For a murder case I can find compromise, but my comment was more on what happens when people are motivated to draw out a trial in deliberations to keep collecting a check.

The one time I sat on a jury it was for 5 days and a medical malpractice case where a dwarf sued a surgeon for having bad DNA. During the opening arguments everyone could see the case was total bullshit. Spending 15K grand on everyone of these cases is more than i can stomach.

Watched that license plate scene again and I'm now confident that it's not the bombshell the directors make it out t be. Very adept lawyering of a terrible witness? Absolutely. A fact that blows the case wide open? No.

Lawyer was smart setting up the witness. Telling him that it is common for patrolmen who find a missing car to call in the plates to find the owner/determine whether the owner may be missing. He gets the cop to commit to that answer then plays the tape of the cop calling in dispatch with a plate number. The implication being that this was the only way for cop to know the plate number and make of the car.

The lawyer further hammers this home by asking wether the cop could have been given this info from one of the Calumet officers. Cop says he can't remember. Lawyer drills down further, pulls out the plate itself and tells cop he couldn't have been looking at plate on day he said he did because the car wasn't found until two days later. Cop is forced to say he wasn't looking at the car when he called dispatch. End scene.

That's some adept lawyering in the amount of control the lawyer has over the cop but I think that that's all it is. If the cop were better prepared (or if this was cleared up by the state on redirect) he'd say he was given a description of the missing car, including the plate number, and was calling in to dispatch to confirm if whatever car he was looking at was the car in question. Of course why the cop didn't just say that raises some questions but the lawyer doesn't give the cop to offer that up as an explanation because of the precision with which he asked his questions.

_________________

Isnt the whole point that he shouldnt have been looking at the car at that point?

Or are you saying he was looking at another car?

It's far more plausible to me that the cop was looking at some random car that may have looked similar to the missing car, then called into dispatch to confirm that that was the case.

I suppose that raises a question as to why, if he already knew the plate number and make of the car, would he have to call dispatch to report a car he knew didn't match the car in question, but that's a story for another day.

_________________

The way he said 99 Toyota? Green? or whatever the quote was just sounds like he was looking at it.


But your post is right. Good lawering there

It certainly does sound like he's looking at the car when the tape is played and I think that's a product of 1) the lawyer's excellent line of questioning, and 2) editing choices made by the directors.

Like I said earlier, once Avery's lawyer is done questioning the guy the state is able to rehabilitate the witness and have him clarify and explain the inconsistencies in his testimony. This is of course left out of the episode.

_________________

The prosecutor is kind of a high-talker.

_________________

I watched the first 2 episodes and liked them, but the more and more I read about this the less and less i want to keep watching this series. What's the point? Watch 10 episodes to get to the conclusion that "yea, the cops planted some evidence, but the guy also definitely murdered that broad." Doesn't seem like much of a payoff.


After 2 eps, I also have already identified the true victims of this whole mess.....Avery's civil lawyers. I'm 100% serious. Imagine being those guys...they just spent 2 months deposing witness after witness and finally got to the point where they had destroyed the defense case so much that they were probably a couple months away from receiving an offer in the 8 figure range and this fucktart goes out and murders some lady. Guy is months away from being a multimillionaire and he can't control himself? A year later and he could've set up his own private island and hunted women for sport and no one would've been the wiser. Instead he goes this route.

The amount of man hours those lawyers spent working on that case must've been astronomical. To have it blow up like that at the last minute, I'm surprised his lawyer didn't drive to the jailhouse and kill Avery himself.

_________________

Yes, let's all shed a tear for the ambulance chasers who didn't get an eight figure pay day off of other people's misery for a year's worth of sitting in conference rooms and asking people questions.

RPB out to an early lead for the "GIF Master of CSFMB" for 2016 trophy.

Every asswipe I encounter is now telling me to watch this. Same anal irritants that raved about the Serial podcast last year.

_________________
Back off, Warchild. Seriously.

I'm sure you realize that there's a ton of work that goes into even one deposition, let alone a month straight of them. Not to mention all the work they did prior to that on the case just to get to the deposition phase.

How would you like to work at your job for 2 years and then be told that you're not gonna get paid?

_________________

I doubt this was their only case.

Like Chus with Scorehead, they knew the risks going in. But felt it was worth it.

Wouldn't be surprised if they billed Avery for their hourly work--he did get a $400K payday previously.

