Ocho and/or Tree ----- Quick legal Question

[El OchoCinco]

Hey tree or ocho,
Another quick question.

In a trial, (the actual trial phase, not the jury selection) are the lawyers allowed to query the members of the jury about something. Even something mundane?

For example, say I'm the defense attorney out there doing my thing and as a great lawyer I have a plan for where I'm going with this, but I look over at the jury box and say: "Mr Smith (he's juror #5)... do you by any chance know the final score of the Knicks game last night?"

Is that allowed?
Asking a juror a question?

Lawyers are forbidden from having any contact with jurors except in the courtroom and only addressing them as part of the trial. If you get on an elevator and you see a juror from your trial you have to get off immediately or risk opposing counsel filing a motion if you were seen. That is why jurors are required to wear big JUROR name tages when they are walking around courthouse.

Anything such as asking a specific juror a question like that could be grounds for mistrial...You can ask them questions during vior dire but in the middle of the trial asking a juror about the KNicks game could be an attempt to sway a juror/bias a jury making personal contact.

Attorneys have no need to ask jurors any questions once the trial has begun except maybe polling them after a trial.

 

[vanzandt]

New legal question...

This came up in a discussion with someone that has the teenager from hell lol. I'm just curious... can the custodial parent(s) of a juvenile under age 18 call the state DMV and have their drivers license revoked? And one more that's similar... what about their passport? Can they have the State Dept cancel that?

 

[Overnight]

New legal question...

This came up in a discussion with someone that has the teenager from hell lol. I'm just curious... can the custodial parent(s) of a juvenile under age 18 call the state DMV and have their drivers license revoked? And one more that's similar... what about their passport? Can they have the State Dept cancel that?

A cursory online search for both answers...

A. In many states, yes. Saw a form parents can fill out from California as a prime example.

B. No.

 

[vanzandt]

A cursory online search for both answers...

A. In many states, yes. Saw a form parents can fill out from California as a prime example.

B. No.

Yeah I told them to do that. Not so much the license, but the passport. Apparently this kid wants to move to Columbia .
Friggin internet... you can make friends anywhere in the world. Next thing you know, you're never heard from again.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Yeah I told them to do that. Not so much the license, but the passport. Apparently this kid wants to move to Columbia .
Friggin internet... you can make friends anywhere in the world. Next thing you know, you're never heard from again.

A parent cannot call the State Department and have a minor's passport canceled. However, a custodial parent has the right to hold that passport on behalf of the child if they have it, and even seek court order for the child to produce said passport if is deemed to be part of a unsafe venture.

 

[vanzandt]

A parent cannot call the State Department and have a minor's passport canceled. However, a custodial parent has the right to hold that passport on behalf of the child if they have it, and even seek court order for the child to produce said passport if is deemed to be part of a unsafe venture.

Hmmmm. Never thought of that. I bet the kid just leaves it laying around. No need to go to court, just find it and throw it away.

I wonder if he could just say it was lost and request a new one, or would it require another parental signature? This:

Children ages 16-17 can apply for passports alone if they have their identification documents. A parent will need to either:

Provide a signed statement saying they are aware the child is seeking a passport or
Attend the passport appointment with them

Follow the step-by-step process from the State Department to ensure you have the proper forms. One step will help you determine the passport fee.

Children ages 16-17 cannot renew their passport if it was issued before they turned 16. Instead, they would need to submit an application in person for a new passport.

That little f'r would probably just forge the signature anyway knowing him.

 

[vanzandt]

A parent cannot call the State Department and have a minor's passport canceled. However, a custodial parent has the right to hold that passport on behalf of the child if they have it, and even seek court order for the child to produce said passport if is deemed to be part of a unsafe venture.

New legal question, and I'm sure I could probably google it, but can Tik-Tok can take this ban to court? Apparently they can, but how does that work? Passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President... which court does that go to? AND... is that a jury trial? Does it just go straight to SCOTUS if they claim it's a Constitutional violation of free speech?

Naive questions I know, but inquiring minds... how will that work(?)... because you can bet Tik-Tok is pissed and they won't take this lying down. We're talking billions in lost ad revenue.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

New legal question, and I'm sure I could probably google it, but can Tik-Tok can take this ban to court? Apparently they can, but how does that work? Passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President... which court does that go to? AND... is that a jury trial? Does it just go straight to SCOTUS if they claim it's a Constitutional violation of free speech?

