defense Archives - Home Safety Tech Pros

Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says

homesafetytechpros — Tue, 18 Mar 2025 15:49:27 +0000

Criminal Justice

Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says

March 12, 2025, 9:09 am CDT

Orange County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Ferguson appears during a hearing at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center on Aug. 15, 2023, in Los Angeles. (Photo by Damian Dovarganes/The Associated Press)

Jurors in Los Angeles were unable to agree on a verdict in the case of a California judge who texted court personnel after fatally shooting his wife, saying he won’t be at work the next day because “I just lost it. I just shot my wife.”

A mistrial was declared Monday after jurors were unable to reach a verdict on a second-degree murder charge against Judge Jeffrey Ferguson of the Orange County Superior Court in California, report Law360, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press.

Eleven out of 12 jurors had voted for conviction. They had deliberated for eight days.

Ferguson’s lawyer had argued that Ferguson accidentally pulled the trigger while trying to place his gun onto the coffee table. He had killed his wife, Sheryl, in August 2023 while watching the AMC TV show Breaking Bad at their home and arguing about finances.

At the time, Ferguson was 72 years old, and he had fumbled the gun because of shooting pain from a shoulder injury, causing the gun to fire, his lawyer argued. Ferguson’s blood alcohol level was about twice the legal limit for drivers when the shooting happened, a prosecution expert said.

An adult son who was in the home had testified that he had stepped outside as his parents argued and heard his mother say words to the effect, “Why don’t you point a real gun at me?” The son said he turned around and saw his father fire the gun that he kept in an ankle holster.

Ferguson had testified that his wife instead said, “Why don’t you put the real gun away from me?”

Ferguson’s lawyer, Cameron Talley, told reporters after the mistrial was declared that neither Ferguson’s children nor his slain wife’s family members wanted him prosecuted, according to Law360.

“At the end of the day, Judge Ferguson’s life remains in ruins: He’s a broken, 74-year-old man who lost his wife and has health problems,” Talley said.

Talley said he hoped that he could reach a resolution to the case in future discussions with prosecutors.

Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said his office is “absolutely prepared to retry this case,” according to Law360.

Spitzer also said his office would be reviewing Ferguson’s cases because he admitted during trial testimony that he was sometimes under the influence of alcohol on the bench.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Source link

The post Judge’s life ‘in ruins’ despite mistrial in prosecution for fatally shooting wife, defense lawyer says appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Defense scores a win during hearing in suitcase murder case

homesafetytechpros — Fri, 03 Jan 2025 02:01:56 +0000

Inset left to right: Jason Chen (Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office) and Jasmine Pace (Dade County Sheriff’s Office). Background: Chen attends a pre-trial hearing on Jan. 2, 2025, in Chattanooga, Tenn. (Law&Crime).

Several new details were revealed about a high-profile Tennessee murder investigation and case during a motions hearing on Thursday.

Jason Chen, 24, stands accused of one murder in the first degree over the death of 22-year-old Jasmine “Jazzy” Pace.

The defendant and the victim were dating when Pace disappeared. She was last seen alive by her family on Nov. 22, 2022. By the end of that month, Chen was charged with her murder. On Dec. 1, 2022, Pace’s body was found wrapped in a garbage bag and stuffed inside of a suitcase near Suck Creek Road in a rural part of Chattanooga. Police said the young woman was handcuffed, and both of her ankles were bound to her right wrist. She had been stabbed some 60 times.

In one key motion that took up a substantial amount of time during Thursday’s proceedings, the defense moved to exclude a lengthy video culled from body-worn camera footage of a warrant-authorized search that resulted in Chen being led away in handcuffs.

“This video should not be admissible at trial for a variety of reasons,” Chen’s defense attorney argued. The video shows the defendant “in the state of undress. There is no Miranda warning. It is questionable whether these are voluntary statements to law enforcement. Law enforcement is using my client as a translator to communicate to my client’s parents that they have a search warrant and they’re coming in.”

Chen’s attorney went on to repeatedly criticize law enforcement for the arrest under the circumstances of executing a search warrant. He said that “the most important thing is the placing of handcuffs.” The lawyer argued that images — of his client being placed in handcuffs — served no probative value but, rather, was unfair and prejudicial.

