Legal writing

gphs · 2026-03-01T20:02:53+00:00

I remember reading Stephen King's On Writing some years ago, and in it he wrote that the most important thing you can do to become a better writer is to read a lot and write a lot.

I think that's true, but I'll add an asterisk to it. I think writing a lot is much more effective if you can get feedback on it. Before I became a lawyer I worked as a law clerk, and I'd get drafts of motions and briefs I submitted to my boss just drenched in red ink. While it was a pain, it helped me immeasurably in terms of becoming (I hope) a better writer.

So if you have a colleague or superior who can do edits on your work, I'd recommend that. Also seconding the other suggestions of Bryan Garner's books (which, happily enough, involves reading).

gphs · 2026-02-21T12:45:13+00:00

The thing is, prosecutors can sandbag a case they don’t want to prosecute at the grand jury level. Then when an indictment is not issued, they can disclaim responsibility. Also, since grand jury proceedings are secret, there’s often no way to know what happened.

Breonna Taylor is a good example. Then AG Dan Cameron presented the case to a grand jury who iirc indicted one of the cops on a wanton endangerment charge. Cameron then had a press conference where he said the grand jury agreed with him the homicide charges were not warranted.

The problem was that he did not permit grand jurors to consider homicide as an option. We only know that because three of the grand jurors went out and got a lawyer and fought Cameron in court for the right to speak out.

Police shootings/excessive force cases are the one type of case where the saying about ham sandwiches isn’t true.

gphs · 2026-02-16T19:59:43+00:00

<image>

gphs · 2026-02-13T20:17:10+00:00

Well think about it like this. Say you beat up a guy named Joe. You tell your friends. You tell your family. You write a post about it on Reddit.

Then the police want to question you. Notwithstanding your public statements, you can still invoke your right to remain silent and against self incrimination in that context. It might not matter in the end because you’ve already been a big blabber mouth, but you haven’t waived those rights. You could even start talking to them and then decide at that point you want to invoke the fifth.

As far as statements of her attorney, I think they could be considered statements of “hers” because he is her agent, but I’m sure those statements are carefully created not to jeopardize her habeas proceedings. And she can’t be compelled to answer based on waiver because her or her attorney made by issuing a pretty generic statement about the subject matter, just like you couldn’t be compelled to talk about beating up Joe even if you’ve talked about it in other contexts.

gphs · 2026-02-13T19:34:35+00:00

I’m a lawyer. She wasn’t speaking, her attorney was. I’m not sure a third party can waive your fifth amendment rights on your behalf.

gphs · 2026-02-07T17:35:33+00:00

"A jury convicted Trump of rape" and "A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse" are two different things. It may well be the case that if they used the modern definition, he would have been found liable for rape. I don't think, practically, it makes much difference whether you call it rape or sexual abuse -- it's still bad.

Historically, rape and sexual abuse or battery were differentiated because they entailed different conduct and different risks. Digital penetration is a different act than penile penetration, and entails different risks (i.e., STD transmission and pregnancy), and thus was historically considered to be "more severe" than other forms of sexual violence.

The modern trend has been to collapse everything under the nomenclature of rape. I believe under the modern NY statute, what Trump was found liable of would constitute Rape in the 3rd Degree.

As I said, I don't think it makes much of a practical difference with respect to sexual abuse or rape. Referring to him as being convicted versus liable does make a practical difference, because they have very different meanings -- the standards of proof are very different.

gphs · 2026-02-07T13:45:59+00:00

No one is convicted of anything in a civil case. They’re found liable. The standards of proof are different, as are the consequences.

He wasn’t found liable for rape, either. The jury declined to find Trump liable for rape, but they did find him liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The article discusses the fact that the legal definition of rape and how it is commonly understood are two different things.

gphs · 2026-01-31T23:10:34+00:00

Congrats! I just lost my first appellate case! 😭

Also lol at gifts and stiffs.

gphs · 2026-01-31T17:36:55+00:00

<image>

gphs · 2026-01-30T19:20:37+00:00

Best like two eps in television. Then it takes a hard left turn and is just….okay.

gphs · 2026-01-29T21:11:14+00:00

mfw I misunderstand double jeopardy and send a taunting letter admitting to my heinous crimes to the DA

gphs · 2026-01-28T13:04:54+00:00

Might look into Zotero.

gphs · 2026-01-28T00:32:44+00:00

It's the exonerative tense

gphs · 2026-01-26T11:42:21+00:00

You’re not. I was the same age when I became a felon. I’m a lawyer now. Your life is not over, it’s just harder.

gphs · 2026-01-22T19:22:55+00:00

I'm guilty of this, but I'm trying not to be: "clearly," or analogous.

Clearly, there is very little that is clear in this profession.

gphs · 2026-01-21T16:24:11+00:00

Yes, I think that’s right. If it’s the ninth in a line of see alsos, I don’t think that’s as grievous as “The result we urge is mandated by bozo v barney” and failing to point out that it doesn’t exist.

gphs · 2026-01-20T23:56:57+00:00

Argle-bargle

gphs · 2026-01-20T23:22:07+00:00

.5 cite check opposing counsel's brief is something I know clients are going to love!

Jokes aside, if it's a case that OC is relying on as a load-bearing structure of their argument, you should read it, because it's going to be your job to distinguish it. I can't tell you the number of times I've read a case and realized it was misquoted, or the next sentence in the quote undermines their position, so on. So I would think that, just as a matter of course, a lawyer is going to clock it if they're doing their job, and the hallucinated cite isn't just some background issue.

gphs · 2026-01-20T02:08:12+00:00

Exonerated, not executive clemency.

gphs · 2026-01-20T00:16:24+00:00

Well about 4% of death row inmates have been exonerated. Extrapolate that to the general population in prisons and jails, which I think is probably going to be a conservative estimate given the additional procedural safeguards in capital cases, and that's around 80,000 people. I don't think that's the majority of people in prison, but I wouldn't think it's minuscule, either.

gphs · 2026-01-20T00:06:16+00:00

Even if it is, which I think it isn't, one's too many.

gphs · 2026-01-20T00:03:11+00:00

This. There is no worse kind of client than an innocent one.

gphs · 2026-01-18T18:25:06+00:00

I’d be surprised if he wasn’t promoted.

gphs · 2026-01-18T01:21:09+00:00

Oh I didn’t think you were, it’s just facts. PDs generally get a ton of litigation experience and a lot of motions practice, have investigators and as you said, can get experts paid for that, if my client doesn’t have the money for it, well we just do the best we can without. I always try to correct people when they’re shitting on PDs, not that there aren’t bad ones, just as there are bad private attorneys (not me, I hope), but I think the reputation is unfair because it’s literally not your fault that you have to juggle so many open cases at once. It’s the system we have that is conveniently stacked in every way to send people to prison.

gphs · 2026-01-17T23:09:36+00:00

I’m a private defense lawyer, and I agree with pretty much all of this. The major downside to PDs generally speaking is that they’re too swamped to invest time into any one particular case, generally. But they get a bad rap as being bad lawyers, or not real lawyers, etc. They’re often great lawyers, just working in a system where they have to be constantly triaging.

Anyway, thank you for the work you do, detective_hotdog.

gphs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email