Law&Crime Sidebar - Top 7 Awkward Lawyer Moments

Episode Date: December 27, 2023

During their careers, attorneys are involved in hundreds of cases — many of which make it to trial. Like everyone else, lawyers are susceptible to making mistakes and embarrassing themselves or others. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the top seven awkward lawyer moments caught on camera in court.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. I need to apologize. I was being an ass earlier. You are, it was wrong for me to triangulate you, your dad, and your sister, and your mom, and I ask for your forgiveness. One attorney is caught using chat GPT to draft a legal brief, another points a gun at prosecutors, and another objects to himself. These are seven arguably awkward moments by lawyers in court.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Trials can be a whole mix bag of things, right? They can be dramatic. They can be sad. They're even humorous at times. And frankly, sometimes they can be a bit awkward, right? Particularly sometimes involving attorneys.

There are those moments that maybe are a head scratcher or cringe-worthy or uncomfortable. And that's what we want to get into. The top awkward lawyer moments in recent cases. And I can say this because I'm a lawyer myself, okay? I have license to say it. Well, let's actually start off with the Amard Arbery case out in Georgia. Now, you may recall this case. There was this video from February 2020 of three white men chasing down, trapping,

and ultimately gunning down Ahmaud Arbery, a black man. It went absolutely viral this video. The three defendants, Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael, father and son, and William Bryant. They all went to trial back in 2021. And this was a case that was watched by many. The racial undertones of this story was apparent. And there were tons of people who had thoughts about this case, feelings about this case,

particularly outside the courthouse during the proceedings. Well, one day, Martin Luther King III, the eldest son of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., attended court. He was in the gallery. Yet, there was a bit of an awkward moment when that announcement was made by William Bryan's attorney Kevin Goff. Now for our viewers on sidebar, just look at Judge Timothy Wamsley as this happens. All right, we're back on defendant's president represented by counsel. We are still with Travis McMichael. We're ready to proceed? Yes, I'm sorry. Greg McLaughle. We're ready Mr. Brian. We are, but I would note for the record that my understanding is the Reverend

Martin Luther King Jr. has graced us with his presence in public gallery this afternoon. The third. The third. I'm sorry. The third. Martin Luther King, the third. Martin Luther King, the third. Yeah.

Apparently, the States don't know what he does not look like he's in the gallery now. So I think the state's wanted. The state, as it's back to the public gallery, so I imagine they wouldn't know. Honest mistake, right? Honest mistake. But it is. a tad awkward. You saw the judge's face looking around like, what's he talking about? In the end, though, all three men, they were convicted in state court of the murder of Amad Arbery,

as well as other charges, and they were sentenced to life in prison. On the federal front, all three were convicted of a hate crime and attempted kidnapping. The McMichaels were also convicted of a weapons charge as well. McMichaels were sentenced to an additional life in prison, and Brian sentenced to an additional 35 years. I think back to awkward moments, And I have to say, there is one where I certainly felt awkward watching it. I'm not sure what the attorney was thinking, but let's go back to Alex Jones. Okay. So we covered his two trials extensively on sidebar.

And if you recall, the Infowars founder and host had been sued by the families of those who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as a former FBI agent, all for comments that Jones made regarding the massacre, namely that massacre was staged and that it was fake and it was a hoax and the parents. were crisis actors. They sued him for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. And Alex Jones automatically lost these lawsuits because he failed to abide by court-ordered discovery obligations. He didn't turn over materials to the other side like he was supposed to. And when the court ruled against him, it's called a default judgment. He automatically loses.

We covered both of his trials on law and crime and sidebar. And these trials were purely about how much he would owe the plaintiff's indebtors. damages. How much would he have to pay up? Now, when Jones took the stand in his Texas trial, he was asked by plaintiff's attorney Mark Bankston if he had ever sent text messages about Sandy Hook, right? That's an important point. Well, here's what happened. And for our viewers, just take a look at his attorney in Dino Raynall. One of the things that you were ordered to do in this lawsuit, you were ordered to turn over any text messages in Michigan Sandy Hook, right? Yes.

