Tag Archives: testimony

Do NOT take this to Court.

02/27/2014 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

Spending many hours in Courtrooms throughout the State of Mississippi I have learned some things and seen some stuff. Today are the things that you should NOT bring to Court.

So you know to bring the evidence you need, your witnesses, and your attorney. But, what should you NOT bring:

Food/Drinks. This is a standard Court rule. There are usually vending machines in the halls. Even attorneys cannot get away with this one.
Cell Phone. Again a fairly standard procedure. With every phone having audio and video recording options, cell phones are on the short-list of no-nos.
Purse. My purse? Yes. The Court does not allow purses these days. Leave it in the car.
Weapons. Any kind of weapon, including but not limited to pocket knife, scissors, obviously firearms. Most Court have metal detectors.
Hotheaded Relatives or Friends. The Court does not need your Uncle in the audience guffawing, sighing, snickering or gossiping during Court. If he cannot control himself he’ll be removed from the Courtroom anyway.
Crying Babies. The days of babies being necessary for Court are over. No longer will the jury/judge look at the baby and look at the putative father to see if there is a resemblance. Don’t take a baby to Court.

Matthew Thompson is a practicing attorney in Mississippi Divorce Court. NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO COURT!

Child Custody, Child Support, Crime, Divorce, Opinion

Never Do This in Court! (or This!)

10/14/2013 BowTieLawyer 2 Comments

Court. The most anxious, stress-filled, loss of control decision a person can make. Even with careful preparation it can be unpleasant. Without preparation it can be a nightmare!

So what should you not do in Court?

Don’t argue with the Judge. Even if the Judge is “wrong,” “mistaken,” or “backwards.” Leave the arguing to the attorney.
Don’t argue with your attorney. Short of catastrophic representation meltdown listen and heed your attorney’s advice.
Don’t argue with the other attorney. Just answer the questions asked, explaining if necessary. Personal jabs, smart-alleck responses and witty banter are not needed.

So that’s what you should not do, but what should you NEVER do?

Never give sassy responses to the Judge. This is different from arguing. Oftentimes the Judge will have questions for the witnesses. The responses and the manner given matter. For instance, in a hearing where both parents sought custody and child support, the father said that he did “NOT need ANY child support nor ANY money to care for HIS kids…” But, he then objected to having to pay any child support as he had limited income. The Court made note of his inconsistency.
Never criticize the other parent for conduct that you also do. On another occasion a parent was being especially critical of the other for “leaving” the children at day care all day and not picking them up until the “last-minute,” around 5:30. Well, this parent had also just testified they were self-employed and could get the children at any time, because his schedule was so flexible, but did not. This irked the Judge.
Never lie. (PERJURY) You will get caught. The truth is easy to remember. Remember, usually, it’s not the crime but the cover-up that gets you. The very affluent husband, with a great job, testified that he was unsure of his income, but knew his expenses down to the penny. He testified under oath that his expenses exceeded his income by over $10,000 per month. The problem? He had no debt. This situation of making $10,000 less than he was spending had been going on for months, if not years, but he always made payroll, carried no debt, had no loans and could not explain how this could be. Perhaps he had a money tree out back. The Judge imputed income and based his obligations on what he stated his expenses were and what apparently his income was.

Matthew Thompson is an Adjunct Professor- Domestic Relations at MC Law and a Family Law Lawyer. Don’t do these things in Court if you know what’s good for you!

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law FirmYou may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Child Custody, Divorce, General Legal, Marriage

Marital Privilege – From the Bedroom to the Courtroom.

09/27/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

We hear a lot about attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege and even priest-penitent privilege, but there exists a marital spousal privilege, though application can be limited and tricky.

A spouse to spouse communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to that person’s spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. In any proceeding, civil or criminal, a spouse has a privilege to prevent that person’s spouse, or even a former spouse, from testifying as to any confidential communication between that person and that person’s spouse. The privilege may be claimed by either spouse in that spouse’s own right or on behalf of the other.

This means that a husband can prevent a wife from testifying about something he told her in confidence. It also means that an ex-husband can even prevent an ex-wife from testifying about something he told her in confidence, during the marriage.

So, you ask,“How can I testify about what my spouse said in my divorce case?”

Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in civil actions between the spouses (including divorce) or in a proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against; (1) a minor child, or (2) the person or property of (i) the other spouse, (ii) a person residing in the household of either spouse, or (iii) a third person committed in the course of committing a crime against any of the persons described in (d)(1), or (2) of this rule. MRE 504.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and warns you not to count on spousal privilege in a divorce action. So be careful about the content of those sweet nothings that you are whispering.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer

Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, Grandparent Visitation, Modifications, Opinion

Going to Court is HARD.

09/25/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

I have blogged recently about Why Settling Your Case is Best, avoiding Court, and Why Going to Court is “Best.” The gist of the former being settlement is preferred for having a say in the final outcome and having predictability and the latter, going to Court is best when there is no room for compromise.

Unfortunately, I have been involved in the latter, a case where there was no room for compromise. From my perspective one party was primarily the aggressor and was encouraged by the attorney to take unreasonable positions and force the matter to Court. Of course, they did not view their own positions as meritless. Also, I’m sure they thought my client and I were wretches…

Regardless, hard feelings abounded. This case had some history. What should have been a run of the mill divorce and custody matter was extremely contentious and was litigated over an issue that was not an issue. In Round One, after most of a day of trial, the Court stopped the matter and told the other side they were going to lose on their issue and the case did settle.

But, like the A-Team, they had a plan! Just a few months after it was final they decided another bite at the apple was proper. Based primarily on speculation…which was eventually admitted at Court, the other side sought to change the deal they had agreed to just months prior. Round Two in Court was based on rank speculation. After hours of testimony, haughty lecturing, and what can only be described as highly stylized testimony by the aggressive party and deeply emotional testimony by the other, the Court dismissed the case.

So, what is the take away? Sour grapes? I don’t think so, at least not on my part. It made me realize, yet again, Court is HARD. It is not fun. It is emotional. And, even when you win, nobody wins. Here’s what else can be guaranteed, when you successfully defend against baseless claims from the other side who thinks they are completely in the right when they are not, you better get ready for posturing and Round 3!

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and knows that sometimes even when you win you don’t win.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer Visit the website: Thompson Law FirmYou may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Child Custody, Child Support, Divorce, General Legal, Opinion

Why Going to Court is “BEST.”

09/16/2013 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

This post is advice rarely given or taken. I have previously blogged on Why Settling Your Case is BEST!. Settlement is usually BEST, but sometimes Court is inevitable…

imgres

Why going to Court is Best, or the BEST alternative;

It allows you to tell your side of the story.
Somethings you CANNOT compromise on.
The Judge may be in the best position to hold someone accountable, who needs to be!

Commonly, settlement is your best option. It gives you say in the final outcome, whereas letting a Judge decide your case can remove what say you may have. Sometimes what you want and what a Judge can award are not congruent. However, sometimes what the other side wants, a judge would not give them. Going to Court can be therapeutic. Going to Court can also show that you are serious and won’t back down from a fight. Going to Court can also backfire, cost more money and end in a result that is more difficult to live with.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and goes to Court often, but usually when settlement has failed or stalled.

You may contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Divorce, General Legal

I Say, You Say, We All Say Hearsay

09/09/2013 BowTieLawyer Leave a comment

Witness: And then my neighbor said that he was f….

Lawyer: Objection, your Honor. Hearsay.

Judge: Sustained. Don’t tell me what somebody said.

download

Hearsay happens everyday. Hearsay, by definition, is any out of Court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Huh? Yep, legal mumbo-jumbo. Think of hearsay as ANYTHING that is said outside of the Courtroom by ANYBODY. It also includes writings, documents and many, many things, but that is a blog for another day. Today it’s about testimony.

Most commonly hearsay occurs anytime a witness is telling their story. It is very difficult to tell what happened and who did what without saying what was said. This is very frustrating for witnesses, irritating for Judges and something a lot of attorneys woefully ill prepare for. If you are a witness testifying just know that you cannot say what somebody else said unless they are a party in the case.

