Yes ... essentially. Any any civil action, one of the essential elements that needs to be proven is that the plaintiff suffered harm. But in some cases harm is de facto assumed to have occurred, including cases alleging violation of a constitutional right. But it is still necessary to prove specifically how much harm has been caused in order to allow the jury to assess an amount of compensation.Anthriel wrote:So it's a two step process, then. Prove there was a breach of protocol resulting in his unnecessary... and possibly illegal?... arrest, and then demonstrate how much the experience harmed him, in order to assess an amount of compensation.
Right?
Quite right, Eru. That is very common. I often warn my clients that a jury often consists of the lowest common denominator, and that if a case requires the jury to make certain inferences in order to find the defendant liable (which is often true in the employment cases that I normally handle), it might be difficult to get the jury to do so (no matter how carefully I explain). That is one reason why I encourage settling cases before trial (even if it means accepting less money then we might otherwise receive).And somewhat unintelligent ones it seems.
I remember getting myself out of jury duty by appearing to be quite rational and able use logic. The prosecution didn't like me.
I was wondering how that worked. Thanks. I have a friend who sues mining companies for violations of the Clean Water Act, that Act has provisions allowing citizens to act as private attorney general (again, I'm assuming because Congress deemed it important that local citizens harmed by actions can sue a polluter).Of course, if we do prevail in the appeal, and then prevail at trial, the City will be liable for paying me for all of that time (which will likely come to several hundred thousand dollars) even if the damages that my client is awarded is relatively small. Why is that? Because the Congress has deemed that it is important enough to encourage attorneys to represent people who's constitutional rights have been violated to make worth the attorneys while to do so (if they win the case).
This is so true, Prim!just that facts that help the case must be emphasized and facts that don't, minimized. Scientists call this cherry-picking, and it can get them in a lot of trouble
I remember in my first legal writing class, as a 1L, I didn't do well because I had been trained to write as a scientist for so many years (passive voice, allowing the facts to suggest the conclusion, very tentatively stating said conclusion and qualifying the results). Needless to say, that did not work when trying to write persuasively as a lawyer!
). Also, we research "patentability" of an invention by researching "prior art", i.e., whether this invention has been disclosed in (or is obvious over) the public domain or the patent application databases. In both situations, clients appreciate full disclosure. 
(Not the being-sued bit, the research.) But yes, of course—to give clients realistic advice, you've got to present it all objectively. )
That's too bad. From the presentation that you gave here, I thought that it was pretty clear that his rights had been violated.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:We lost.
AtYou
I had another today in court-appointed criminal case in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, that was even worse. One of the justices actually said to me "I don't know how you can even argue that!Ellienor wrote:Sorry Voronwë. At least you knew going into it that it was a longshot.
"Because, Your Honor, I'm TRYING to do the best I can for a client that I have voluntarily taken on despite his (or her) personal inability to compensate me, because I'm a good and ethical attorney, and maybe there's just not a super duper dazzling argument to make, but I'd rather put forward SOME argument on behalf of my client than roll over and play dead?"Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:I had another today in court-appointed criminal case in the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District, that was even worse. One of the justices actually said to me "I don't know how you can even argue that!
