- law dawg
- 57 Comments
- 3048 Views
- Documents detail allegations against attorney. [8NewsNow]
- Victim of alleged DUI deadly crash faces new reality. [8NewsNow]
- CCSD settles suit over child’s alleged sexual assault. [8NewsNow]
- Assurances abound, but few details about displacement of mental health providers for homeless hub. [Nevada Current]
- 39-count indictment filed against man accused of hitting Henderson sergeant with car. [News3LV]
- Badlands litigation could end with Las Vegas City Council approving settlement. [News3LV; RJ]
- Nevada Assembly switches to gender-neutral titles. [TNI]
BLOG IS DEAD.
The “demon of validation” is about to become your gorilla pimp.
I don’t know if I’ll be part of the Million Dollar Advocates Club, but I could probably make it into the Hundred Dollar Advocates Club.
They meet on the first Tuesday of every month, on the corner of 13th and Fremont.
I like the sound of “Assemblymember.” Good job!
Oh for fuck’s sake, what is wrong with you?
Are you yet another paralegal who trolls this blog and is resentful that he works for a women attorneys? Because it sure shins like it.
“shins like it”
… and you made into law school?
sounds like it, or shines like it
“shins” an indie rock bank
“shin”, referring to the lower leg
Or maybe, just maybe, it was a typo because no one GAF about a typo on an anonymous blog
Nothing on the internet is anonymous.
In an Andrew Dice Clay voice:
I got your assemblymember right here.
“Metro interviewed Guymon and in January began monitoring his phone communications, the report shows.” This is a taint team nightmare unless they only monitored the calls of the clients who waived attorney/client privilege.
These quotes fascinate me and prove a cautionary tale: “Police said Guymon denied wanting one of the women to be a prostitute and said in a conversation: ‘It’s just a nightmare because it was all consensual, every bit of it, and now it’s being flipped on its head.’ In a police interview, Guymon also denied introducing his clients to his associates for sex acts, Metro said. ‘He stated multiple times he was just trying to help the females out and would occasionally receive lap dances from them,’ according to the report.”
Why was he talking? He is a top notch criminal defense attorney. He knows cops lie and exaggerate. There is no context to a third-party listener or reader. If one of his clients told him that Metro just wanted to interview them, he would have advised them to shut their mouths and say nothing. Why did he not follow the advice that he would have given? The answer is that we attorneys are mere mortals and we think that we are immune to the rules that we give to clients. It is a shame that he did not have an attorney on speed dial to tell him to simply shut up and not talk to cops.
Another cautionary tale: Get married, be faithful and monogamous. Then, your chances of a consensual sexual encounter being twisted into a crime are 0%. Unfortunately, in the “me too” era, not even faithful monogamy, alone, can protect against entirely false accusations as to whether an encounter occurred at all.
As outdated and prudish as it may seem, monogamy protects against all kinds of personal catastrophes: crimes, destroyed marriages, disease, etc.
I really do not care if someone is monogamous. I would take an ethical and consensual non-monogamist over your average straying monogamist 10 times out of 10. Monogamy does not protect against any of the proclaimed personal catastrophes: crimes, destroyed marriages, disease, etc. There is nothing about monogamy which lowers your chances of a consensual sexual encounter being twisted into a crime to 0%. Instead being careful, being truthful and choosing partners who are careful and truthful (whether in bed or in your law practice) is the best course of action.
12:52 PM here. The chances of a false accusation are never 0%. The chances of an actual consensual encounter with someone other than your spouse being spun into a false accusation are 0% if one is monogamous and faithful. That is my point.
Monogamy cannot provide an absolute bar to personal catastrophe, but that wasn’t my claim. Monogamy does GREATLY DIMINISH the risk of those things. That’s just a fact. You are free to go out and engage in whatever consensual sexual life style you wish, but you are not free to escape the natural consequences and risks of the choices you make.
1:03 If someone will cheat their own husband/wife, what makes you think they’re being honest with you? Do you also believe strippers actually like you?
“Get married, be faithful and monogamous.”
Thanks for posting this. It certainly doesn’t have a 100% success rate. But its success rate is far higher than any other option. And at the very least it avoids these types of pitfalls.