And you didn't have it, right? Not that we could find. And you in fact told me, in your testimony, sworn testimony before coming to this courtroom, you searched, right? I did. You've got it upside down. That's text messages between you and Paul Watson, isn't it? Yes. And they mentioned Sandy Hook, don't they?

Yep. I've never seen this text message. I guess you guys got Paul's. My phone didn't save them. said you didn't. Nice trick. Yes, Mr. Jones. Indeed. You didn't give this text message to me. You don't know where this came from. Do you know where I got this?

No. Mr. Jones, did you know that 12 days ago, 12 days ago, your attorney's messed up and sent me an entire digital copy of your entire cell phone with every text message you've sent for the past two years and when informed did not take any steps to identify it as privileged or protected in any way and as of two days ago it fell free and clear into my possession and that is how I know you lied to me when you said you didn't have text message about saying you okay did you know that I see I told you the truth this is your Perry Mason moment I gave them my phone and then mr. Jones you

need to answer the question no I don't know this happened but I mean I told you I gave him the phone over you just saying you said that you said in your deposition you searched your phone you said you pulled down the text did the search function for Sandy Hook that's what you said mr. Jones correct and I had several several different phones with this number but I did yeah well of course I mean that's why you got it my lawyer sent it to you but I'm hiding it okay mr. Jones Mr. Jones, that?

Please just answer questions. There's no question. Mr. Bankston also only ask questions. Sure. Mr. Jones, in discovery, you were asked, do you have standing hook text messages on your phone and you said no, correct? You said that under oath, Mr. Duns, didn't you? I mean, back, I was mistaken.

I was mistaken, but you got the messages right there. You know what perjury is, right? I just want to make sure you know before we go any further. You know. what it is. Yes, I do. I mean, I'm not a tech guy. Yeah, not a great look right there.

And frankly, Jones's attorneys, they took a lot of heat for that mistake, inadvertently sending texts and seemingly not doing anything to fix it. Honestly, I just have to call this out. The camera operator zooming in, showing Andino Raynail during that. Oh, boy. Now, in response, Mr. Raynall filed an emergency motion for a protective order and a mistrial over this mistake, saying that the material contained private and privileged content, and Mark Bankston, the plaintiff's lawyer, was looking at things that he shouldn't.

But again, Bankston said he told Raynall about this. Now, the judge said that while Raynail didn't do what he should have, she nonetheless ordered the medical records be deleted by the plaintiff's lawyers and also ordered a review of documents that were marked as confidential, but she denied a mistrial. In the end, Alex Jones was ordered to pay almost $50 million in one trial, and almost a billion plus $473 million in punitive damages

in another trial. All right, we want to thank Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this video. I think it's pretty clear from the stories that we cover that it is not always safe out there. When you're hurt, it can be pretty confusing. It can be scary

and you really don't know where to turn. Well, Morgan and Morgan is actually the largest injury law firm in America. And at a time when you already have so much to think about, they make it super easy for you. They have completely modernized the process because you can submit your claim, you sign contracts, you upload documents,

you talk to your whole legal team all on your phone. That's it. Yeah, an attorney is going to review your case in just eight clicks. They also have 4,000 support staff that can help you too, which is amazing to think about. And in terms of price, well, you only pay them if you win. There's no upfront fee. So if you're injured and you want to join the over 3 million people that call them every year, you can submit a claim at www.

www.4thepeople.com slash L.C. Sidebar or by dialing Pound Law, that's Pound 529 on your phone. Okay, let's move on to another very high-profile civil trial. This one involving Gwyneth Paltrow. So the actress and entrepreneur was sued by a retired eye doctor named Terry Sanderson. And he claimed that back in 2016, while the two were both skiing at Deer Valley Resort in Utah, Calcho negligently slammed into him from behind, severely injuring him.

He claimed he suffered broken ribs, a brain injury, that his life has never been the same. He sued for over $300,000. Caltro not only defended herself from this, but she actually filed a countersuit, a counterclaim for $1, as well as her attorney's fees. Her argument was that Sanderson hid into her from behind, that she was the victim in this. He said, she said, who to believe, right? Well, this was a very colorful trial. A lot of interesting things happened.

