JPMartinlaw

10/16/2025

Know you case and your facts. Certainly, a lot of cases have "pros" and "cons" that support a particular claim or defense. The Latin term for "discover" is invenio or dispicio, which, according to disctionary.com is to "know or come to know something for the first time."

If you know the pros and cons of your opponent's case, you are more likely to weight the pros and cons of settlement (which occurs in some 98% of the cases in civil). But give, when requested, the honest answers to the other side, as you expect to be given the honest answers to YOUR questions that you need answered.

Examples can include (in employment) prior work history, was your application answered honestly, did you understand the arbitration agreement when you applied for the job, etc. In personal injury, it would be fault based, what did you know and when did you know it, were you under the influence of any drugs or alcohol when the "incident", prior medical or psychological history related to your claims etc.

But answer (with objections if appropriate), and if you object, makes sure you have a firm foundation, and work with the other side to see if a solution can be raised, and support your argument with caselaw and statutes (such as privacy objections, which would be waived unless raised).

A good example of what may happen is Morales v City and County of San Francisco. (1st Dist Ct of app, 2025) 114 Cal App. 5th 43. A scooter allegedly hit a pothole, and the rider fell and sued. The city sought discovery on the riders level of intoxication, and sought an independent medical exam. When both were not provided, the city successfully brought two motions to compel and sanctions, which were granted in the sum of 6,500.00 (which is fairly high in this attorney's view). The case settled, and Plaintiff's counsel appealed the sanctions. The sanctions were UPHELD and he was sanctioned AGAIN for the cost of appeal for filing a "frivolous appeal." So, I do not say that you shouldn't stick to your objections in some cases, but didn't the city have to right to know certain facts that might hurt the Plaintiff's case? Nobody is perfect. Attorneys should be able to handle negative facts in the case. But be careful failing to respond, or meet in good faith to resolve issues. Court's hate motions to compel, but they hate it even more when they find that one party is hiding something or trying to pull something.

I was not involved of course, in the facts in the case cited. But be careful to be honest, or have a valid strong objection to facts that may not help you OR your defense in a case. You may pay for it in the end, or look bad in front of a judge that may ultimately hear your case at trial.

07/02/2025

No s*x trafficking; no RICO against Diddy Combs; used emails and texts; the jury found transporting prostitution. It was a huge win for Combs; Combs has been incarcerated for months; most of it went away; he walks I think with conditions; overall a big win for defense. The charges caused him to stay in jail. After the verdict, he is not a danger to society. He walks. First time offender. The law should look to the facts and circumstances. The charges against P Diddy (RICO) and potentially life and his resources caused him to be in jail during the trial, but now most of the not guilty verdicts shift that burden. We shall see how the judge reacts. I think he gets out of jail with conditions before sentencing. (and of course, defense might appeal the verdicts in any case).

05/10/2025

RIP Justice David Souter. Justice Souter had a major impact in my view while on the court. He was appointed by Pres. Bush, and is regarded as a "liberal". He wrote several books in part to counter Justice Scalia's books on the US Constitution. Justice Souter was an advocate for a "living Constitution" vs. a "strict constructionalist." But at times, he had a practical hands on approach. For example, he sided with or had a test for religious "church and state" items still used today (factors such as the length of time the religious symbol has been on a public property). In that case, he ruled in favor of the State. On the newly built 10 Commandments in Alabama, he did not because it was newly added to the courthouse.

He seemed a very good man, and his mind was keen. He should be missed, and his contributions should not be overstated.

04/05/2025

03/18/2025

The question of whether the Trump Administration can deport "illegals" and "criminals" without a hearing puts the Executive directly against the Judicial. Who decides who is a criminal? Is it a felony or multiple felonies? Has there been a trial? If you are illegally in the country, do you have less rights than a citizen? Are you entitled to DUE PROCESS, something in the 5th and 14th Amendments?

12/09/2024

I am not surprised on the "subway" NY case of "acquittal." (which may or may not be not guilty-it means some at least had reasonable doubt he committed the crime). PLENTY of doubt; the bystanders said they felt threatened with their lives by this crazy guy; the hero said call 911 while i restrain him; the CORONER, the prosecution witness said the crazy guy had drugs in his system, and there were other factors that caused his death NOT the "chokehold" grip, and many other factors all calls into doubt charging in the first place. But, in my view Bragg charged him for political reasons, to "get a conviction" because perhaps the color of the crazy guy vs. the color of the accused (perhaps). It was political, not legal. A prosecutor should look to whether a crime was comitted, the facts in support of it, and whether a conviction will serve the interest of justice or not. Certainly, the crazy guy had relatives, which will mourn his loss (but obvsiously, they did not restrain him from using the subway or threatening people).

