The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
EPAH have you ever lost a major evidence issue at trial and didn't understand wh
| cyan theatre | 01/12/26 |
| Salmon Thriller Partner Indian Lodge | 01/13/26 |
| filthy area jap | 01/13/26 |
| cyan theatre | 01/13/26 |
| Stimulating house idea he suggested | 01/13/26 |
| Salmon Thriller Partner Indian Lodge | 01/13/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 12th, 2026 7:09 PM Author: cyan theatre Why?
Had this happened today. Basically a "relevance" issue. Kneecapped my Entire case. And half of my testimony was prepared addressing it. Just brutally assfucked me - I'm reeling
|
Date: January 13th, 2026 11:30 AM Author: Salmon Thriller Partner Indian Lodge One that comes to mind is in our RPA case over Clear Eyes the judge let the defensemos use pictures of our clients' businesses to suggest that the reason C-Store owners prefer Costco is because of its attractive facade, whereas our guys' businesses are in warehouse areas, with chain link fences around the parking lots, loading docks, etc. I tried to explain to our 105-IQ judge that it was a matter of conditional relevance under Rule 104 -- that to make the businesses' appearance relevant, they'd first have to show that any C-Store owner gives a shit about the appearance of where it buys its merchandise. He didn't seem to understand.
But then in closing I turned it around, accusing the defensemos of trying to use the pictures to mock and defame small business owners, and that all these fat cat corporations think they're better than us. |
 |
Date: January 13th, 2026 11:33 AM Author: filthy area jap This is cr. The whole point of oral arguments is to ditch your original premise and find your theme on the fly. No one actually reads the briefs. Judges just want to be DAZZLED.
Doodikoff just has to pivot and go akshually here's why this is a GOOD thing. |
|
Date: January 13th, 2026 9:53 PM Author: cyan theatre Alright man. I had a couple hearsay within hearsay exhibits that I couldn’t figure how to get in. And they did not get in. One (Comprehensive police report with the investigating officer testifying, but contained a bunch of handwritten reports and narratives written by others) was unexpected because I thought it met business records exception. Was only able to get him to walk through what he found orally. What’s the best way to learn more complex evidence admission stuff? I’m a shit lawyer used to dealing with other shit lawyers, the other day sucked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5821259&forum_id=2,#49587708) |
|
Date: January 13th, 2026 9:59 PM Author: Stimulating house idea he suggested a.i.?
massive email groups in your area/state/practice?
2-day seminar complete with live-action scenarios overseen by retired judges for only $3599 plus the cost of accommodations? |
|
Date: January 13th, 2026 10:03 PM Author: Salmon Thriller Partner Indian Lodge A lot of people misunderstand this, but a written statement by a non-party doesn't become admissible just because its author is testifying. IIRC, police reports are mainly only usable to refresh the recollection of the cop who wrote them.
Just reading the rules with commentary is very useful, now that we have enough experience to know what they're talking about. I just use the NITA version.
But really the key is to be tall (you've got this) and confident (?) when declaring to the judge what the rule is (and refer to the rules by number/code section, which makes the judge him/herself feel insecure). |