My prognostication is that polyamory is the new frontier. Custody is difficult with two parents, three or more, ugh. In a polygamist family, do all the sister wives get visitation when one of the wives chooses to leave? No thanks.
This issue is being addressed in certain states and Canadian provinces. The answer is that the parents who are given legal rights share legal rights, just as in 2 parent relationships. Parenting plans are devised between the parents. Expenses are divided between the parents. The issue is remarkably not that complicated. No “sister wives” do not have visitation rights any more than adults who are not legally designated as the parents have.
Cheating is an act of deception, not an act of sex. Getting married does nothing to increase honesty or fidelity or lower cheating. Instances of “cheating” are actually lower in ethical non-monogamy than in standard monogamy.
After reading all of the articles I could find on this individual, it appears he might have a history of sex addiction. He’s also a controlling jerk.
12:52 nailed it. God’s Commandment’s clearly state, “Though shall not covet thy neighbor’s prostitutes nor act as a gorilla pimp”.
In all seriousness though the risk of crimes, divorce, inflicting trauma on children, disease, love triangle violence, murder-suicides all rise when people have multiple partners/divorces/custody battles, etc.
Cite to one piece of empirical scientific data that supports “the risk of crimes, divorce, inflicting trauma on children, disease, love triangle violence, murder-suicides all rise when people have multiple partners.” You are confusing and conflating having multiple relationships with acts of deception and violations of boundaries and cheating. They are not synonymous. Infidelities and deception? Sure. But multiple consensual relationships? No. This is simply junk science.
Maybe, no it’s highly likely, he did what the police say he did. But that aside, even if he only “introduced” his clients to other men who can “help” them get a car or apartment. Everything else shows he is scumbag. I hope the NV Bar gets some balls and disbars him. It is time the Bar stop people like him who besmirch the reputation of lawyers in NV.
Those conversations can be his defense should the case go to trial and he chooses not to take the stand. Sort of depends. However, generally speaking you don’t talk your way out of a situation with the police and make it worse. The police are experts at questioning and getting someone to talk. Defendants or targets generally are not even if they are lawyers. Guymon probably thought if he presented his side of the story there would be doubt and it would go away.
@4:52, no they can’t. remember, per the rules of evidence, the defendant can’t introduce his own statements through the police unless he takes the stand first. it’s classic hearsay. only the prosecution can (because it would be the statement of a party-opponent).
The questioning and statements come in. They come in every criminal case whether the defendant testifies or not.
The questioning doesn’t come in unless the prosecution puts it in. My first trial was an acquittal because the DA put my client’s statement in so the jury got his version without being subject to cross.
8:09 am–The statement coming into evidence. So you are saying if the State does not offer it does not come in. The questioning can be viewed as exculpatory or as a confession if accurately reported. You can’t force a defendant to take the stand. Guymon spoke to the police and admitted he knew the gal and had a consensual relationship. That can be viewed as a defense to the charges of sex trafficking.
8:33 – you are wrong. Out-of-court statements, no matter how exculpatory or relevant, are not admissible in support of the person who made the statement – absent a hearsay exception, such as the Rule of Completeness or Prior Consistent Statement. US v. Ortega, 203 F.3d 675, 682 (2000); Williams v. US, 512 U.S. 594, 599 (1994).
Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you if I remember Law and Order correctly.
Yeah, that’s a miranda issue, not a rule of evidence
I’m assuming you are not an attorney, but it’s pretty much Law 101 that the U.S. Supreme Court and the Rules of Evidence carry more weight than Law and Order. Also, even Law and Order does not support a claim that “Anything you say can and will be used IN YOUR FAVOR so you can skip testifying and avoid cross-examination.”
It is an admission- a non category of hearsay. It is tricky. Generally the statements when viewed as a confession come into evidence. Because the statements could be used by the defense they are not going to object. Statements/confessions must meet other hurdles–Miranda and Voluntariness. The State moves to admit the statements after a hearing on their admissibility.