The defense attorney also invoked language barrier issues implicated by the video of the search and subsequent arrest.

Hamilton County Criminal Court Judge Boyd M. Patterson, for his part, was somewhat amenable to the defense’s arguments.

“This seems like there is a legal discussion going on,” the judge said. “Mr. Chen asks about cause, he wants details about it, the fact that he is speaking in Mandarin to his parents. I’m a little concerned if I don’t know what that translates into. And there may be a juror who thinks they might know a little Mandarin enough to maybe make a mistaken interpretation about what was going on.”

The state, oppositely, argued the video was relevant because it acted as a form of identification that placed the defendant at the location that was searched. The prosecution also said Chen’s “demeanor” during the encounter should be considered by the jury.

Additionally, the state said the video showed Chen wearing a “particular article of clothing” — a reference to his red hat seen in the footage. That hat, the prosecutor said, would “be seen throughout numerous other recordings of other locations on different days.”

“That is highly, highly relevant,” the prosecutor argued. “Highly probative.”

Chen’s defense attorney shot back to directly rubbish those arguments.

“The state wants to introduce this because they want the jury to see the defendant arrested, placed in handcuffs and transported to, well eventually, to the jail,” the defense attorney said. “What does that give the impression of? It gives the impression of guilt. Watching someone get arrested and placed in the back of a cop car gives the jury the impression of guilt. That’s why it’s an unfair prejudice. There was nothing said — at least known today — that was incriminating whatsoever. There is no probative value to that video whatsoever.”

The alleged killer’s lawyer went on to criticize the demeanor argument as of “marginal probative value.” He asked out loud what showing the defendant “calm six days after” Pace’s death was supposed to show.

“What type of demeanor is he supposed to have?” the defense attorney demanded.

In the end, the judge parceled out wins for both sides on the poorly-lit and oftentimes hard to make out body-worn camera footage.

“This what I’d like to do,” Patterson said. “I do think that there is danger of unfair prejudice in that video. What I’d like to do, general, is if you could give, provide, a 30-second clip of what you think captures a demeanor in your interaction — with the red hat, obviously, in the place to be searched. And, I think that’s pretty much as far as I’m comfortable going with this video. I do think there’s a danger of unfair substantial danger of unfair prejudice for some of this video.”

Ultimately, the prosecution was ordered to edit the footage down and resubmit the shorter video. Based on the content of those resulting edits, the judge will then issue a final ruling.

Various other motions were dispensed with on Thursday.

Patterson also overruled a defense motion to refrain from referring to Pace as a “victim” during the trial. Additionally, the judge overruled a defense motion to suppress an illustration created by a state medical professional. That illustration is a composite using various photographs, of various angles, of the suitcase in which Pace was found. The composite that results is an image that shows “coloration” where the handcuffs can be seen pushing through the fabric.

Jury selection will begin next Wednesday. Trial in the case is slated to begin in earnest on Jan. 13.

Source link

The post Defense scores a win during hearing in suitcase murder case appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jan. 6 defense lawyer says Trump pardon ‘almost a certainty’

homesafetytechpros — Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:50:54 +0000

Background: Violent rioters supporting President Donald Trump storm the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021 (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File). Inset: Thomas Osborne (Federal Bureau of Investigation).

An accused Jan. 6 rioter from Florida who allegedly harbored a member of the Proud Boys extremist group while they were on the run from police has tried — and failed — to get the Donald Trump treatment this week, unsuccessfully filing to postpone his federal trial after claiming a “high member” of the future president’s administration had promised him a pardon.

“The undersigned has spoken with a high member of the future Trump Administration and the future pardon of Thomas Osborne is almost a certainty,” wrote attorney Jeffrey G. Brown in a Nov. 17 court filing, which came after prosecutors objected to pushing back Osborne’s case earlier this month.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, a Barack Obama appointee, slapped down the accused rioter’s Nov. 11 motion on Monday to stay or continue his trial, saying Osborne “has failed to demonstrate” that he meets the legal requirements for such relief.

