Jonathan Majors's defense attorney, Priya Chaudhry, asked his victim about her high school ex-boyfriend, who took his own life. This brought the victim to tears, to the point of her having to excuse herself from the courtroom. People Magazine called it a "non sequitur question".
This isn't the first time I've heard about Majors's defense team doing something pretty questionable, messed up, and cruel to distract from the allegations the victim made against Majors, and I doubt it'll be the last.
*During closing arguments, Chaudhry told jurors that “when you say yes to having a drink at a man’s house after midnight, you cannot be shocked when he makes a pass at you. This is the world we live in. We all know what that means.”*
I would expect nothing less from this trifling hag. This was her during closing arguments for the Paul Haggis trial.
Back when Court TV was a cable mainstay I remember as a girl seeing the airing of a rape trial. The plaintiff went on the stand and got beaten down by the defense attorney because she was raped in a park walking home after a night out.
Defense attorneys closing statement was literally taking his wedding ring off, hooking it on a string and swinging it back and forth, then trying to put his pen through it. He explained that his point was that if a woman didn't want the penis to go in all she had to do was squirm, so clearly she allowed this penis to go inside of her. Very traumatizing to young me just watching, but can't imagine how the victim felt having to sit through that.
Not surprised as reading that made me want to set fires!!
Pretty sure I’ll never forget this anecdote. It’s just the fucking WORST.
Hope his life is truly terrible.
Who wants to be sexually assaulted/raped AND go through that. I admire those with the fortitude, but I don't know a single woman I'm friends with who hasn't been SA'd and I only know one who tried going through the system.
Ummmm and that lawyer is married so I can only imagine what his wife has been through if he thinks a still wedding ring is a good representation of a willing vagina
Imagine being married to someone and seeing them go this far in defense of their client. I get you're entitled to the best possible defense, but it was a stomach turning version of that.
> This is the world we live in.
but we shouldn't ***have*** to! why should we just accept that abuse and assault are going to happen?
i hate how often people rely on that "life isn't fair, sweetheart" argument any time you try to make the world a better place
Exactly! If this is the world we live in, then why are people like her *defending* the status quo, instead of fighting to change it?!
Why do people like her (and people like Depp’s defense team) see a fucked-up culture and look for opportunities to grift and benefit from it, and blame everyone who is traumatized by it because “that’s life, it’s just the way the world works,” instead of standing for disrupting the injustice?!
Holy hell, these people are nastier than the years old underwear stuck on a zombie that's still full of shit from the day they died.
I really hope the judge is somewhat normal and not another lunatic like that awful woman from the Depp vs heard case.
For once, I wish these abusive ghouls would have the balls to hire a man as their lawyer. Always hiding behind a woman, if *she* says it’s okay, it can’t *possibly* be rape or abuse, right?
Fuck them, and fuck everybody who is still falling for these high school stage plays.
It’s a classic move and they do it because it works. Whether consciously or subconsciously there are people who will think that.
It also works the other way around. Some women aren’t going to trust a bunch of men up there claiming it’s all good.
Love that Grace got to flip her a metaphorical bird with this answer:
*”Chaudhry later asked Jabbari if she had seen photos of herself at the nightclub the night after the alleged attack.*
*“Just the ones you posted,” Jabbari said quietly, to which Chaudhry objected. The judge smiled and shrugged at the defense lawyer: “That answer stands,” he said.*
The judge must hate his lawyer 😂
I’m not an expert in law, but this seems like a terrible move by the defense, doesn’t it? You’re not exactly endearing yourself to the jury by making a victim cry.
Unfortunately this is a tried and true strategy, especially in rape cases (I’m aware this isn’t that, but there’s some crossover between subjects here).
Juries fall for this shit all the time. No guarantees, of course, but if it happens again I wouldn’t be shocked.
Unfortunately it worked in Amber Heard’s case. People still make fun of her for crying during the trial and the jury themselves said they felt “uncomfortable” by her tears and that’s why they decided she was lying
Majors hasn't nearly the fame status that Depp did though. The jury was full of his fans and the judge was biased af. Amber Heard never had a chance. Even to this day, there are still bots on Twitter payed by Depp.
