I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.
Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.
Nonlawyer Explainer Thread: On Keeping One's Mouth Shut
It occurs to me that certain private-jet-flying seditionists who continue to yammer on Twitter about their DC excursions provide us with the opportunity to do a little hypo to explore the benefits of silence.
I AM NOT A CRIMINAL LAW ATTORNEY.
Instead, I'm mostly drawing from discussions with my father-in-law.
So with that in mind, let's look at this hypo.
*Knock*
*Door opens*
Agent: Ms [Name]? I'm Agent Smith, and this is Agent Jones. We're with Agency. We'd like to talk to you if you've got a minute.
[Yes, it seems insane but if you're worried about something specific and the cops show up, blurting out something like that is totally a thing that can happen.]
[Note: The agents will have seen ALL of her social media and they know she's seen it, but will not be above implying otherwise.]
[Note: Deliberately implying that they think the whole thing is nonsense that they want to get rid of and that they're completely sympathetic to her.]
Ms X: I don't know if this is something I should be talking to you about. Should I have my lawyer here for this?
[Note: Yes, they can say that.]
Agent Smith: Honestly, ma'am, like I said we're mostly down here because our boss kinda has a stick up-- I mean, he just doesn't really like it if we close something without talking to you. And we don't want to inconvenience you.
Agent Smith: We can always arrange to do this downtown later on if you want. I mean, I don't really think we need to do that, and I was really hoping to get this wrapped up today so I can get back to some of my other cases that involve, y'know, crimes.
Agent Smith: I mean I can't promise anything, of course - the boss will need to see that we checked the boxes and all that, but I'll certainly do my best. And this seems pretty clear-cut to me, so this shouldn't take long.
Agent Smith: Thanks.
*sitting down, possibly refreshments, possibly touring house in process*
Ms X: We were pretty excited about that.
I'm going to close this here, because hopefully the basic point is clear: it's not that hard for someone who sounds sympathetic to get someone to talk.
That means they don't have to read the Miranda warning.
With something like this, where her social media shows that she has no conception she was in the wrong, I think there's a very good chance that would work.
"I'm not going to talk to you without my lawyer."
Don't fall for it.
Stay silent. Get a lawyer.
@HaygoodLaw
@LutherEvers
@greg_doucette
@ASFleischman
Are better positioned to answer than me.
https://t.co/BJDlnjMSuE
How is that done? I don't have a criminal defense lawyer on speed dial.
— jack_dahlgren (@jack_dahlgren) January 8, 2021
More from Mike Dunford
This is an excellent question, and it's something that I've thought about some over the last couple of months.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Honestly, I think the answer is that the rationales for these rulings are not likely to unreasonably harm meritorious progressive OR conservative challenges.
Any merit to the notion that the rationales for some of these rulings will harm progressive challenges in future elections?
— Andrew Broering (@AndrewBroering) January 3, 2021
One says laches, another moot, another standing, sometimes with almost the same type of plaintiff.
The first thing to keep in mind is that, by design, challenges to the outcomes of elections are supposed to be heard by state courts, through the process set out in state law.
That happened this year, and the majority of those challenges were heard on the merits.
The couple of cases where laches determined the outcome of state election challenges were ones where it was pretty clear that the challenges were brought in bad faith - where ballots cast in good faith in reliance on laws that had been in force for some time were challenged.
The PA challenge to Act 77 is one example. The challengers, some of whom had voted for passage of the bill, didn't make use of the initial, direct-to-PA-SCt challenge built into the law or sue pre-election; they waited until post-election.
The WI case is another. That one had a challenge to ballots cast using a form that had been in use for a literal decade.
Those are cases where laches is clear - particularly the prejudice element.
Happy Monday! Dominion Voting Systems is suing Rudy Giuliani for $1.3 billion.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
As Akiva notes, the legal question is going to boil down to something known as "actual malice."
That's a tricky concept for nonlawyers (and often for lawyers) so an explainer might help.
So Dominion sued Rudy for defamation. How are they ever going to allege actual malice? https://t.co/p8d3flDkGm
— Akiva Cohen (@AkivaMCohen) January 25, 2021
What I'm going to do with this thread is a bit different from normal - I'm going to start by explaining the underlying law so that you can see why lawyers are a little skeptical of the odds of success, and only look at the complaint after that.
So let's start with the most basic basics:
If you want to win a defamation case, you have to prove:
(1) that defendant made a false and defamatory statement about you;
(2) to a third party without privilege;
(3) with the required degree of fault;
(4) causing you to suffer damage.
For Dominion's defamation cases, proving 1 and 4 is easy. 2 is, in the case of the lawyers they're suing, slightly more complex but not hard. And 3 - degree of fault - is really really hard to prove.
A false statement of fact that is defamatory is a slam dunk element here - all the fraud allegations against dominion are totally banana-pants. They are also allegations which are clearly going to harm Dominion's reputation.