The government is not obligated to put a defendant’s statements/confession/admissions into evidence at trial. It’s a tactical decision by the prosecutor. The battle usually comes when the prosecutor wants to put in part of the statement, but not the whole thing. An out-of-court statement offered for the truth, whether an admission or not, is hearsay and is only admissible if it satisfies the rules of evidence. A defendant, like any other party, is not entitled to put his own statements in as evidence as a matter of course and the government is not obligated to do it on his behalf.
10:14 AM–The defense will offer the statements in their case in chief. They can call the Detective who questioned and get the statements before the jury. So many ways. The point is they are coming in one way or the other. The defense has to engage in clever questioning whether Metro considered and investigated a consensual relationship with the victim. The jury will hear it and this will be the defense’s case. “Why didn’t the State offer this evidence to you, ladies and gentlemen” because it shows he is innocent.
OMG. You are wrong. Cite a case. Any case. Or a statute. Or a rule of evidence.
I’m a criminal defense attorney. My guess is that 10:14 is a defense attorney or a prosecutor. Might not seem fair, but they are right and you are wrong. How 10:14 describes things is the law and how it is done in actual practice.
Your self-serving out of court statements do not come in. The State can bring them in as statements of a party-opponent; you cannot get your out of court statements. in. Evidence 101!
Nope. The exception for hearsay is for a party opponent. Therefore, only prosecution can do it. If defendants could introduce their own hearsay, they would all make a bunch of well-crafted public statements and then use those statements in court while functionally depriving the prosecution of the ability to cross. It would be unfair.
I wondered the same thing. Keep your mouth shut!!! But attorneys go down to police department thinking they can easily resolve the matter and they end up with an indictment.
Kimball Jones and Bighorn Law tag USAA for $100,000,000, Lewis Brisbois defending. Ouch!
https://blog.cvn.com/usaa-hit-with-100m-punitive-bad-faith-verdict-over-delay-in-paying-zero-fault-insureds-claim
Case A-20-821602-C
I made a comment earlier, but it looks like it got caught in automated moderation, probably because there was a link?
Anyway, USAA got tagged with $100M judgment today. Plaintiff’s attorneys were Kimball Jones and Bighorn Law. Defense was Lewis Brisbois. Case was A-20-821602-C.
Killer Kimball at it again. Love when LB gets big, fat loss too.
Kimball is so good!
USAA brought in their supposed big trial gun to take lead on the case instead of LB. Guy had his a** handed to him. Good.
I bet the Big Gun mispronounced Nevada in front of the jury.
I swear to God people lose trials over their attorneys saying Ne-Vahhh-da.
Granted, I don’t know much about the case. Was their something specifically deceitful that USAA did? Or are we to the point where offering anything less than policy limits will result in 100 million dollar punitive damage awards? I for one, can’t wait for insurance to become a thing of the past and for our streets to become a mad max style adventure.
I think that has already happened
I tried to look at the case yesterday, but there were a ton of filings since the case was 5 years old. It looks like the Defendant driver may have been involved in a hit and run on the 215 and then never showed up or responded to the summons. Because USAA couldn’t get in touch with their insured to represent him they moved to intervene and provide a defense to avoid allegations of bad faith later. I would imagine in a case like that they would have offered policy limits, but for whatever reason Plaintiffs rejected it. Because their Plaintiff was absentee and committed egregious conduct and the damages were likely in excess of the policy limits defending the judgment from the jury would have been difficult, but in his absence they still needed to defend it to avoid a potential bad faith claim later. But at the end of the day I think USAA files a motion for declaratory relief saying they’re only obligated for policy limits and since they apparently provided an adequate defense (despite the defendant’s failure to cooperate) and the defendant is unreachable anyway nobody gets to assume those bad faith rights anyway. I can’t see how USAA is obligated to pay anything more than policy limits–despite the 100 million dollar award against the judgment-proof defendant. Am I missing something?
Yes, it was a first party bad faith case (plaintiff’s own insurer). So it has nothing to do with providing an adequate defense.
Looked at the transcript from the final day of trial. That judgment will be reduced. Deficient instruction and no finding of bad faith, punitive damages will be capped at 3x
No finding of bad faith? Take a look at page 102 of the transcript, bub.
Unless it has been changed recently, the punitive cap does not apply in cases of insurance bad faith.
No cap on punitive damages for bad faith. USAA will settle.