“This matter has been pending since February 21, 2024,” the judge noted. “The public has strong interest in the prompt adjudication of this matter, and Defendant’s speculation that he may receive a pardon cannot overcome the strength of that interest.”

Osborne faces felony and misdemeanor charges related to his alleged participation in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021, with him being released from jail in March pending his federal trial. He was arrested in Lakeland, Florida, and indicted in February after being placed on a “lookout” list, according to Justice Department officials.

Prosecutors say Osborne impeded police who were defending the Capitol and allegedly grabbed an officer’s baton at one point. His charges include felony civil disorder, entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a restricted area, and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

Osborne allegedly traveled to Washington, D.C., that day with other individuals and is said to have alleged ties to Proud Boys member Christopher Worrell — who he is accused of illegally “harboring” in 2023.

“[Worrell] was tried by bench trial last summer, found guilty on all counts for his conduct in the January 6th riot that took place, and prior to sentencing he also cut his GPS monitor and left a letter for his girlfriend and said that, you know, he needed to go,” said U.S. Attorney Risha Asokan at a court hearing earlier this year, per The Associated Press.

“The FBI subsequently learned that, for the approximately six weeks that Worrell had absconded pending his sentencing, Osborne had been harboring Worrell at Osborne’s residence,” prosecutors wrote in a motion opposing Osborne’s March release. “In December 2023, the FBI searched Osborne’s residence and recovered certain of Worrell’s belongings.”

Text messages between Osborne and Worrell were also recovered by investigators, according to prosecutors. As Law&Crime reported, Worrell went on the lam in August 2023 just days before he was set to be sentenced.

Finding Worrell’s belongings inside Osborne’s home were the least of prosecutors’ worries though, according to FBI officials, as authorities also allegedly stumbled upon an “astonishing amount of guns” — including a loaded silver revolver stashed near his front door, an AR-15 platform rifle next to his bed and a shotgun underneath it, multiple handguns on the top of his dresser and “an alarming” number of loaded and unloaded magazines, per FBI officials.

Prosecutors pointed to Osborne’s alleged weapons cache in court while objecting to his March release, but Mehta wound up granting his release.

“There’s no point in running because you’re eventually going to get caught,” he told Osborne, per the AP. Mehta claimed that if Osborne ran, it would only “make matters worse.”

Osborne’s lawyer argued in his Nov. 17 motion that he should have his trial pushed back on account of Trump’s election win and recent rulings by other judges to do so for other alleged Jan. 6 rioters.

He noted that Trump made promises during his campaign that his supporters expect him to keep.

“[T]he one who did win had repeatedly vowed to pardon January 6th defendants [like Mr. Osborne],” Brown said. Of the requested delay, he asked: “[H]ow is waiting three months an inefficient administration of justice?”

Under the conditions of Osborne’s release, he is being forced to live with his sister and father, who are supposed to be keeping him under a 24-hour lockdown at their home in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Mehta’s release order bars Osborne from possessing any firearms.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jan. 6 defense lawyer says Trump pardon ‘almost a certainty’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jack Smith reveals where Trump’s PRA defense came from

homesafetytechpros — Wed, 03 Apr 2024 14:41:34 +0000

Judge Aileen Cannon (left) during a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight nomination hearing on July 29, 2020 (U.S. Senate via AP), Special counsel Jack Smith (right) speaks about an indictment of former President Donald Trump, Aug. 1, 2023, at a Department of Justice office in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

The Special Counsel’s Office and Donald Trump’s defense both responded Tuesday to an order in the Mar-a-Lago case surrounding jury instructions on the Presidential Records Act (PRA), and the prosecution repeatedly hammered the former president’s arguments as “fictional,” “invented,” and “legally erroneous.”

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on March 18 caused a stir by ordering the parties to file “proposed jury instructions limited to the essential elements” of Trump’s Espionage Act charges and to “engage with” two “competing scenarios and offer alternative draft text that assumes each scenario to be a correct formulation of the law to be issued to the jury [.]”