But so did a few awkward things, in my opinion. And I'm going to start with a big thing, and this became the talk of social media. So at one point, Paltrow was called to the stamp, and she was questioned by Sanderson's attorney, Kristen Van Orman. And some of the back and forth by Van Orman and Paltrow, some saw it as her fan girling over the famous actress. Others were wondering if it was a legal strategy to disarm Paltrow. Was it effective?

Was it not? But some just felt it was strange. Let's listen. Three days ago, can you believe it's been only three days? No. I mean, neither. May I ask how tall you are? I'm just under 5.10.

Okay. I am so jealous. I think I'm shrinking, though. You and me both. I have to wear four inch heels just to make it to 5.5. They're very nice. Well, thank you. So, all right.

So as of right now, I'm Gwyneth Paltrow. Okay. You were wearing goggles, a helmet. Yes. Okay, kind of looked like everybody else on the slope. That's always my intention. Okay. Probably had a better ski outfit, though, I bet.

I still have the same one. I just have one. And you're not trained in accident reconstruction. Me? Yeah. No. Neither am I. You screaming at him.

And while he's on the ground still, right? I was yelling at him. Pretty loud. Pretty forceful. I was pretty upset. Right? You're small but mighty. Actually, you're not that small.

Right. And then tips on top of that. Yes. Okay. And I'm assuming, and you're under oath here, that you're a good tipper. Yes. Okay. Fantastic.

I wouldn't expect anything less. All right. Yeah, so online, Van Orman took a lot of heat. for stuff like this look me personally i won't falter for what she did i saw it more of as a strategy and she did try to catch paltrow at a few moments here and there so maybe it was a way to throw off guard maybe she was fan girling i don't know but talking about awkward there is one other attorney moment that i got a call out from this trial and it concerns poutro's attorney stephen owens so at one point he was questioning sanderson's daughter on the stand specifically about

her father's behavior after the crash. Like, did his demeanor or mood change because the more that you can show that he was affected by the crash, the more could help his legal case. Owens tried to negate that point by highlighting a deposition from the witness's sister, claiming that their father, Sanderson, was abusive in the past. And he asked this daughter whether her sister was a liar. In other words, it seems the argument was, well, Sanderson was always erratic, maybe even before the crash.

And there was this back and forth, and it got really intense. But after a courtroom break, when Owens continued his questioning of Sanderson's daughter, he actually apologized to her. I need to apologize. I was being an ass earlier. You are, it was wrong for me to triangulate you, your dad, and your sister and your mom. And I ask for your forgiveness. You love your dad. Fair?

True. You love your mom. True. You love your sister, both sisters. Absolutely. Look, why did he do this? An attorney never really wants to come off as a bully in front of the jury, especially when it's not called for. It can rub a jury the wrong way. Maybe he felt guilty. I don't know. Either way, can't say I've really seen that too much. An attorney apologizing to a witness for what they questioned them about. It was just different, to say the least. In the end, by the way, the jury sided with Gwyneth Paltrow.

They came back and found that Mr. Sanderson was 100% at fault for the crash on that ski slope. All right, let's actually stick with celebrity trials for a moment because there is one awkward attorney moment. I got a call out. Johnny Depp, Amber Hurd. You remember that trial? Remember that one out in Virginia? This was the case where the Pirates of the Caribbean star sued his ex-wife Amber Hurd for defamation after she wrote an op-ed piece for the Washington Post. claiming that she was a domestic abuse survivor,

Depp argued that although he wasn't actually named in the article, the op-ed was clearly about him. Hurd ended up countersuing Depp for statements made on what she argued was his behalf by his attorney, Adam Waldman, comments like her claims were a hoax. And there were so many moments in this case that went absolutely viral on social media. But there is one particular moment that I do want to get into. So Ben King is on the stand, and he was the manager of a house in Australia where Depp and Hurd allegedly got into a heated fight that ended with Depp's finger being cut off. Now, King is being questioned about this by Hurd's lawyer, Adam Nadelhaft.