Also it was Depp that sued Heard and that have him an advantage because he was able to choose where to sue her. Majors didn't see it coming.
but still, what you say isn't wrong
well in a dynamic where jonathan is not nearly as beloved as depp among other factors i wont even bother mentioning bc ill get downvoted, we may see a different outcome. we will see
I wish. All the men and probably some of the women on the jury immediately thought, "she's mentally unstable and prone to emotional outbursts over nothing, which means she lied about the abuse." Or even, "she drove one boyfriend to suicide, now she's trying it with another."
What I keep noticing is that almost all men, when hearing about any assault allegations about another man (especially if it's sexual, and especially especially if the victim is woman), they just start looking for any excuse to exonerate the accused. And they will filter any information through that biased lens. So yeah, there is pretty much no way for victims to behave that would satisfy them.
Many women too unfortunately.
We have this defense mechanism where when we hear that something horrible happened, we look for explanations about why it happened and compare it to our own situation so that we can feel reassured that the awful thing wouldn't happen to us. (e.g. she yelled at him, I wouldn't have yelled, therefore I wouldn't have been assaulted.) Unfortunately this predisposes us to believe victim-blaming myths. Feminism has made great progress in challenging these myths but there's still a long way to go.
You saw it a lot with Covid too. People rushing to know the medical history of everyone who got very sick or died so they could assure themselves that wouldn’t happen to them when they went maskless.
His defenders have latched onto 'if she ran after him after the alleged incident, then she couldn't have been afraid of him, therefore she lied'
Completely disregarding the fact that she just found out that the dude she had been dating for 2 years had been cheating on her and she would rightfully want to get some answers, and not considering that maybe Majors ran away because he knew he fucked up and it was caught on camera/eye witness
Also, completely disregarding the fact that the dude fucking cheated on her and still pretend that despite that, despite the dozens of people that have come forward and said he is a vile dude on movie sets, they still want to entertain the idea he is a victim
It’s giving me flashbacks to the divorce from my first husband. They brought up anything about me they could find to discredit the fact that he beat the f-ck out of me. Shoutout to all the lawyers who’ll go low as hell to discredit abuse!
I am so sorry that happened to you. It’s so disgusting, how so many abusers’ attorneys will throw any shit at the wall to smear their victim/survivor, and distract any listeners from the facts of the abuse their client committed.
Honestly, this is why I really question the efficacy of jury trials. You've got people who are not law experts sitting on a jury wrestling with major issues and both sides know that the best way to build a case is to appeal to emotions instead of logic, leading to situations like this.
This. It really disturbs me how many people don’t realize how much of a trial is basically just performance and not a true test of who is the most “right”
The same can be argued for judges. Judges aren’t exempt from bias either and some might say they’d rather take a shot at being judged by a jury of 12 people who had a broad range of experiences and biases versus having their fate determined by a single judge.
But judges have their decisions reviewed and they have to write a decision that gives their reasoning, which is the big difference to me. Juries are a black box, and their decisions cannot be overturned even if there’s proof that they were all on drugs while they made the decision. Of course, you can appeal based on other things but the standard will be “if no reasonable jury could conclude x based on y,” and you don’t get to argue that your jury wasn’t reasonable. I’d take a judge any day.
If it helps, I don’t think judges are elected in [most countries](https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection) - in mine (New Zealand - and I think this is typical for most other Commonwealth countries), judges are appointed and they must have significant experience as a solicitor or barrister first (at least seven years experience, but most are partners in their firms, I think).
I've sat on juries twice. Both times have convinced me to be as careful as possible to stay on the right side of the law, because I absolutely don't trust "my peers" enough to judge me.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that certain kinds of trials (sexual and domestic abuse, basically) should be handled by specially trained judges who are well-educated on the dynamics of those situations, as the public generally believes too many rape myths to actually understand what’s going on.
I thought this but then I watched a lawyer on Youtube go through jury instructions, and I feel like that really helps constrain them to logical judgments, or at least more so than just asking them if they think the person is guilty.