The scenarios, as Cannon posed them, asked the special counsel to grapple with defense notion that the PRA permitted Trump to unilaterally decide the classified documents at issue were personal records he was entitled to take and keep at Mar-a-Lago, thereby potentially dooming Espionage Act charges:

(a) In a prosecution of a former president for allegedly retaining documents in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(e), a jury is permitted to examine a record retained by a former president in his/her personal possession at the end of his/her presidency and make a factual finding as to whether the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it is personal or presidential using the definitions set forth in the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

(b) A president has sole authority under the PRA to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency. Neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. Although there is no formal means in the PRA by which a president is to make that categorization, an outgoing president’s decision to exclude what he/she considers to be personal records from presidential records transmitted to the National Archives and Records Administration constitutes a president’s categorization of those records as personal under the PRA.

In his response Tuesday, special counsel Jack Smith said, in reality, the “PRA should not play any role at trial at all” and any jury instruction that suggests the PRA does have a role to play in challenging the willful retention of classified information charges is based on a “wrong” legal premise that would “distort the trial.”

The special counsel called it “vitally important” that Cannon “promptly” reveal her view and resolve the issue “well before jeopardy attaches” at trial. Smith explained the timing is important because prosecutors “must have the opportunity to consider appellate review” if Cannon “wrongly” decides to “include the PRA in the jury instructions regarding what is authorized under Section 793.”

In other words, the special counsel is telling the judge she “must” rule on this question of law swiftly. If she sits on it until trial and rules in Trump’s favor, it may mean that “legally erroneous” jury instructions could be a part of the case and lead to the former president’s acquittal — and if he did end up acquitted, perhaps even through a directed verdict of acquittal that Cannon may issue, double jeopardy would prevent another trial, and there’s nothing the government could do about it.

As noted on the Prosecuting Donald Trump podcast, Smith cant wait until a jury is sworn and double jeopardy attaches (when Cannon can unilaterally tank the case); he’s ready to take her to the 11th Circuit. DOJ won 2x before there; now, it will be 3 strikes and you are out.

— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) April 3, 2024

Legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Shan Wu explained the upshot this way:

Extraordinary late night filing by Special Counsel Smith sets forth how Judge Aileen Cannon could doom the prosecution by delaying ruling on her legally flawed jury instructions until after the trial starts (when Double Jeopardy attaches) thus depriving prosecution of any ability to cure.

SCO team explicitly states that this kind of scenario is what a writ of mandamus exists to address – implicitly warning Cannon that they view her position as not only indefensibly flawed legally but saying the quiet part aloud that that they are on to the possibility that the timing of her ruling could be substantively fatal to successful prosecution of Trump – ever.

Now the question becomes whether Judge Cannon will quickly rule or delay further.

If the judge reveals her position sooner rather than later, Smith can go back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to correct Cannon’s “error,” as has happened before. Smith strongly hinted that he’s prepared to seek the “extraordinary remedy” of a writ of mandamus if Cannon rules against him:

“[T]he question of whether the PRA has an impact on the element of unauthorized possession under Section 793(e) does not turn on any evidentiary issue, and it cannot be deferred. It is purely a question of law that must be decided promptly,” Smith said. “If the Court were to defer a decision on that fundamental legal question it would inject substantial delay into the trial and, worse, prevent the Government from seeking review before jeopardy attaches.”

All the more problematic, the special counsel said, is that Trump’s PRA reliance “is not based on any facts”:

Importantly, Trump has never represented to this Court that he in fact designated the classified documents as personal. He made no such claim in his motion to dismiss, in his reply, or at the hearing on March 14, 2024, despite every opportunity and every incentive to do so. As discussed below, the reason is simple: he never did so. Instead, he has attempted to fashion out of whole cloth a legal presumption that would operate untethered to any facts—without regard to his actual decisions, his actual intent, the unambiguous definition of what constitutes personal records under the PRA, or the plainly non-personal content of the highly classified documents that he retained. There is no basis in law or fact for that legal presumption, and the Court should reject Trump’s effort to invent one as a vehicle to inject the PRA into this case.

Trump’s “fictional PRA defense,” as Smith called it, was “invented long after he left the White House.”