And you know objections, right, where the other side says, objection, hearsay, objection, relevance, etc. It's a way to stop a question from being answered. Well, as you are about to see, this is when Attorney Nadelhaft appears to object to his own question. And isn't it true that in the entire time you were there, you were not informed as to what caused damage to Mr. Depp's hand on finger on March 8th? Objection, hearsay. I'm asking what he wasn't told. I'll sustain the objection. Next question. You didn't know what could cause damage to Mr. Depp's hand while you were there on March 8th.

Correct? Dr. Kepard told me he sustained an injury on one of his fingers. Well, objection, hearsay. Wait, you asked the question. Okay, you said it sustained an injury to his finger. Yes. But you don't know what caused the injury to his finger? One of his fingers.

But you don't know what caused, you don't know how his finger was injured, correct? I don't think anybody mentioned it to me at that time. Right, no one mentioned it to you at that time, correct? Same objection, Your Honor, hearsay. Sorry, I'll allow it. Next question. Whoops. It's just a funny moment. It's a trial, court, stuff like this happens. But in the end, a jury would find that Herd defamed Johnny Depp. They found her liable for all three statements at issue. They awarded him $10 million. They also found Depp liable to Herd on one claim and awarded her $2 million. However, it was ultimately decided that Herd only had to pay $1 million to Johnny Depp, and he opted for that money to go to charities. All right. So as we continue our discussion, about arguably awkward attorney moments in court.

This next one is more of an honorable, awkward attorney moment, more of like, let's put attorney in quotes here, because I'm talking about cringe-worthy moments when a defendant acted as his own attorney during his criminal trial. I am talking about Bradley Jan when he went to trial in Illinois. He was charged with attacking and sexually assaulting a 77-year-old woman, Tina Lohman Schmidt. He was charged with home invasion, residential burglary, aggravated vehicular hijacking, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated criminal sexual assault. Terrible situation. In fact, she ended up

passing away a few weeks after this happened, but Jan wasn't charged with her murder. He was still facing a plethora of crimes, but not the murder charge. Anyway, during the trial, he chose to represent himself. And honestly, things he said were just generally awkward. There's not many smiles today. However, I did see some yesterday. I appreciate them smiles that has brought a light to my soul as I've been stuck here in this county jail, tormented for the last 19 months.

I ask you, forgive my appearance. This is not normally me. I normally have hair. I do not expect you to feel sorry for me by any means. Incredible and impossible happenings. We all know what incredible and impossible means. Impossible means not possible. credible means it's not credible

but it was during one point in particular that you're like oh my gosh so this came when assistant state attorney Josh Jones made the court aware that Jan's cousin Travis Bloom made a disturbance in the courthouse and Jan tried to argue with the court about it only the problem was his argument

hit him back in the face yesterday did you all by the name of Travis Bloom attempted to enter the courtroom while the proceedings were occurring, he was stopped by security and told he could enter at breaks. At that point, he stayed outside the courtroom, but was heard outside the courtroom, making very loud comments that were heard by Sheriff's Deputy Sam Smith inside the courtroom. Your Honor, throughout my time here, my family has been repetitively denied. I understand Travis Bloom is an idiot.

I understand that, fully understand that. He holds a good heart. They didn't arrest him yesterday. If he did all them things, they probably should have arrested him, right? I mean, these are very serious matters. To limit him from the courtroom simply because of this is ridiculous. If a person does not know that they cannot come in during a time that is not a recess, then maybe they should be explained with that

or maybe there should be notices posted on a wall somewhere. The gentleman in the back courtroom by the door with law enforcement, what's your name? You step outside the door and see if there's anything posted about there entering the courtroom during a recess. There is, Your Honor. And what does it say, sir?

It says. You may only enter the courtroom at recess or breaks. And you were here yesterday, sir? I was. And was that signposted on the door at all times? I believe so. Have a seat, Mr. Yon. Your motion, her objection is overruled. As you described, idiot relative, Travis Bloom, should have read the door sign before he tried to enter in the courtroom. And so he was advised of the court rules.