Even if they didn't get a dime for their Avery time, they're idiots if they went bust because of this one case.

There are risks in taking cases, but the risk that your client will decide to give serial killing a try while you're very close to getting him millions and millions of dollars isn't one that they should be on notice for.

I'm sure they have other cases too, but none that they spent the kind time, money and resources that they needed to spend on this one.

They can't bill him hourly, not for a PI case where they had a contingency fee contract. I bet every penny of that 400k went to Avery's criminal lawyers in the murder case.

_________________

Didn't they say that in the documentary?

_________________
-- source

the lawyers Shakes is crying over negotiated the $400K settlement--so they could get paid, and so Avery would have $'s left over to hire criminal defense team.

Avery settled the $36 mil suit for $400K Shakes poor, destitute whambulance chasers took $160K out of that. Leaving Avery $240K to hire criminal defense lawyers.

I don't know, I'm only 2 eps in.

_________________

Fred Davis, Attorney at Law: The Courtroom Transcripts
“I don’t know what today is. All I know is I had court today,” the Redskins tight end testifies at a hearing in DC Superior Court.
By Luke Mullins on June 29, 2012

Thursday we reported that Redskins tight end Fred Davis has spent the past 18 months engaged in a civil lawsuit with a woman he knows from the nightclub scene.
The woman, Makini R. Chaka, 33, said in court testimony that she is a “celebrity broker” who arranges parties for sports and entertainment stars. “My job is to call and set up events for my clients and we are paid every time that we come,” Chaka testified. “I do a lot of parties with famous people, whether it’s singers, whether it’s rappers, whether it’s athletes.”
But Stewart Prince, a bodyguard who has worked for Davis, alleged in court documents that Chaka is “a ‘madam/pimpette’ who provides escorts to high-profile athletes and entertainers.” “It is well-known in the sports and entertainment industry, particularly in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, that [Chaka] recruits women to work for her and provide sexual favors to athletes or other entertainer[s] in exchange for money,” Prince said in court documents.
Curiously, Davis—who recently signed a one-year, $5.4 million contract with the Redskins—served as his own defense counsel during the case. He has no formal legal training. “It’s all hearsay,” Davis told the judge during an April hearing.
Chaka also represented herself during the case, which
is scheduled to go to trial on March 11, 2013. Here are some courtroom
exchanges that have occurred between Chaka and Davis during
their year-and-a-half-long legal drama, according to transcripts
of DC Superior Court hearings:
Makini Chaka cross-examination of Fred Davis, February 11, 2011
Chaka: Mr. Davis, you said that you did not know me on a friendship level. Is it true that I have, that I have or have not been
to your home?
Davis: You’ve never been to my house. You’ve dropped someone off, a teammate to my house but that was it.
Chaka: I’ve never stayed the night at your home?
Davis: You’ve never stayed at my house ever. Ever.
Chaka: I’ve never been in your recording studio at your home?
Davis: No. You’ve never been—like I’m not going to, I don’t know how—
Chaka: So we never hung out at your house and stayed the night over there . . . and watched episodes of Martin before.
Davis: You’ve never, ever stayed at my house. You’ve been at Devin’s house, [former Redskins wide receiver]
Devin Thomas’s, that’s another teammate of mine. You’re naming things that we’ve done over his house. He has a studio in his house. He
has all those things that you’re talking about. I mean, as far as you coming to my house, you dropped someone off.
Chaka: Was there ever, was there ever a time that you and I were both at Devin’s house together?
Davis: Yes you’ve been there. You’re friends with him. Yes.
Chaka cross-examination of Davis, April 10, 2012
[-Well, let’s look at your document. It says December the 3rd, 2012. What’s today’s date, Mr. Davis/b]
Chaka: Stating that this incident happened on this date when there’s no such thing.
Davis: Okay, it’s a misprint.
Chaka: There’s no such event that could have ever happened on December the 3rd, 2012.
Davis: A misprint, okay.
Chaka: It’s not valid.
Davis: It is a misprint. It is a misprint.
Chaka cross-examination of Davis on February 11, 2011
Chaka: Also, Mr. Davis, you said that once that the liquid was thrown at you in the club that your eyes were, were burning.
Davis: Yes.
Chaka: However, you returned less than three minutes later to throw the drink on me. So if your eyes were burning and you were that
much of a, of a victim, why didn’t you leave the club?
Davis: Well, because I mean, first of all it
was my [birthday] party. If anything, you should have had to leave
because it was my
party and I mean, like, like I’m supposed to be having a good
time. Second of all, it don’t take that long to rub liquor out
of your face. I mean it took me about two or three minutes to
get my eyes like right. Like wow, I still was blurry vision
and my eyes were still burning that night for the whole night.
After that, I was like, well, shoot, that’s crazy, that’s messed
up, so after that I grabbed the juice and I poured it on you.
That was it.
Chaka: So if your eyes were burning, why didn’t you seek medical attention as I have—
Davis: Because—
Chaka: —for my, my injury from you?
Davis: I don’t have any personal vendetta. I
don’t have any personal reason to get money out of you, I mean, like for
what? Why would
I do that? I can take care of myself. I don’t need to seek
medical attention, I’m getting Lasik eye surgery, yeah, but other
than that, I’m not going to try to make you pay for it. Why? I
don’t, I wouldn’t even give you the satisfaction, so.
Chaka: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
Chaka cross-examination of Davis on April 10, 2012
Chaka: Let’s look at these photos right here. Because I went to college. I go back to my homecoming every year. Why? Because a building
on the campus named after a family of my family.
Davis: So, they use a pimp cup, that’s all.
Chaka: Mr. Davis, I’m drinking out of a decorated accessory as many celebrities do.
Davis: Many celebrities as who, Magic Don Juan that’s a pimp?
Chaka: As Paris Hilton, as Snoop Dog, as Little John—I work with celebrities. Don’t you think it could have been a gift from one
of them?
Chaka cross-examination of Davis, April 10, 2012
Davis: But as it shows, you also have your hands on his genitals. I mean, why would you take a picture like that?
[b]Chaka: I do not. Let’s look closely at the exhibit right here, Judge. Where is my hand placed in this exhibit?
Judge: I don’t answer questions, Ms. Chaka.
Chaka: Oh, sorry.
Judge: The witness does.
Chaka: Can you tell me where my hand is actually at in this photo?
Davis: It looks like it’s in the genitals to me. I mean your hands are on his genitals. Your hand is on his—
Chaka: Objection.