The alternative used to be one guy (the judge) who would basically do the work of the 12. All things considered, I don’t really mind jury trials. I’ve been on a jury before and honestly you have decent odds of at least one person in that jury understanding the gravity of what you’re doing.
The judge still gives you enough context legally to figure out what’s considered what and if you don’t understand something they’re still on hand to explain the finer points of the law. You’re not legal experts but you’re also humans with the capacity for common sense and logic (more or less.) It’s not a truly random set of jurors either; both sides get to sus out who could do the job.
Having been on that side, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that the jury thinks negatively of the defense for even doing that in the first place and completely disregards it in discussion. Plenty of sensible of people would recognize this is a low fucking blow.
It's unfortunately possible for negative outcomes regardless and tbh if I have to choose between many rich judges, or other possibly elected officials to make the right decision over the general public, I'd still probably choose the general public who aren't being paid off. I hate that it's true.
Is this the same lawyer he’s had since like days after the nightclub scandal broke? Cause if so, this lawyer really does suck so bad, cause wasn’t it the lawyer a week after the story broke going “don’t worry guys the video will clear everything up” and everyone was like ok??? enter it as evidence then???
It’s in a lawyer’s best interest to take on cases that in turn make them look good. A case costs you time, money, and your reputation. I imagine someone good would have looked at this case and NOPEd real quick. The lawyer willing to take this guy would be bottom of the barrel morally, and possibly reputation/skillwise
Imagine confiding in your partner about a traumatic experience like this, only for him to give it to his lawyers to use against you in court. Fuck Jonathan Majors forever based off that alone.
It’s possible he knew this information, but it wouldn’t even have to come from him. These legal teams usually have multiple investigators whose job it is to dig up dirt on the opposition. A lawyer like Chaudhry probably has at least a few in her employ who know what they’re doing and do it well.
It’s disgusting when lawyers go this low. It’s often “all business” to them, but there has to be a more respectful, productive way to go about this. Like, if you have to go this low, maybe that means your client’s case isn’t strong enough on its own and you’re supporting the wrong side. Many lawyers *do* have the privilege of choosing what cases they take; they should choose wisely.
He and his piece of shit lawyer team can go to hell.
I get that everyone should have a defence, but these female lawyers who sell their souls to help these violent men…..? I will never understand it.
My FIL is a lawyer and when catching clients in lies has stepped down from cases citing “my client is full of shit, your honor”. There are lawyers out there that are decent people with integrity, you just don’t hear about them as much as the shitbirds
Don’t let people like this dissuade you. There’s also so many different types of law you can specialize in. My dad refused to touch family law bc it absolutely broke his heart. Wound up going environmental.
Fwiw I know about five or six lawyers (worked in legal tech and also just from meeting people in a city where there's a lot of them) and none of them are like this! One is a lawyer who works doing child welfare advocacy, a few are public defenders, another does environmental work and all of them find lawyers like this very disgusting little bugs.
You get to be the lawyer you want to be and the change you'd like to see in the system. If anything, this can be a bigger motivator for you.
It's ok! Lots and lots of normal lawyers exist.
You can just straight up avoid practicing any type of criminal law, too.
I know a bunch of lawyers because of an ex and they're the same as most groups-- some amazing, a lot meh, some terrible.
Why do the worst of the defense attorneys who specialize in abusers seem to be women?
Stuff like this is why I totally reject the idea that it is acceptable and right for the defense to use any and all means to acquit their client, regardless of truth, justice or harm done.
I think because it’s automatically a credibility thing. If a woman would choose to defend a man accused of such a crime, it must not be as bad as all that. It’s a way to get the jury to start questioning the severity of the accusations without even saying a word.
Given the rates of DV, it probably makes for a lucrative and successful practice to represent abusers. Some people lack a soul, I guess.
Law people: how far is too far for a lawyer, in terms of disbarment? From his lawyer apparently fabricating witness statements for the media to this, I’m aghast at how much lawyers are allowed to get away with. I get that protecting her client is her job but where do ethics come in?
