The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
EPAH have you ever lost a major evidence issue at trial and didn't understand wh
| michael doodikoff | 01/12/26 |
| Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband | 01/13/26 |
| screenland | 01/13/26 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: January 12th, 2026 7:09 PM Author: michael doodikoff Why?
Had this happened today. Basically a "relevance" issue. Kneecapped my Entire case. And half of my testimony was prepared addressing it. Just brutally assfucked me - I'm reeling
|
Date: January 13th, 2026 11:30 AM Author: Emotionally + Physically Abusive Ex-Husband (oppose bitchbois) One that comes to mind is in our RPA case over Clear Eyes the judge let the defensemos use pictures of our clients' businesses to suggest that the reason C-Store owners prefer Costco is because of its attractive facade, whereas our guys' businesses are in warehouse areas, with chain link fences around the parking lots, loading docks, etc. I tried to explain to our 105-IQ judge that it was a matter of conditional relevance under Rule 104 -- that to make the businesses' appearance relevant, they'd first have to show that any C-Store owner gives a shit about the appearance of where it buys its merchandise. He didn't seem to understand.
But then in closing I turned it around, accusing the defensemos of trying to use the pictures to mock and defame small business owners, and that all these fat cat corporations think they're better than us. |
 |
Date: January 13th, 2026 11:33 AM Author: screenland This is cr. The whole point of oral arguments is to ditch your original premise and find your theme on the fly. No one actually reads the briefs. Judges just want to be DAZZLED.
Doodikoff just has to pivot and go akshually here's why this is a GOOD thing. |