The prosecution said that it has interviewed various witnesses — including Trump’s “own PRA representatives and numerous high-ranking officials from the White House—Chiefs of Staff, White House Counsel and senior members of the White House Counsel’s Office, a National Security Advisor, and senior members of the National Security Council” — and “[n]ot a single one” of these individuals heard anything about him designating the records in question as personal.

Smith also traced the genesis of Trump’s PRA arguments to February 2022 and Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton, “who was not an attorney”:

Around this same time, the Judicial Watch president, who was not an attorney, told another Trump employee that Trump was being given bad advice, and that the records Trump possessed at Mar-a-Lago should have been characterized as personal. The second employee advised the Judicial Watch president that they disagreed with the Judicial Watch president’s analysis: in Judicial Watch, former President Clinton had made the designation of certain records personal while President, whereas Trump had not done so. The second employee further informed Trump that the Judicial Watch president was wrong and explained why. Nevertheless, on February 10, 2022, Trump released a statement claiming in part, “I have been told I was under no obligation to give the material based on various legal rulings that have been made over the years.” Before this time, the second employee had never heard this theory from Trump. No other witness recalled Trump espousing this theory until after the Judicial Watch president conveyed it to him in February 2022.

The special counsel concluded by saying that Trump cannot even launch a factual defense based on his PRA theories since doing so “requires evidence,” which he does not have.

“Trump has no evidence to support such a factual defense because he and his representatives repeatedly characterized the records as presidential rather than personal long after he left the White House. Regardless, such a defense, even if available as a factual matter, would have no bearing on the element of ‘unauthorized possession,’ and would not require a modification to the Government’s proposed jury instructions for Section 793,” Smith said, urging Cannon not to allow these “fundamentally flawed” contentions to impact jury instructions.

Read the Smith response here and Trump’s here.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Jack Smith reveals where Trump’s PRA defense came from appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Fani Willis and Trump RICO defense argue over new witnesses

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 10 Mar 2024 09:26:10 +0000

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March 1, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool)

Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and a defense attorney argued over the introduction of new evidence in the ongoing disqualification drama, threatening to derail the racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.

On Tuesday, the district attorney’s office filed a five-page response with the Fulton County Superior Court arguing that two new proposed witnesses should not be allowed to testify about their knowledge of Willis’ admitted relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

On Friday, attorney Craig Gillen, in a four-page reply, took Willis to task for her office’s opposition to one would-be witness in particular.

“The irony of the staff of one district attorney’s office objecting to a member of another district attorney’s office prepared to come forward and testify regarding the disqualification of a district attorney should not be lost on the Court,” the filing reads.

Gillen represents co-defendant David Shafer, the onetime Georgia GOP chair who prosecutors say was integral to the fake electors plot.

As Law&Crime previously reported, Shafer’s request proposes the testimony of Cindi Lee Yeager, a prosecutor in nearby Cobb County.

Yeager’s testimony was offered to substantiate claims made by Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former divorce lawyer and law partner, regarding the timeline of the DA’s relationship with the man she put in charge of the most consequential criminal case in Peach State history.

Bradley said the two prosecutors “absolutely” began dating before Willis hired Wade — but those claims were made out of court. When testifying under oath, Bradley said he could “not recall” or was only “speculating” about various details regarding the Willis-Wade relationship — including when the since-admitted tryst began.

The timeline of the affair is widely considered to be crucial.

Wade was hired on Nov. 1, 2021. The crux of the defense’s argument for removing Willis and Wade is that the district attorney hired her then-boyfriend for the job and reaped something akin to a financial windfall. Testimony that could establish the relationship began years before November 2021 would be highly damaging to the state.

Yeager says when Bradley testified, he made several statements “directly contrary” to what he told her during “numerous” conversations between August 2023 and January 2024, the earlier filing from Shafer offering the prosecutor’s testimony claims.

“Mr. Wade had definitely begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020,” the March 4 filing claims Bradley told Yeager. “Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis.”

Later the same day, a markedly similar filing was made offering testimony from Atlanta-based defense attorney Manny Arora.