Naive questions I know, but inquiring minds... how will that work(?)... because you can bet Tik-Tok is pissed and they won't take this lying down. We're talking billions in lost ad revenue.

It's a big issue so not every issue can be covered, but Tik Tok will bring a case for sure, and it will be some kind of contorted 1st Amendment argument. The attempt is to use federal power through agencies and actions to enforce the ban so it would be brought in a federal court. Also you have an interstate aspect making it federal too.

Where Congress and the feds would be on thin ground is if the decision- including the legislative bill- were based on a desire to pick winners and losers in the economy. Where Congress, the Administration etc would be on solid ground would be if the feds can and continue to assert that it is upon the findings of verifiable, demonstrable national security threats and risks. National security and the laws/actions needed to bring it into effect are an area where the courts are constitutional bound to defer to the Executive branch, and related actions by the Legislative Branch, provided that (as mentioned) the actions are not arbitrary. If for example, Trump for example, wants to ban Facebook just because it is too lefty, too interfering in various things, that is too loosey goosey to implement even with legislations. But if a company such as Tik Tok is passing intelligence on Americans to China, and the government can make that case, then that is another matter.

Also I am not saying TikTok has an argument under the 1st amendment because all these counter arguments come up that the 1st applies to government, blah, blah, blah. Just sayin they will try to go down that road.

It's a big topic. But, to me, that is what the landscape looks like going in.

 

[vanzandt]

It's a big issue so not every issue can be covered, but Tik Tok will bring a case for sure, and it will be some kind of contorted 1st Amendment argument. The attempt is to use federal power through agencies and actions to enforce the ban so it would be brought in a federal court. Also you have an interstate aspect making it federal too.

Where Congress and the feds would be in thin ground is if the decision- including the legislative bill- were based on a desire to pick winners and losers in the economy. Where Congress, the Administration etc would be on solid ground would be if the feds can and continue to assert that it is upon the findings of verifiable, demonstrable national security threats and risks. National security and the laws/actions needed to bring it into effect are an area where the courts are constitutional bound to defer to the Executive branch, and related actions by the Legislative Branch, provided that (as mentioned) the actions are not arbitrary. If for example, Trump for example, wants to ban Facebook just because it is too lefty, too interfering in various things, that is too loosey goosey to implement even with legislations. But if a company such as Tik Tok is passing intelligence on Americans to China, and the government can make that case, the that is another matter.

Also I am not saying TikTok has an argument under the 1st amendment because all these counter arguments come up that the 1st applies to government, blah, blah, blah. Just sayin they will try to go down that road.

It's a big topic. But, to me, that is what the landscape looks like going in.

Good answer.

 

[vanzandt]

It's a big issue so not every issue can be covered, but Tik Tok will bring a case for sure, and it will be some kind of contorted 1st Amendment argument. The attempt is to use federal power through agencies and actions to enforce the ban so it would be brought in a federal court. Also you have an interstate aspect making it federal too.

Where Congress and the feds would be on thin ground is if the decision- including the legislative bill- were based on a desire to pick winners and losers in the economy. Where Congress, the Administration etc would be on solid ground would be if the feds can and continue to assert that it is upon the findings of verifiable, demonstrable national security threats and risks. National security and the laws/actions needed to bring it into effect are an area where the courts are constitutional bound to defer to the Executive branch, and related actions by the Legislative Branch, provided that (as mentioned) the actions are not arbitrary. If for example, Trump for example, wants to ban Facebook just because it is too lefty, too interfering in various things, that is too loosey goosey to implement even with legislations. But if a company such as Tik Tok is passing intelligence on Americans to China, and the government can make that case, then that is another matter.

Also I am not saying TikTok has an argument under the 1st amendment because all these counter arguments come up that the 1st applies to government, blah, blah, blah. Just sayin they will try to go down that road.

It's a big topic. But, to me, that is what the landscape looks like going in.

Am I wrong to assume, no matter which path they take, this will ultimately land at the feet of SCOTUS? It sure seems like it. But as you pointed out, and I'm pretty sure it is certainly the case, a lower court would instantly see this is a matter of national security unless the plaintiff opens their books so to speak and prove they don't hand anything over to the CCP, which we both know is not the case and would never happen anyway... so SCOTUS could just refuse to hear it right? And then it's case closed. Right?