_________________
-- source

I thought the $400k was the "fee" the State unilaterally decided to give him? But, like I said, I only watched the first 2 eps.


Either way, even if the attorneys got 40% of that they still lost a ton of money on this case.

_________________

160K for a month's worth of depositions? 160,000/~160 hours = $1K an hour.....

how much prep time? ok, double that, and they still got $500 an hour.

Also, they negotiated the deal. So figure they got what they wanted, in terms of comp for their time.

ok I was wrong, you don't have a clue as to what type of work goes into a case that huge. Carry on with your ignorance.

_________________

I may not. But I assume the lawyers who did that work and negotiated that settlement did/do....they named their price.

so, small world, just found out the post conviction attorney for the nephew is my brother in law (my brother's wife's brother....is that technically my brother in law?) Not sure if he's in the show, I'm only on ep. 2. I guess I could just ask him, but screw it, it will be a nice surprise if he's in there and actually gives me a reason to keep watching.

_________________

What kind of lawyer does not know what a brother in law is?

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Random fact: Teresa Halbach's brother works for the Packers:

http://www.packers.com/team/staff/Mike-Halbach/bc32b029-52e7-4e07-b172-f9580ded39f3

I knew it at one point since I passed the Bar exam and I think that question was like 40% of the grade.

_________________

And the backlash ramps up:


http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/cult ... gry.2.html

I haven't seen the tv show. Based on what I've read about the tv show and the various cases, the audience is presented with 3 disparate, yet intertwined cases:

1. Avery's wrongful conviction and lengthy internment for the rape of Penny Beerntsen.

2. The investigation and trial of Avery for the murder of 25 year old freelance photographer Teresa Halbach. [presented from the perspective of Avery's defense team].

3. the investigation, interrogation and conviction of Avery's much younger and, surprisingly, even less mentally facilitous nephew Bobby Dassey.

Wrapping Avery's wrongful conviction and Dassey's questionable conviction around the seemingly mostly legit trial and conviction [by a jury, after a month of testimony] of Avery for the rape, dismemberment and murder
of Teresas Halbach--and presenting Avery's case in the best possible light for Avery: a cinematic shell-game that led viewers to doubt the legitimacy of Avery's conviction.