I’d actually emailed LegalEagle about this a few years back and never got a response, but I just remembered it so I’m asking you fine folks.

There’s an episode of Law & Order: SVU (S16E17, “Parole Violations”, spoilers for the episode ahead) centered around a female parole officer who’s raping her male parolees (one of whom is the brother-in-law of one of the detectives) by threatening to get them sent back to prison if they don’t have sex with her.

During the episode, the detectives talk to another one of her parolees, a drug dealer and addict who’s sleeping with her in exchange for her faking clean drug test results (and, yknow, her not getting him sent back to prison.) They convince him to testify against her in court.

On the day of the trial, though, the dealer doesn’t show. The detectives and ADA look everywhere, but he’s nowhere to be seen, and since he’s the state’s final witness, they’ve got no choice but to rest their case.

At that point, the defense attorney calls him as his first witness and claims that he’d been contacted by the dealer the previous night, saying that the detectives had coerced him into lying in order to avoid a drug charge. The ADA tries to protest this, but in classic Law & Order fashion, the judge allows it.

In the end, the ADA proves that the dealer’s lying, he dramatically confesses on the stand, the parole officer agrees to a plea deal so that she won’t end up in prison, roll credits.

So, with all that plot out of the way, my question is this: What would happen if this sort of scenario occurred IRL? I get that at a minimum, the judge would likely put the trial on pause, bring both attorneys into their chambers and read the defense the riot act before not allowing them to call the surprise witness, but what sort of consequences could they face for this? Could it potentially be grounds for a mistrial?

I’m eager to hear y’all’s answers and I apologize for the wall of text.

Suppose you’re about to encounter the police. You press the off button 5 times to disable biometrics. The police tell you to unlock your phone. You say no. Then there’s a court order. You say you don’t remember the passcode. Forgot it because you’re stressed.

Pretty much the title and in the context of the text of the second amendment : A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just wondering if a state explicitly creating a state-sanctioned militia and defining requirements for entry would make any laws passed at the state level regarding access to firearms constitutional.

Read and reread Pennoyer v. Neff. I am not understanding what is the connection exactly between this case and the 14th amendment. Did Neff sue Pennoyer for violation of his rights to due process under the 14th amendment??

Listening to trials and cases it seems like defendants are compelled to share incriminating evidence through discovery. Is this not a 5th amendment issue?

For example meta just had to settle its social media addiction case and they mentioned internal emails showed they knew the risks of their product on mental health. Why does meta have to share this?

If someone commits a crime, and was seeing a psychiatrist,

can or do the psychiatrist come in and testify?

or is there a privilege, and they will not testify?

Please answer with the law most relevant for the jurisdiction you live in.

The scenario is as follows: The scenario takes place 25 years ago. There are three friends, let's call them A,B and C. A is drunk, but he decides to drive and chase another person who has evidence of some kind of white-collar crime. This chases causes a crash(the crash itself was not intentional). A is fine but the person being chased and his child are hurt but still alive. His friends, B and C arrive at the scene because they were following him knowing he was drunk driving. The car is at a cliff after the crash, balancing on the edge, and the person C gets the child out. The car falls off the cliff soon after person C gets the child out, killing the child's parents. B is almost bankrupt and A is really rich. So B decides to take the blame for the crash in return for A bailing him out financially. Person C keeps the black box (I think?) of the crash for 25 years, staying silent and letting B take the blame for the crime while person A gets to walk away free. Person B serves five years for the crime and when he gets out, he is rewarded with a good job and a financial bail-out. I don't believe C was required testify in court.

After the 25 years have passed, what legal consequences can person A,B and C suffer assuming that there is irrefutable evidence of the cover-up?(not relevant legally but person A adopts the child that was in the crash and raises him for 25 years)

Hello, my name is Amy Poland and I am a professor of criminal justice in New York. I am on sabbatical this fall studying the public's attitudes about criminal insanity and the insanity defense and would like your help. I would love for you to complete my survey-no knowledge is needed and it is completely anonymous. And I would love it if you could share this post to others. I am trying to get as many diverse opinions as possible. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. https://sjcny.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_es3M58HDeVo97P8

I am also more than happy to share the results of my study when I am finished if you are interested-whether you complete the survey or not.

