Mistakenly believing that Richard Houghton was violating the law while driving with a missing front license plate and a dangling air freshener and GPS system slightly obstructing his view, police made a traffic stop and uncovered marijuana in a subsequent vehicle search. Recently, the state supreme court upheld the search.
Hatem Shata, an Egyptian national, argued that his lawyer gave him bad advice when he said a guilty plea would trigger a “strong chance” of deportation instead of telling him deportation was a certainty. Recently, the state supreme court ruled that counsel’s advice was not deficient, rejecting Shata’s request for a plea withdrawal.
Ralph Armstrong spent almost 30 years in prison before a new trial was ordered in his murder-rape case, which was later dismissed. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Armstrong can pursue his civil lawsuit against the prosecutor and crime lab techs, accused of destroying evidence in bad faith.
Recent cases have led attorneys and courts to focus on obstreperous conduct during the discovery process. This article identifies the intersection between the discovery rules and the rules of professional responsibility and then focuses specifically on how professional responsibility applies to the deposition process – from noticing the deposition, to preparing the witness, to taking and defending the deposition, to post-deposition practices.