I'm glad of the acquittal. The facts support not guilty (particularly based on the coroner's testimony AND the testimony of nearby passengers that felt their lives were in danger).

12/07/2024

I've been following this carefully; don't think the main charge unless it was pre deliberation; I think its prejudicial; pressure to get an conviction; they considered all charges and had a mistrial; never should have been charged; the coroner said chokehold didn't kill him; he had drugs in his system; eyewitness were scared of the "victim"; he threatened to harm people. this guy stepped in, held him down, and there were OTHERS who came and helped him, he said cal1 911; this will deter people from helping people on the train or others for fear of being sued or prosecuted. Review evidence, review witnesses, review the FACTS. Then apply REASONABLE doubt (which is a HUGE burden).

Criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh reacts to the latest developments in Daniel Penny’s subway chokehold trial on ‘Your World.’

12/05/2024

The judge is absolutely right. But pardoning a relative is not, as I read it, "unconstiutional." Although a constitutional amendment regarding relatives or something might pass Congress and the majority of states I would assume. It's an idea. And it is not clear whether or not the President can pardon himself. I will remind everyone that Pres. Trump pardoned his in law (who now stands as a candidate for Ambassador to France), who was convicted on a felony. He was pardoned. Many people get pardoned for one reason or another. I would prefer to believe that most get pardoned because the sentence was too harsh, or they were innocent.

Two days after President Biden issued a blanket pardon to his son Hunter Biden, the younger Biden's federal gun case has been terminated by the judge overseeing the case.

12/02/2024

The President can pardon or commute the sentence if anyone charged or convicted of a federal crime. Scooter Libby had his sentence commuted by ores bush for example. Outgoing presidents frequently pardon the last 30 days. Supposedly ores Biden is going to pardon his son. He has the right to do so.

11/11/2024

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

10/22/2024

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-weighs-louisiana-law-requiring-ten-commandments-in-schools/vi-AA1sETIg?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=ENTPSP&cvid=04fb9bc876ed44bca9c60d2ed55a9e6c&ei=14

A federal judge is set to decide whether Louisiana's new law requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in schools is constitutional.

10/08/2024

The "protests" in support of Hamas and other terrorist groups is disgusting, and shameful. October 7 some 1800 Jews and non Jews were killed/r**ed, and abducted. Innocents. Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah have publicly stated that their goal is to kill Jews and destroy Israel as a state. I have been to Israel. Mosques are unmolested. Muslims are free to vote and to live in peace.

I am not saying the widespread deaths are completely unnoticed. But "supporting" terrorist groups that store weapons in homes, hospitals, and "senstive" places should not go unnoticed. Also, Hezballah has been launching missiles nonstop in the last year, yet no direct retaliation from Israel until recently, when 40k or more Israelis had to leave THEIR homes in Northern Israel for their safety. Houthis add to the instabiilty, all supported BY IRAN. Now Iran launches almost 200 missiles. How many of these teachers and students and morons do they expect Israel to take? Do we stand by and watch our closest ally in the Middle East be destroyed?

Sure, peaceful protests by morons are guaranteed by the First Amendment. It doesn't mean we should teach them their ignorance, or tolerate it. Their parents and people around should SHAME THEM. They celebrate the r**e and murder of innocents, then lament the deaths of those who in part caused those crimes to be committed. But shame to use THAT DAY to protest and support terrorist organizations. A dark day for Israel, a dark day for America is so many morons do the bidding of a sworn enemy of America Iran (who call us the "Great Satan" and threatened to assassinate several public officials, including Pres. Trump, which to me, is a hostile act). They are ok threatening, but when their friends are assassinated, they take military action. Why are we not thinking of doing the same, checking their aggression? An Israel at peace with its neighbors is good for everyone, particularly the neighbors. Israel has proven they can work with people (Jordan UAE as examples). And no, I am not Jewish. I look at it from a foreign policy/American interest point of view. Israel will survive, and if we don't support them, they will find someone who will in order to survive. The logical choice would be China and/or Russia. That's bad for America. There is no other way if the Palestinians and other groups do not stand up for themselves.

Send a message to learn more