And as he has attempted to disrupt these proceedings yesterday, as represented, he will be barred from attending further proceedings in this matter. Awkward. His cousin not only didn't read the door sign, but apparently, Yon didn't even bother to check the sign himself before he made this nonsensical argument in court. Oh yeah. Jan, he was convicted across the board of all charges and was sentenced to 130 years in prison. And the judge, who you just heard from, said Jan was, quote, the most reprehensible person I have had in court before me. That is quite a statement. Okay, moving on, this next one is a bit awkward and a bit funny. I'm going to rephrase it. It's dark humor.

And I will tell you, there are those who actually found this quite off-putting. So in the infamous Alec Murdoch case, you remember this one? It was a question of whether the disgrace South Carolina lawyer murdered his wife, Maggie, and son Paul, on their country estate back in 2021. Well, they were gunned down on the family property, specifically by the dog kennels. There was no surveillance. There was no eyewitnesses, really no murder weapon that was recovered. But there was this huge smoking gun, a video taken off of Paul's phone, minutes before the shootings, where you can hear Murdoch on the scene at the kennels

after having denied for so long he was there. But one of the things that the defense did in their case was call their own expert, a crime scene engineer named Mike Sutton. And Sutton's opinion was based on the trajectory of the shots was that the shooter was short, around 5-2 to 5-4, not 6-4. That's how tall Murdoch was.

So the defense was saying Murdoch couldn't possibly have been the shooter, right? So Dick Harputtly, and at one point, this is Murdoch's attorney, he's holding a weapon and he actually points it towards the prosecution. Listen to what happens. Do you recognize this? Do you know what this is? Yes. What is it?

It's the, I think it's an, like an exemplar 300 blackout rifle. And this is the weapon, a weapon like this that the shooter would have had. Yes. Okay, so I'm trying to sort of get a visual of, how about come down here so I don't point at you? Or maybe let me come up there and come this way. Okay? So I'm not five foot two or five foot four. I think you should five foot four. but position me tempting but I don't know how I can do this so I'm not pointing at somebody

so he points it at the prosecution and says tempting you hear laughs in the courtroom but still awkward when you're dealing with two victims who were shot to death it's dark humor there right in the end Alec Murdoch though was convicted of the murder of his family, and sentenced to life in prison. Okay, we have to end our discussion on awkward attorney moments with this gem. Now, I wish we had courtroom video of it, but unfortunately we do not. So this was in New York, and attorney Stephen A. Schwartz had to explain to a judge in a hearing why he used chat GPT, the artificial intelligence language chatbot, to write a legal

brief in a federal case. Now, to be clear, he didn't use chat GPT to write the whole brief, but what it did was it created fake judicial opinions and legal citations that Schwartz incorporated into the brief. Yeah, it concerned a personal injury lawsuit against an airline, and this brief was submitted to respond to the airline's claim that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. So Schwartz's legal brief cited all these cases like Martinez v. Delta Airlines, Zickerman versus Korean Airlines, Vargis versus China Southern Airlines. But apparently, none of those cases exist.

Yikes. So now Schwartz had to explain himself. And according to reporting from the New York Times about what happened in court, Schwartz, quote, squeezed his eyes shut, his shoulders droop, he was slumped, all to describe just how awkward and bad this was for him. And he said, look, he wasn't that familiar with chat GPT. He thought it was like a super search engine. But when asked why he didn't double check the citations and do his

own research, Schwartz reportedly replied, quote, I wish I did that and I didn't do it. Then he added, I did not comprehend that chat GPT could fabricate cases. He said, quote, I continued to be duped by chat GPT. It's embarrassing. He expressed just how ashamed he was. And apparently the heated questioning from Judge P. Kevin Castle lasted almost two hours. The New York Times also reporting that people in the courtroom were giggling and grimacing. But what was really bad is that Schwartz apparently didn't come clean about this to the opposing

side during the litigation. And the judge said he engaged in bad faith. The judge ended up dismissing the lawsuit, ordered Schwartz and his partner, along with their law firm, to each pay $5,000 in fines and to notify each judge who was falsely attributed as the author of these fake judicial opinions about what happened. Look, it's scary to think about the powers of AI and how we still don't know their capabilities. But it is equally as scary that you had a lawyer seemingly just blindly not doing their homework. Well, there you have it. Some particularly awkward moments by attorneys and cases.

Honestly, can't wait for more to come. That's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.