Alright, so F) In the case of the linked song, the references to the MLP character are obvious, but the word "discord" is a real word. The song doesn't actually mention MLP things by name. Could you get away with that without asking Hasbro?
In the last issue of Bench and Bar, the journal you receive when you're a member of the KY Bar, there was a five-page article on how the word "shall" should be interpreted in various circumstances.
Once when I was practicing in Louisville, I had a jury trial in which the jury asked a question after they retired to the jury room regarding the definition of "unanimous". There was an actual debate among the members of the jury as to what the definition should be.
The week before last, I had a jury trial here. My client was charged with Assault II, a felony for which the sentencing range is 5-10 years. The allegations was, briefly, that she and the victim were talking through the driver's side window while my client was sitting in the driver's seat of her truck. My client grabbed the victim's arm and then drove off, dragging the victim alongside the truck.
Okay, so the difference between felony assault and misdemeanor assault here can turn on, in this particular case, whether or not the injury was a "serious physical injury" or just a "physical injury", and whether the truck was a "dangerous instrument".
The prosecutor was all excited that the treating doctor was set to testify live at the trial, and before the trial started, when we were talking to the judge, said that we should probably agree to refrain from asking the doctor about whether the victim suffered a "serious physical injury". I said that I agreed that the doctor couldn't testify as to his interpretation of a legal definition, but that I should be allowed to ask whether the injury could create a substantial risk of death and . . . at this point the judge said, "Yeah, yeah. Sure. You can ask things like that."
So, I asked the doctor: Could the injuries create a substantial risk of death? Could they cause serious and prolonged disfigurement? Could they cause prolonged impairment of health? Could they cause prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ?
He said "No" to each question.
The prosecutor was all upset the next time we spoke to the judge. He said that he thought we agreed that we wouldn't ask those questions. I said that I didn't ask for a legal opinion. I just asked the questions that the judge seemed to say were okay (those questions were the definition of "serious physical injury", btw). The judge said, "Well, Mike, you didn't object, so I couldn't do anything about it."
They found my client not guilty of felony assault. They did find her guilty of the lesser-included misdemeanor assault, though, and gave her 12 months to serve (we have jury sentencing her in KY, which is unusual, but oftentimes fun, but not in this case).
I have another Assault II trial set for this month concerning two guys who got into a fight at the jail.
Anyway, yeah - language and the interpretation of same is a big, big deal in law-type shenanigans.
Question: if a plaintiff, in the course of a civil trial were to submit forged evidence into the court record which resulted in a win for the plaintiff (cash award) were later to have that trial ruled invalid and a new trial set was to then withdraw the complaint that led to the original trial would the state still go after them for the original forgery that led to a new trial being declared?
IOW: if party A sues party B in small claims using forged documents and wins and after the win party B takes those documents to the State Police who agree (after consulting with the state attorney office) to pursue a case of forgery and perjury against party A. At the same time party B goes before the court and is granted a new trial based on new evidence, both parties are notified and party A (in an attempt to avoid the forgery and perjury charges) moves and withdraws the original complaint that led to the original trial.
In such an instance is the state likely to pursue the charge of forgery or just take it as a win that the forgerer dropped their original lawsuit and left town?
Comments
Once when I was practicing in Louisville, I had a jury trial in which the jury asked a question after they retired to the jury room regarding the definition of "unanimous". There was an actual debate among the members of the jury as to what the definition should be.
The week before last, I had a jury trial here. My client was charged with Assault II, a felony for which the sentencing range is 5-10 years. The allegations was, briefly, that she and the victim were talking through the driver's side window while my client was sitting in the driver's seat of her truck. My client grabbed the victim's arm and then drove off, dragging the victim alongside the truck.
Okay, so the difference between felony assault and misdemeanor assault here can turn on, in this particular case, whether or not the injury was a "serious physical injury" or just a "physical injury", and whether the truck was a "dangerous instrument".
The prosecutor was all excited that the treating doctor was set to testify live at the trial, and before the trial started, when we were talking to the judge, said that we should probably agree to refrain from asking the doctor about whether the victim suffered a "serious physical injury". I said that I agreed that the doctor couldn't testify as to his interpretation of a legal definition, but that I should be allowed to ask whether the injury could create a substantial risk of death and . . . at this point the judge said, "Yeah, yeah. Sure. You can ask things like that."
So, I asked the doctor: Could the injuries create a substantial risk of death? Could they cause serious and prolonged disfigurement? Could they cause prolonged impairment of health? Could they cause prolonged loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ?
He said "No" to each question.
The prosecutor was all upset the next time we spoke to the judge. He said that he thought we agreed that we wouldn't ask those questions. I said that I didn't ask for a legal opinion. I just asked the questions that the judge seemed to say were okay (those questions were the definition of "serious physical injury", btw). The judge said, "Well, Mike, you didn't object, so I couldn't do anything about it."
They found my client not guilty of felony assault. They did find her guilty of the lesser-included misdemeanor assault, though, and gave her 12 months to serve (we have jury sentencing her in KY, which is unusual, but oftentimes fun, but not in this case).
I have another Assault II trial set for this month concerning two guys who got into a fight at the jail.
Anyway, yeah - language and the interpretation of same is a big, big deal in law-type shenanigans.
IOW: if party A sues party B in small claims using forged documents and wins and after the win party B takes those documents to the State Police who agree (after consulting with the state attorney office) to pursue a case of forgery and perjury against party A. At the same time party B goes before the court and is granted a new trial based on new evidence, both parties are notified and party A (in an attempt to avoid the forgery and perjury charges) moves and withdraws the original complaint that led to the original trial.
In such an instance is the state likely to pursue the charge of forgery or just take it as a win that the forgerer dropped their original lawsuit and left town?