“Between September through October 2023, Mr. Arora had several conversations with attorney Terrence Bradley regarding the relationship between District Attorney Wills and Nathan Wade,” the motion on behalf of co-defendant Cathy Latham reads.

Arora says Bradley told him Wade and Willis “had definitely begun a romantic relationship” when the district attorney was first campaigning for her job between 2019 and 2020.

The next day, the district attorney’s office objected to either Yeager or Arora being allowed to testify in the disqualification case.

“The law fundamentally favors finality,” the state’s response reads. “It does not allow for endless re-hearings and reopening of evidence based simply upon regret about prior strategy, consistently unsubstantiated positions or political incentive.”

Calling the offers of proposed testimony a “last minute, self-serving barrage,” Willis and her lieutenant Adam Abbate argue the Yeager and Arora testimony would be repetitive and “impermissible hearsay.”

The state also suggests that Yeager’s testimony is intended to help her boss fend off a challenger in an upcoming election.

“Attorney Yeager is employed as second-in-command to Cobb County District Attorney Flynn Brody, whose reelection is currently being challenged by a Deputy District Attorney of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office,” the response says. “The timing of Attorney Yeager’s proposed testimony is not coincidental.”

Closing arguments in the disqualification hearing were held last week — but that is not much of a barrier should Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee decide the Yeager-Arora evidence is worth hearing under oath. Trial court judges in Georgia have wide latitude to reopen the evidentiary record — they can do so more or less at will.

“In the interest of the ascertainment of the truth relating to the serious issues of prosecutorial misconduct raised by the defense, the Court should decline to strike the proposed testimony of Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney Yeager and Mr. Arora, and should reopen the evidence to hear and consider their testimony,” Shafer’s latest motion concludes.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Source link

The post Fani Willis and Trump RICO defense argue over new witnesses appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.

Jurors rule for Davis Polk in former associate’s retaliation suit; defense called his claims a ‘conspiracy theory’

homesafetytechpros — Sun, 11 Feb 2024 17:24:28 +0000

Law Firms

Jurors rule for Davis Polk in former associate’s retaliation suit; defense called his claims a ‘conspiracy theory’

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 29, 2024, 2:50 pm CST

(Image from Shutterstock.)

Federal jurors in New York City ruled for Davis Polk & Wardwell on Monday in a suit by a fired Black associate who claimed the law firm retaliated against him after he complained about racial disparities.

The plaintiff, Kaloma Cardwell, “appeared stoic as the verdict was read,” according to coverage by Law.com, which reports that jurors deliberated for about three hours. Law360, on the other hand, reports that deliberations lasted a little more than two hours.

Jurors found Davis Polk and two former firm leaders who remained in the suit had no liability.

Cardwell had claimed Davis Polk created “a pretextual record” against him, assigned him to fewer M&A deals, gave him lower-level assignments that could be performed by someone with lesser skills, isolated him and ignored him. He was fired in August 2018.

At trial, Cardwell said he was the target of a “secret scheme” to oust him, the Law360 story reports. He testified it was “impossible” that his work was as bad as portrayed in some reviews.

U.S. District Judge Gregory H. Woods had barred Cardwell from pursuing discrimination claims because of inadequate allegations, but the judge did allow jurors to consider retaliation.

At trial, the defense had contended Cardwell received mixed feedback even before he claimed discrimination, according to the Law.com story. Cardwell’s view of the case was a “conspiracy theory,” according to the closing argument by Davis Polk lawyer Jeh Johnson, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

One witness, professional development manager Rocio Clausen, testified about an instance in which Cardwell refused a request to help the law firm’s credit group with an assignment because it would take time away from his work in the mergers and acquisitions group.

Clausen said Cardwell was working fewer hours than other M&A lawyers, and his reaction “is not the traditional response, especially as an associate at a big, very very good law firm.”

She also described Cardwell’s body language during their meeting as “cavalier.”

Source link

The post Jurors rule for Davis Polk in former associate’s retaliation suit; defense called his claims a ‘conspiracy theory’ appeared first on Home Safety Tech Pros.