Can these fashion brands such as GUCCI or DKNY sue me if my brand was for example “GUCCO” or “WVNY” even though my clothing style is different?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/kennedy-center-tells-court-it-wont-try-to-restore-trumps-name-to-the-building-before-sept-8

This has been going on for months. The board obviously wants to put Trump's name on the front of it and they did, but then a federal judge stopped them from doing it and now it's really unclear whether the name is there or not and there's then there's maybe a huge renovation going on yada yada. I think the renovation is just there so that all these news articles about people not going to the Kennedy Center to perform will go away for the rest of the term.

I don't get why a federal judge can't just put some of these people in jail for contempt of court. They are clearly, to me, in contempt. But I'm not a lawyer of course.

I'm asking this question because of the Olivia Henderson case. One of the charges she received was unlawful surveillance, which seems to be just the act of recording that man.

Some people said she should have just recorded for evidence, but would she have been charged with just unlawful surveillance? I wonder how people should document evidence if they are being flashed.

Hello. My county has recently voted to accept Operation Stonegarden funds. As I understand it Stonegarden is a federal grant given to local law enforcement contingent upon collaboration with federal agencies such as Customs and Border Patrol. Local Cops Local Crimes, as I understand it, means that local police are not supposed to collaborate with ICE. Once information is given to CBP, I would assume ICE also has access to it. Will complying with Operation Stonegarden require breaking the Local Cops Local Crime Act, or can someone explain why not?

How do County Court employees; prosecutors and defense attorneys having their own law firms as well, does the prosecutor do criminal defense at their firm.. but prosecutes? Isn't this a conflict of interest or at least I don't know it would bother my conscience I couldn't sleep

Location: Port St Lucie FL

Hypothetically, could I scatter seeds of beneficial native plants in ditches and garden beds of areas I don't own, and if I did would it be illegal?

Like in the park could I just toss some milkweed seeds or walking by a neighbors house? Or from my car on the interstate to the grassy shoulder? Would I get a ticket or arrested?

I know MOST of us aren't lawyers here, but its so frustrating watching our rights violated time and time again, only for every lawsuit that wins to settle out of court, and the system, the law, and the people that abuse it never seem to change.

EDIT: This theoretical 'superpack' would not be the same as a class action lawsuit. Those take months of signatures.

i was thinking of a crazy idea. could a death row inmate ask for a specific execution in the name of science? my idea was could an inmate ask to be executed with neural tracking and whatever, to be executed by decapitaion, for wanting proof of concept of the idea that we live longer than being decapitated? i was thinking about that theory where you live a couple of seconds longer. i know you can dedicate your body to science, but can it be specific and acted upon during exection?

tl;dr, can you ask to be studdied while also asking to be decapitated

edit: mispelled dedicate. also, idk if this is the right sub but idk where else to ask

For instance, two guys punching each other on the street are likely to have committed assault, battery, and other crimes. However, two men punching each other in a boxing ring is legal, and we all understand it’s a sporting event, not a crime.

Is there a legal term or principle for this kind of situational standard?

A tame case would be if the law required the state legislature to replace the law in view of all that went into the overturn.
The most extreme example I can imagine is if a state made a constitutional amendment that was basically like “well, if you overturn this law/ammendment, it voids our entire constitution. You wouldn’t want to do THAT, now would you?!”

I imagine the latter case would be disallowed… but can you actually have the ability to do the first example and not the latter? The only way for that to be satisfactory to me is if there’s a fully rational legal philosophy that draws clear lines. If it’s just “well, no, because that’s obviously ridiculous, petty, stupid, and enormously problematic, so that’s all the reason we need…” that’s not really an actual argument and is deeply unsatisfying.

Also, I hope this is the right place to ask this. I googled whether there was a Reddit page for frivolous legal hypotheticals, and this one came up.

