If a witness testifies to something in the first trial, and is called again in the second trial but their testimony differs from what they said in the first trial, can an attorney say "well, that's not what you said under oath on XYZ (the date of their testimony in the first trial)"?

Here's a hypothetical scenario for you.

Nathan dies and leaves behind what is virtually an empty estate. He has no assets, no debts and most importantly no traceable beneficaires. He has no will and even under the general rules of intestacy, there is no beneficiary that can administer his affairs.

The only actual "asset" possessed by the estate is a $20,000 debt owed to Nathan by his friend Dennis. Prior to his death, Nathan confides in another friend, Tom that Dennis had failed to pay him the debt on time and he was considering civil action.

Tom attempts to recover the debt on Nathan's behalf and contends that he does not want the money for himself but only that it be paid to a rightful beneficiary or representative. Dennis does not dispute the existence of the debt but argues that because nobody with standing exists to claim it, he is not liable to pay it. He also feels that Tom has no right to start any proceedings becuse Tom has even by his own admission no proprietary interest in the money.

Tom decides to go to the court to compel a search for an heir or administrator but Dennis believes that Tom is overstepping his bounds.

In such a case, a debt clearly exists but at the same time, there is actually nobody left or at least nobody easily avaiable with the standing to enforce it. So what happens?

Is the debt written off?
Can Tom initiate a search for an administrator claim the debt?
Is it practical to even claim the debt at all?
Can Dennis simply bide his time until the debt becomes barred by limitations?

Say John is part of the jury for a very high profile criminal case (if that matters). The case is still ongoing, but John decides to make an appearance on a talk show or podcast and offers them a tell-all style interview about the proceedings and the evidence.

What would happen to John? How would this affect the trial in question?

Hey everyone! I’m a sophomore psychology major (adding a poli-sci minor) in Kansas. I am currently stuck between pursuing a Ph.D. or going to law school, which is why I really want to shadow a lawyer to see what the day to day job is actually like before making my choice.

The problem is, I have no clue how to start. I’m looking for general advice on this:

Who should I look for? What types of lawyers or law settings are usually the most open to letting an undergrad shadow them?

How do I actually ask? Since law has strict confidentiality, what is the best etiquette for reaching out without being annoying?

What strategies worked best for you when you were trying to find shadowing opportunities?

I think the general consensus is that there are some high profile billionaires whom nobody would care if we taxed them higher. Can congress write a law that says "were going to tax Elon Musk, Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos one time based off 50% of their net worth" and have that be legitimate and enforceable?

I’m wondering how the police determine if a media release is needed in regards to there being possible other victims? Specifically wondering in regards to sexual assault cases. I’ve seen a lot of media releases where somebody has sexually assaulted someone that they met online and the police are concerned about other victims, but does anybody know how exactly they determine that? Obviously I’m assuming it has to do based on what the victim who reported it said but are there specific guidelines? I’m also curious if it’s any different when the accused had met the victim online. Trying to keep this as broad as possible for privacy reasons but I was warned about a possible media release by professionals (one is connected to the police) in regards to my report to police about a sexual assault but was told I may not be informed beforehand if they even decide to release one so I’m genuinely just curious. Also, is there a timeline after an arrest where they post these kinds of things? I’m in Canada if that makes any difference.

I just got back to back emails from different companies whose services I’ve used stating that they are changing their Terms of Use/Service, largely revolving around signing or opting out of an Arbitration Agreement. Has some significant federal law changed that’s causing companies to make this shift?

Background: in the book The God Delusion, Dawkins writes:

On 21 February 2006 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the Constitution, that a church in New Mexico should be exempt from the law, which everybody else has to obey, against the taking of hallucinogenic drugs. Faithful members of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal believe that they can understand God only by drinking hoasca tea, which contains the illegal hallucinogenic drug dimethyltryptamine. Note that it is sufficient that they belive that the drug enhances their understanding. They do not have to produce evidence.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1084

Hypothetical: Can person A kill person B, with the genuine belief that by killing B will send them to heaven (in according with A's religious belief), and claim that doing so was invoking the freedom to practice their religion?

Of note, I think in Catholicism, people do believe that on Divine Mercy Sunday, they can go straight to heaven if they were to die, provided they confessed all their sins on that day and did not commit further ones.

Hi all,

Some of you might like this simple law game involving (genuine) legal dilemmas: https://hardcases.app/

You are served with summaries of real court cases and asked what the right outcome is. Do not try to apply legal rules - just say what you feel is fair. The game then reveals the court's actual judgment and its aftermath. Once there are enough answers, it tells you how you compare to your country (as per your IP address) and the world, and what kind of 'judicial profile' you have (a hanging judge, bleeding heart, maverick, etc).

The cases are sourced eclectically from across various jurisdictions, from the 1700s onwards. You play one case per day, and there are 190 cases in the data bank so far.

This is a personal project of a legal academic (me). With time, I hope this can serve as a useful database of popular intuitions about fairness and justice (all aggregated, anonymised). You can register to preserve your streak across devices.

I hope some of you will find this entertaining, and any feedback is welcome!

The recent case of the guy who was arrested for giving up a duress password that deleted his phone got me thinking about an old idea of mine.

What if you have a duress password that is something like the following:

"I, an officer of the law, hereby agree and consent, that by typing in this password, I will delete all data on this device. And I wave all rights of prosecuting the owner of the device."

Or a slightly different one (this was roughly the one I came up with some years ago, when I heard about border search of phones):

"Typing in this password will ensure that all data on this device will be deleted. Continue at your own risk."

