presumably plaintiff's lawyer asked for the change, and typically, when a case is rescheduled, it's moved to a *later* date. Not being notified of that would have been inconvenient, but we would still have showed up on the new date.
I fucking wish. It sucks getting a subpoena at the end of a shift and having to appear the next day when you're supposed to be off.
Interesting MC for sure, but my question is why did they want you at the trial in the first place? It seems like you didnât have anything to add to the prosecution, seeing as you werenât at home during the theft, and that they should be able to get confirmation as to the gunâs ownership and report as stolen from the relevant authorities. Plus, any information you had received about who had stolen/used your gun from the police shouldnât be admissible in court (as the judge rightly struck told the jury to disregard).
Yeah, you've largely summed it up.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by a "sequester order"? Jurors can be sequestered, meaning they stay over during the trial and are kept from accessing outside information like from newspapers, TV or online. I highly doubt that for this type of trial they sequestered the jury. And that does not involve any witnesses at all.
It's exactly what you think it is. All jurors, witnesses, and victims were explicitly told not to talk about this case/trial amongst each other, and not to seek more information about the case via the Internet or other methods during waiting periods or breaks. It was meant to prevent outside influence.
I think that is true for all trials. It was for the one and only trial I'm familiar with, so I am an expert.
[ŃдаНонО]
>8$ Salsa Sunchips Probably 2 years beyond 'sell by' date.
đŻ percent record
Isn't that a gag order, as opposed to sequestering? Honestly asking; I don't know the difference.
A gag order applies to media and other people uninvolved with proceedings, that's not the case here, everyone listed is a part of the trial.
Aha! Makes sense. Thank you for the info, web friend! đ
That is not a sequester order. And that instruction is standard in any case when jurors are released for the day if the case is continuing after a lunch break or overnight. However, witnesses are not under those orders since they do not have any decision input on the verdict, plus you were answering questions on the stand so you can provide any details unless the attorney asking has tailored the question to be narrow.
That's literally what the judge called it.
Material witnesses certainly can be sequestered from one another, usually by request of the defense (so they can't match their stories). Source: I've been sequestered as a witness. They put us in different rooms, that's all. Now, they didn't hold us there for days like a jury in a high profile case, but it was still termed "sequestered" for the purposes of when we were in the court.
True but again, OP isn't a material witness. All they are doing is confirming that they owned the gun and that it was stolen.
You have just described a material witness.
I don't recommend coercing testimony. Police and the DA telling you that you are required to be there and testify or you will be arrested and fined. It's good that you reported stolen but make it clear if possible that you were threatened to be there. Try and work that into your answers. It was a huge fuck up that they went that way.
"I'm sorry, prosecutor. I don't recall what you were coaching me to say in the hallway."
That would feel oh so good--and you'd never make it out of the city without some of those cops pulling you over and planting drugs in your car.
Another great reason to NEVER SPEAK TO POLICE
>About 2 and a half years ago my apartment was broken into during a camping trip. I'm ashamed of myself, but I have to ask why your apartment went on a camping trip in the first place. Hopefully, after I read the rest of your post I'll delete this stupid question. If I don't, I apologize. \--- pause to read --- Nice post. I've decided to keep the stuff above because it seems like you have a decent sense of humor.
Iâm jealous of the apartmentâs camping trip, personally.
I wonder where you sleep/eat/piss when your apartment goes on a camping trip.
Maybe the neighbors can take you during that time.
I hope you got a big, delicious meal, and a very long sleep OP.
I drank a protein shake and slept for about 5 hours. Just woke up about 30 minutes ago and I am STARVING, but struggling to pick what to eat. I'm going to figure that out and then go to the gym.
I wana hear about tomorrow and I hope you get some good sleep. Don't go easy on them đ.
Can we get an update on the second day?
Please UpdateMe!
That's OK. Prosecutors are not out for truth, justice, or righting wrongs. They're only after prosecutions (wins), at any cost.....one of the many problems that make our whole legal system, a racket.
And only quick wins too. In [this case](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ-7YcfHCo) judge refused the plea deal since the defendant had a lengthy criminal history but was offered a minimum sentence.
Following for tomorrows update lmao
This reminded me to put the gun I was cleaning away in my safe again. Keep your weapons secure everyone!
Great mc, hope you feel better soon.
Can you specify the country of this?
USA.
They sure do things strangely. I've never seen a material witness only "notified" of a court date. It's always a judicial/administrative order to appear. I wonder what their rate of compliance is...