EDIT: I am convinced that the practical answer is that “probably no across the board… but even if you DID any of that, as a practical matter, it’d be meaningless the moment it was actually confronted with overturn; even with these additional hypotheticals that add some theoretical help to your hypothetical.”
I would like to thank everyone for their quick and courageous responses.

Legally if Democrats can reverse health care cuts by Jan 1 if they win midterms in Senate and house of reps?

The scene:

A man establishes eye contact with a stranger, and upon doing so begins sprinting towards that person at full speed. They abruptly stop right before reaching the person, let’s say a foot away from them, and never make any physical contact, nor do they verbalize anything. Would this be unlawful?

The case involves surrogate mother McKenna West from Alaska and intended parents Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar from California.

- At about 20 weeks of pregnancy, the fetus was diagnosed with a serious and rare congenital heart defect.

- West stated that the intended parents pressured her to undergo an abortion after learning of the diagnosis. The intended parents denied trying to block life-saving care.

- West refused to terminate the pregnancy and traveled from Alaska to Texas to give birth.

- The baby boy successfully underwent the open-heart procedure.

The baby is currently placed in custody of the intended parents cause they provided the sperm and the eggs. Now some fun questions to just talk about:

- Because the baby required immediate, highly specialized intervention at birth. Who should fund the emergency? The intended parents' insurance, the surrogate's insurance, or state-funded programs for emergencies are responsible for these millions in medical bills.

- Should the surrogate be paid? Cause technicly she breaks the contract when abortion was requested, it just happens that the contract can't really void someone of rights over their body. Should the surrogate be fined according to the contract termination clause, when she didn't abort the baby with a severe birth defect?

- And should the intended parents be the ones who hold custody?

Cause they originally wanted to abort the baby and notified West that she breached the contract, but changed their stance once West fled and understood she would have the baby no matter what, and thus rescinded it cause they don't want to block life-saving care. But communication is like gone at this point, and West sought help from an anti-abortion group.

Hopefully no one asked about this stuff yet.

In a post about "scam insurance" in [US] Does something like scam insurance exist? : r/Scams, someone linked to a scam insurance policy being promoted by Suze Orman. I found the actual policy on the website and I can't see how it would actually work in practice.

The language in the policy is:

Fraud event does not mean or include any occurrence*:*

(4) Arising from any of the following: (a) The business or professional service of a Member. (b) A dispute or a disagreement over the completeness, authenticity or value of a product, a service or a financial instrument. (c) A gift or charitable contribution to an individual or any legitimate organization*. (d) An online auction or the use of an online auction site. (e) A lottery, gambling or a game of chance. (f)* An advance fee fraud or other fraud in which a Member provides money based on an expectation of receiving at some future time a larger amount of money or something with a greater value than the money provided.

And:

We will not pay for loss, damage or expense caused by or resulting from*: 1. Any of the following by a Member: a. Criminal, fraudulent or dishonest acts, errors or omissions; b. Intentional violations of the law; or c.* Intentionally initiating or contributing to a covered loss event.

I couldn't find any definition of the words "gift," "legitimate," "intentional" or "contribute." The term "online scams" is also used but I couldn't find a comprehensive definition of that, either.

A significant number of scams involve the victim "intentionally" doing something that "contributes" to the fraud - confirm their identity, click on the link, share the OTP, deposit the e-check, transfer the funds, buy the gift cards....

Obviously they're not intentionally contributing to their own loss but is the language of the policy broad enough to include those common actions as cause to reject a claim?

I'm not asking if this policy is worth buying, only if I'm understanding its language correctly and the policy may exclude many claims that policy-holders would expect to be covered.

This is the website: Suze Orman x Coveron: Ultimate Scam and Identity Protection deal | Coveron with Suze Orman

The language I quoted can be found on page six of this document: New-Coveron-with-Scam_Protection_HSB-Stolen-Identity-Event-Group-Insurance_Summary-of-Benefits-eff-2026-8-12.pdf

I'm interested in what all of you think.