So, when mom is testifying about how upset little johnny was when dad dropped him off late for the baseball game, but mom did not see it and was relying on the assistant coach telling her, she can’t say what the assistant coach told her. Either the assistant coach has to come testify or mom has to describe little johnny after the game. “He came home sullen, eyes red, as if he’d been crying.” Little Johnny told her what happened. So she called dad. Now she can talk about the call with dad and who said what because they are the parties. Confused yet?

Hearsay and testimony is something you need to practice handling with your attorney. You may always describe what you did and said and this is the way around hearsay and/or having the other witnesses involved testify.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney and encourages you to practice your testimony and telling your story without saying what somebody else said.

You may contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Child Custody, Child Support, General Legal, Opinion

War Stories; How NOT to testify (grandmother edition)

05/11/2013 BowTieLawyer 3 Comments

War Stories are the fun, awful, tough and unique occurrences that lawyers and parties in litigation get to experience and live to tell about it. At water coolers and break rooms throughout the world lawyers regale anyone who will listen about that time they…(this series will include a few of my own).

Facts: This was an initial Child Custody case, which means the Court must consider the Albright Factors. Dad had temporary custody due to prior child neglect allegations against mom. Mom was required to pay child support pursuant to this Order. Mom called her mother (Grandmother) to testify to corroborate that mom is good, dad is bad, and custody should be with mom.

On direct examination, that is when mom’s attorney was questioning grandmother, she did fine. She said mom was good, dad was bad for reasons including; he was not around and did not support the child, and that the child should be with mom.

On cross-examination, that is when I get to ask questions, the tone changed. From the jump Grandmother was defensive and combative. This was a mistake on her part. She should have stayed calm and exuded confidence, not anger. Even if she had to fake it.

Upon questioning about the neglect allegations grandmother downplayed them as a misunderstanding and had a story which completely excused mom’s conduct. The problem was there had already been 3 prior witnesses which contradicted this, one of whom was mom! Certainly they had to have had a discussion prior to court.

Next, grandmother took dad to task for “not supporting” the child, but her only “proof” was anecdotal. Nonetheless, she concluded he was no good because he was not supporting them and she knew this because mom told her so. Grandmother changed her tune about a parent being no good for not supporting the child however, once my questioning revealed mom had not paid child support in months, though ordered. It was different for some reason, but she could not be explain how.

Lastly, Grandmother had no real complaints about dad’s care-giving the last several months when he had custody and reluctantly admitted the child was doing well. She was also extremely evasive about mom’s new beau and that person’s involvement with the child. It was obvious she was trying to avoid giving that testimony.

Grandmother should not have testified. She added nothing and ended up undermining mom’s case. The only way to have known this would have been to thoroughly prepare her for direct and cross-examination and taking the time to view the case from both parties’ perspectives.

Matthew Thompson is a family law attorney in Mississippi and assesses your case from your perspective, as well as how the other side may approach it.

Follow the blog: BowTieLawyer

You may also contact Matthew with your family law case, question or concern at (601) 850-8000 or Matthew@bowtielawyer.ms

Divorce, Opinion

The Great Debate? Not in Court.

10/16/2012 BowTieLawyer 1 Comment

If you or I answered questions in Court like the presidential candidates do at the recent town hall debate we would be running the risk of being held in Contempt!

In Court parties/witnesses must answer the question asked. It is preferred that the answer be “yes” or “no” and then an explanation offered if necessary. Obviously if it’s not a “yes or no question,” answer the question asked. This can be very difficult to do and takes practice to get this right. One of the things that can aid this is to practice or rehearse the actual questions with your attorney. By way of example, one of the candidates was asked does the Dept of Energy consider its role to work to reduce gas prices. The answer given was not “yes” or “no.” I am actually not sure what the answer was…and I listened to it.

If you find yourself in Court, not answering the question asked may result in the Court to conclude you are being deceptive. This is not an impression you want to create.

Another thing to be sure of is to answer only the question asked. Do not answer what is not asked and do not offer more than what is asked. The best example I can think of is when a party was asked if they had committed an affair with “Mary” since the separation. The answer was, “I have not committed an affair with ‘Mary’…since the separation.” There was an awkward pause. The awkward pause resulted in the follow up question of when did you commit your affair with Mary. The party told on himself by not just saying “No” which would have been a completely truthful answer to the question asked.