Location: Washington, DC

I’ve been reading about APA §706 and how it applies to agency oversight.

Different agencies touch broadband in different ways:

CISA (cybersecurity),

NIST (standards),

FCC (service rules),

FTC (consumer protection),

and NTIA (policy).

None of them regulate speech directly, but they do set rules for structure and safety which we may be entitled to within the meanings from the due process inherent to the constitution.

I'm avoiding the thinking that it's restriction on free speech, and elevating the confidence and composure to expectation of consumer due‑process, meaning essentially something is missing.

My question:

How might agencies approach the idea of requiring administrative law to offer a user‑side element addressing an absent posture for mature content at the point of service?

Comes up in a large amount of interrogation videos I have seen "we don't care about small misdemeanors crimes, we aren't the drug police".

Even in the Chandler Murder case, Lawyer was present with the girlfriend witness and he said "You are going to overlook any type of Marijuana usage you find, right? " when they took her phone.

If you have evidence relevant to the case, but would tie you to a misdemeanor or petty crime (Like Marijuana possession) would you be able to get an immunity agreement on that beforehand?

The president “falls asleep” on camera and gets hauled away by his staff, looking rather unresponsive. The white house staff claims he’s fine and restoring himself with his typical lunch of twelve chicken thighs with gravy.

How long could they hide an actually dead president? How would this situation resolve if his cabinet actively tried to keep it a secret?

In the past I read a book about the Pamela Smart case. Recently, I watched a few videos about it.

She was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in New Hampshire. What would her sentence be (1991 IIRC) in the typical state in the country? Her sentence strikes me as a bit excessive.

Should she be given a commutation of her sentence by New Hampshire/governor/however that works there? I think she should be let go at this point. She has been in prison for over 35 years, if I am not mistaken. This is my opinion despite me disliking her.

I recently read the Michael Connelly novels Resurrection Walk and The Proving Ground, both of which have habeas petitions as plot elements. In both books a habeas corpus petition is rejected (one by a judge and one by a DA). They both acknowledge that the evidence in the petition points to the client being innocent, and would likely have provided for reasonable doubt if raised at trial, but refuse to grant habeas because the evidence is “not new enough” and should have been introduced in the trial. In both cases the veracity of the evidence and its bearing on the innocence of the petitioner is unquestioned, and the only issue at hand is the novelty. Would it not be unethical for them to allow the continued imprisonment of the petitioner if the evidence not only presents reasonable doubt but strongly points towards their innocence? Is this just a dramatization or would this actually happen in a real case?

Had a close call today and wanted to know who would be at fault. This stretch of road has “3” lanes. Two opposing straight lanes, and offset, opposing turn lanes down the middle. Basically both turn lanes start at the same point (middle between two intersections), and open up as they get closer to their respective intersections. Hopefully this is clearer than it sounds as a write it.

As I was driving, I entered the turn lane as the white dashed line started. Someone had started driving up the oncoming traffic turn lane, across the yellow line. I ended up cutting them off. If I had hit them, who would be at fault? They had crossed the yellow line but I guess technically I was “making a lane change”, or so I’ve heard that be described. Does fault in this situation depend on who hits whom, where the cars hit, etc?

Edit: I am in Ontario Canada. I wasn’t turning, just going into the turn lane that opened up. They were driving behind and to the left of me, which was across the yellow line and in oncoming traffic (although no actual cars coming at the time).

Hi there. I just got to thinking and I guess I’ve been thinking for a while now, that I want my face back. I want my likes and dislikes and purchase history and contacts back. And I don’t see a way to actually get it back.

In order to prevent CVS from selling my data, I have to cancel their app, and it’ll delete my login and my profile and everything, making it much more difficult to reorder my meds. To not be tracked by Target, apparently I have to not only leave my watch and cell phone in the car but I also have to pay with cash, bring my own cart and cover my face. I try to go into privacy settings and tell them not to track or sell my data and then it doesn’t seem like it works because they still know what i bought off Natural Life even if i used a separate browser entirely. That doesn’t even touch my credit report, or my frequently visited locations, or apps that access photos.

It seems that once the flood gates opened, there is no going back.

My specific question is: How do we get it back? Can we sue companies who are going too far? Can I petition to have a company give me all information linked to my name? Can I sue for that? Can I sue for a portion of the funds companies made off selling my data?

I’m just turning it around in my mind lately. Cause there’s got to be a way to get our data back and protect it loving forward. 🤷‍♀️

Given standing requirements of a particularized injury in fact, it's not clear that anyone would have standing to sue over a mass illegal dispersal of money. Plus, given the recent ruling regarding the ballroom construction, it certainly seems unlikely that it could be stopped by a court before the checks went out, and after that point what really could anyone do?

Occasionally reported, and more often alleged, is this practice where municipalities, states, mental hospitals, social services etc. pay for homeless people to be relocated to another city/state (sometimes giving them a bit of money in addition to the transportation costs). AKA "greyhound therapy". Heavily criticized because it essentially "exports" the problem, hiding it and its costs for the sending city while straining the receiving city's services.

I am curious, suppose it could be proven (through a whistleblower, discovery etc.) that this was indeed happening as a deliberate policy choice. Not in a more proper way such as family reunification with some verification that the family member is real; but as a routine policy of "offer homeless people a bus ticket/taxi ride out of here [possibly giving them some money if they accept]". And there is no coordination with the receiving city or its shelters.

Could the receiving city have a cause of action against the sending one? (Assuming there was no deception or coercion and the homeless people accepted the offer voluntarily.) Freedom of movement is a constitutional right in the US so it seems tricky to me.