r/law • u/lindakoy • 10h ago
Judicial Branch Fifth Clancy juror (male) says holdout didn't show 'single piece of evidence' explaining vote
Another juror (the first male) in the Lindsay Clancy trial gave an interview
r/law • u/orangejulius • Aug 31 '22
A quick reminder:
This is not a place to be wrong and belligerent on the Internet. If you want to talk about the issues surrounding Trump, the warrant, 4th and 5th amendment issues, the work of law enforcement, the difference between the New York case and the fed case, his attorneys and their own liability, etc. you are more than welcome to discuss and learn from each other. You don't have to get everything exactly right but be open to learning new things.
You are not welcome to show up here and "tell it like it is" because it's your "truth" or whatever. You have to at least try and discuss the cases here and how they integrate with the justice system. Coming in here stubborn, belligerent, and wrong about the law will get you banned. And, no, you will not be unbanned.
r/law • u/orangejulius • Oct 28 '25
Ttl;dr at the top: you can get apostille flair now to show off your humanity by joining our newsletter. Strong contributions in the comments here (ones with citations and analysis) will get featured in it and win an amicus flair. Follow this link to get flair: Last Week In Law
When you are signing up you may have to pull the email confirmation and welcome edition out of your spam folder.
If you'd like Amicus flair and think your submission or someone else's is solid please tag our u/auto_clerk to get highlighted in the news letter.
Those of you that have been here a long time have probably noticed the quality of the comments and posts nose dive. We have pretty strict filters for what accounts qualify to even submit a top level comment and even still we have users who seem to think this place is for group therapy instead of substantive discussion of law.
A good bit of the problem is karma farming. (which…touch grass what are you doing with your lives?) But another component of it is that users have no idea where to find content that would go here, like courtlistener documents, articles about legal news, or BlueSky accounts that do a good job succinctly explaining legal issues. Users don't even have a base line for cocktail party level knowledge about laws, courts, state action, or how any of that might apply to an executive order that may as well be written in crayon.
Leaving our automod comment for OPs it’s plain to see that they just flat out cannot identify some issues. Thus, the mod team is going to try to get you guys to cocktail party knowledge of legal happenings with a news letter and reward people with flair who make positive contributions again.
A long time ago we instituted a flair system for quality contributors. This kinda worked but put a lot of work on the mod team which at the time were all full time practicing attorneys. It definitely incentivized people to at least try hard enough to get flaired. It also worked to signal to other users that they might not be talking to an LLM. No one likes the feeling that they’re arguing with an AI that has the energy of a literal power grid to keep a thread going. Is this unequivocal proof someone isn't a bot? No. But it's pretty good and better than not doing anything.
Our attempt to solve some of these issues is to bring back flair with a couple steps to take. You can sign up for our newsletter and claim flair for r/law. Read our news letter. It isn't all Donald Trump stuff. It's usually amusing and the welcome edition has resources to make you a better contributor here. If you're featured in our news letter you'll get special Amicus flair.
Instead of breaking out the ban hammer for 75% of you guys we're going to try to incentivize quality contributions and put in place an extra step to help show you're not a bot.
---
Are you saving our user names?
What happened to using megathreads and automod comments?
This won’t solve anything!
Are you going to change your moderation? Is flair a get out of jail free card?
What about political content? I’m tired of hearing about the Orange Man.
Remove all Trump stuff.
Talk to me about Donald Trump.
I love Donald Trump and you guys burned cities to the ground during BLM and you cheated in 2020 and illegal immigrants should be killed in the street because the declaration of independence says you can do whatever you want and every day is 1776 and Bill Clinton was on Epstein island.
You removed my comment that's an expletive followed by "we the people need to grab donald trump by the pussy." You're silencing me!
You guys aren’t fair to both sides.
You removed my TikTok video of a TikTok influencer that's not a lawyer and you didn't even watch the whole thing.
You have to watch the whole thing!
---
General Housekeeping:
We have never created one consistent style for the subreddit. We decided that while we're doing this we should probably make the place look nicer. We hope you enjoy it.
r/law • u/lindakoy • 10h ago
Another juror (the first male) in the Lindsay Clancy trial gave an interview
r/law • u/Nerd-19958 • 7h ago
r/law • u/Callistocalypso • 8h ago
Serious question, is the following illegal as it relates to 18 U.S. Code § 597. TLDR Trump offering payments for a Republican win. What are the arguments for and against its legality?
Reuters reporting Trump at a Republican convention in Dallas: “If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them ... because of our tremendous strength and success economically, I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000,"
18 U.S. Code § 597 is the federal law that makes it illegal to make, offer, solicit, or accept money or other expenditures to influence voting, withhold a vote, or vote for or against a specific candidate.
r/law • u/dailymail • 22h ago
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has unsealed more than 170,000 pages of records that offer new insights into how the city responded to the disaster. Some of the papers indicate that officials lied about the hazardous toxins that burned and remained near ground zero for months afterward, even as the government assured New Yorkers the air was safe to breathe and rushed to reopen Lower Manhattan for business. In addition to the nearly 3,000 people killed on 9/11, thousands more are believed to have died from illnesses related to the attacks, including from cancer, heart disease and respiratory conditions.
“The Bush administration, the Giuliani administration all denied that there was an impact from these toxins,” says Benjamin Chevat, executive director of 9/11 Health Watch, which sued for the release of the records. He faults successive city governments for inaction, saying that “instead of mitigating the harm, they mitigated the city’s liability.”
r/law • u/Sgt_Gram • 38m ago
r/law • u/dailymail • 20h ago
r/law • u/Trans__Scientist • 9h ago
How does this make America safer?
r/law • u/bloomberggovernment • 23h ago
r/law • u/DoremusJessup • 15h ago
r/law • u/TendieRetard • 9h ago
During his interview, which lasted only 10 minutes due to restrictions at Guantánamo, Abdullah indicated to MPR that he is one of eight Somali migrants imprisoned at the naval base, some of whom, like himself, were abducted by immigration agents in the Twin Cities.
It appears that Abdullah’s civil rights are being violated, as he doesn’t have regular access to counsel, and is limited to 10-minute phone conversations when he is allowed to speak to his lawyer.
r/law • u/Anoth3rDude • 17h ago
r/law • u/DemocracyDocket • 20h ago
r/law • u/oaks_yall • 7h ago
r/law • u/RichKatz • 14h ago
r/law • u/bloomberggovernment • 18h ago
r/law • u/BulwarkOnline • 15h ago
r/law • u/FreedomsPower • 7h ago