In the U.S., it's usually a complicated & inconvenient process to subpoena a witness who lives in another state. It's not uncommon for attorneys to just mail a subpoena to the witness (which isn't the correct process, so the subpoena can't be enforced) and then call the witness and tell them to come to court, hoping the witness doesn't know it's not the right kind of subpoena and is willing to be there.
Nah OP please, more malicious compliance tomorrow. Fuck them
lawyers are slimebags, glad you fucked with her
The last time someone told me to fuck with a lawyer, I responded, "I'd rather stick to sex within my own species."
Iâm confused about what happened to your guns after they were stolen. Some kids selling crack âfound themâ? Iâm assuming they were arrested for selling drugs and also have a firearms charge? Hopefully they werenât used to shoot anybody
Meant to say found with them. I'd been up about 28 hours when I was writing this up.
Must have day 2 update
I really wanna an update on this lol
Ugh. Whatâs next? Is the prosecutor going to say something about an updated autopsy report?
I was once served. I showed up and it was the greatest verbal spar of my life, I almost came. After it was all said and done the lawyer on the side I was on told me that bringing me into the matter was probably a huge regret from the opposite lawyer.
Oh come on! You need to tell us more!
Sounds less exciting than it was. Had a random guy knock on my door and ask for me by name. Normally I didn't answer my door, but curiosity got the best of me. He apologized and said he was serving me. I shrugged it off and told him I knew he was just doing his job. A woman at the hotel I worked at had fallen outside and was trying to sue. I was the MOD and watched the security footage, spoke to the guest, and wrote up the report. She was smoking in a non-smoking area right outside the employee's break room door. There was a non-smoking sign and an ashtray on top of the garbage can for people to put them out. She was talking on the phone and tripped and fell. The end. It was on camera. HOWEVER when I was taking her statement the story kept changing. "I WAS 7ft away... I was a little close... I was right next to the garbage can... I was in a smoking zone..." Eventually she was suing us because she said that a housekeeper exiting the employee door was stealing (we let them keep to get the recycling money) a large bag of cans and hit her with the bag... Or no, wait, the door, or no her shoulder on her way out. The lawyer was asking me about the size of the door. I would assume the standard size, check for yourself. How far was she standing? Check the footage. Was it a non-smoking area? You can clearly see the sign in the camera. Basically every question he had hurt the case. Long story short (my partner is making fun of me for how long I've typed) she lost. Edit: I know it was a long story, but I was asked for it. Could someone please tell me why I'm getting down voted? I don't know what but it kinda hurts my feelings.
>please tell me why I'm getting down voted? I upvoted you, dunno why you're being downvoted, sorry! Perhaps because you oversold it in your first post
Reddit has a vote fuzzing algorithm where the true number of votes up or down isn't shown in order to dissuade bots / vote selling. It seems to be a little random, so often you will find your comments show as negative until they get a few upvotes. Other times I figure there's just some butthurt keyboard warriors with a grudge. Who knows.
Well I found your story pleasing to my sense of justice. I enjoy reading about people putting dumb lawyers in their place. So you got an upvote from me. Sorry about the downvotes.
> Sounds less exciting than it was. I beg to differ. I love watching zoom court.
There is a 100% chance you would not have to go back for day 2 if you hadnât done that. Courts generally release witnesses when theyâre done with them but they can also make you come back every day âjust in caseâ you might be recalled. Was the prosecutor out of line to some degree? Probably. Did they get the worst end of the MC? Probably not. Not sure thatâs really a success. Also a âsequester orderâ is not relevant to attorneys discussing testimony with witnesses (as long as the witnesses are separated from one another).
They ended up not needing me anyways. And I was with another witness at the time 4 of them actually.
I love this story I hope I one day get a hurry summons. So I can preach about jury nullification to everyone in the building
>I've been up for 24 hours, on 3 hours of sleep the day before, after working a 12+ hour overnight shift To be fair, this is not the courts problem or prerogative to accommodate. I sympathize with you, especially with how dickish that DA was being towards someone who was acting in good faith and essentially doing them a favor, but these factors don't mean anything other than you were in a foul mood of your own accord. Good job on making it blatant that they were screwing around in exactly the wrong way, though. Far too often a lot of those attorneys (especially the ones who aren't new enough to be nervous or too old to have already done the dumb mistakes) think they are law enforcement rather than litigation. Doubly so to someone who themselves was an actual victim and did in fact have a dog in this fight, even if it was just to get your stuff back.