Alex Jones is fucking pissed. He's done taking shit off globalist.

Not a lawyer here, so why is that? If there's evidence showing he's lying, why wouldn't it be admitted?

 

I'm gonna need to watch a recap when I get home

 

From the clips I’ve seen the judge isn’t a big fan of him so maybe she let it slide since his lawyers didn’t do anything about it?

 

From a day behind, Alex not knowing that this is the damages portion and not the trial is just :chefskiss:

 

It’s called impeachment evidence, and they wouldn’t have to disclose it as evidence.

 

Doesn’t sound like there was an objection.

 

If his lawyers have evidence that shows he's lying, are they required to turn that over?

 

I have no idea what any of that is, but if you want to discuss gulls and their legality, I’m your guy.

 

fuck no

 

this trial taking place in austin about 10 weeks after the uvalde massacre is not ideal for jones

 

I can’t stop smiling rn

 

I mean if they want to keep their law license they do. Either that or withdraw as counsel.

 

So what would be the reasoning or did his lawyers really fuck up badly? I don’t know why the hell they’d give them if it was going to hurt their chances of winning by damning their client?

 

He knows it is.

 

they would need to try to withdraw as counsel.

 

they fucked up in a big way and are about to get sued for a bunch by jones. hope they have a ton of malpractice coverage

 

Nah. There’s a line between suborning perjury and impeaching your own witness.

That being said, if the Plaintiffs requested information during discovery and Jones’ attorneys knowingly withheld it, that would definitely be grounds for a bar complaint.

 

Right, but since they haven’t the lawyer is bound by his duty of candor to the court, which requires counsel to either withdraw or point out potential perjury of their client

 

Seems like a pretty easy malpractice case to defend.

 

I could be wrong, but it’s going to be tough to win a malpractice case when the basis of your suit is an illegal act…it would be like trying to sue a sex worker for failing to perform (Nevada excluded).

 

I dunno, they’re not doing a very good job at lawyering. I think they might not be very good at it.

 

A few points from a trial lawyer given some of the prior commentary and seeing the clips:

1. Attorney client privilege isn’t necessarily waived in cases of accidental disclosure. BUT once the accidental disclosure is brought to the opposing counsel’s attention and he doesn’t object, it goes out the window.

2. To win a case for legal malpractice, the plaintiff needs to prove that it was the attorney’s conduct that screwed him. The problem is when the client commits a crime (perjury), he has no damages. That’s his own problem.

3. The few clips I’ve watched are pretty painful from a technical standpoint. Jones’ lawyer hasn’t objected to anything — which means any potential appellate remedies are fucked — and I’m frankly shocked. The family’s lawyer’s impeachment isn’t being done properly, but it doesn’t matter if the defense doesn’t object. Likewise the judge is allowing him to comment wildly on inappropriate topics, but since there’s no objection he’s not getting shut down.

 

Oh, I forgot the last point:

4. There is no ineffective assistance of counsel remedy in civil court. Your recourse if the lawyer fucks up is to sue for malpractice. But again, since a lawyer is ethically prohibited from abetting the commission of a crime there really isn’t a case there.

 

True, but I think this would fall under the former and not the latter. And I don’t think it’s very close

 

Legal malpractice cases like this generally require proof that the party would have won the case but for the malpractice. Doubt many folks believe Alex was gonna win.

 

This feels like Tennessee informing the NCAA about all the rules they broke so they could fire their own shitty coach.

 

Depends what they knew ahead of time. Not sure I’ve ever heard of a suborning perjury charge in cross examination.

I would agree with you if his lawyers were eliciting this testimony on direct. Looks like they aren’t doing much of anything at present, which is what I’d expect if they knew Alex was going to lie about everything. Wonder if they’ll try to withdraw after today.

 

I'm a real life MORE.gif with every tweet posted

 

Was he required to testify or was that him/his attorneys making a terrible decision?

 

didn't think of it like this. good point.

 

Pretty sure he chose to testify. I want to think that lawyers aren't this dumb, but Jones' lawyer thinking this could possibly be a bad idea is glaring

 

I know you don't have to in a criminal trial, wasn't sure about civil.

 

You don’t have a 5th Amendment right in civil trials. The opposing side can call you and force you testify, and if you plead the 5th it CAN be used as evidence against you.

 

edit: lawyers have already answered

 

Boy this is one of those days you wake up unaware of how great things are about to get

 

Required to testify or risk sanctions, including striking his answer and moving directly to the damages portion of the trial.

 

If he has a stroke on camera, on the stand, it'll be the greatest moment of my life.

"Mr. Jones, are you aware of what perjury is?"

"Yes I am aware of what rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit rabbit"

 

Lawyers say you're wrong mate

 

Missed part of it, so now they are at lunch and we'll get the decision sometimes later today or over the next dew days?

 

It’s also possible that the parties agreed Jones would testify during the defense case in chief. Often the plaintiff will ask the defense if they plan to call their own client, and if not the plaintiff calls him during their case and gets to treat him as an adverse/hostile witness. If you’re a defense attorney, you’d rather commit to calling him later on in your own case when you’ve had a chance to evaluate the evidence at trial and give your client a chance to rebut the negatives.

In Jones’ case, however, it was a fool’s errand.

 

you can tell Ben Collins is enjoying this rare win he gets to cover.

 

What. In. The. World.

 

Jones/InfoWars has had like over 10 lawyers representing them throughout the course of this case. There's no continuity in counsel.

 

I’m not watching this trial, but are the phone texts even privileged in the first place? If these are relevant texts, merely because his attorneys didn’t mean to disclose them does nothing to stop the disclosure.

If they aren’t texts to or from Jones’s attorneys, then they aren’t subject to attorney-client privilege. Fair game.

Also, I am not aware of any state that does not have a crime/fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege that includes communications to suborn perjury.

 

You do have a 5th amendment right. That was the whole issue with the Cosby case.

 

He had threatened/pending criminal action.