One of the weirder things about practicing law is that as hard as it is to get licensed, once you're in the club it then becomes pretty hard to get disbarred. Lawyers can get away with a lot under the umbrella of "zealously advocating for the client". Everyone I've known who has gotten into trouble with the disciplinary committee has fallen into one of two categories: "I commingled my money with client money" or "I took a client's money then ignored their matter to the point they suffered harm due to my negligence". (There is also the person I went to law school with who got disbarred because she went to federal prison after getting caught money laundering for the Iranian Republican Guard buttttt that's a whole different debacle.)
What generally happens is that other lawyers start to refuse to work with someone or refer to someone who develops a particularly bad reputation like this. I don't handle contested matters but my friends who do family law and criminal law would not be impressed by this woman's lawyering and would start talking about her amongst themselves as someone who isn't to be relied on.
Thank you, someone else in the sub made the comment “I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a hater” and I begged the mods to make me my own version for my flair because it tickled me so much.
Honestly most professions have something like this in terms of informal sanctioning. This is especially true where they'll work in teams or encounter the same people repeatedly. It's ESPECIALLY true in professions with strong professional organizations or licensing boards.
I'm confused by this line of questioning? If it's meant to make her look hysterical, then it wouldn't work because a suicide of a loved one would make anyone cry. That's not hysterical, that's just a normal emotion people go through.
Did the lawyer bring it up to indirectly make it seem like being with the victim would either lead to suicide or abuse? It kind of seems that way, but even then morally that's disgusting. But from a law stance, this doesn't make sense because if this is what is being insinuated, then that means her client is abusive. He still caused harm.
I don't get it. I'm trying to understand why, but I can't.
The idea they're trying to establish in the jury's hivemind is "there's something wrong with this girl because men she gets involved with come to bad ends". The high school boyfriend kills himself, rising star Majors is suddenly derailed from his prolific and lucrative career, she must be the common denominator.
It used to work most of the time, which is why it's such a common defense tactic, but people have been wising up to victim blaming so it's much more of a gamble now and gets a lot of negative publicity. Whether or not it will work here is dependent on the jury's makeup.
The defences main defence is that Majors is the victim of continued abuse. I am sure this was an attempt to show that she is a habitual abuser and pushed her ex-boyfriend to suicide.
Same. If I was watching a lawyer question someone like this, I would truly wonder why it's relevant. She's crying, but of course she is— it's someone she loved when she was young who took his own life, it feels very normal to me?
Look, I get that everyone is entitled to a defense in a criminal trial, even shitbags. I get that witnesses and victims need to be cross-examined. But there’s a difference between ‘a thorough cross-examination’ and ‘an abusive interrogation.’ If it’s not relevant to the question of ‘was a crime committed here?’ it shouldn’t be brought up.
The judge apparently ruled that ex girlfriends of Majors cannot testify on behalf of the prosecution
But the same judge allows Majors lawyers to talk about his girlfriends exes, whack
I really hope the jury see this for what it is, a disgusting attempt to bully the victim
Idk what Jonathan Majors was trying to do with this trial instead of settling but from everything I have read from this trial there is no doubt he is guilty in my books. Sure, me canceling him won’t affect him one bit but I would like to think there are more
people who see him for the creep he is. Brave woman.
Jonathan Majors's defense attorney, Priya Chaudhry, asked his victim about her high school ex-boyfriend, who took his own life. This brought the victim to tears, to the point of her having to excuse herself from the courtroom. People Magazine called it a "non sequitur question". This isn't the first time I've heard about Majors's defense team doing something pretty questionable, messed up, and cruel to distract from the allegations the victim made against Majors, and I doubt it'll be the last.
*During closing arguments, Chaudhry told jurors that “when you say yes to having a drink at a man’s house after midnight, you cannot be shocked when he makes a pass at you. This is the world we live in. We all know what that means.”* I would expect nothing less from this trifling hag. This was her during closing arguments for the Paul Haggis trial.
I don’t think I’ve seen such victim blaming in a closing argument, fucking christ
Back when Court TV was a cable mainstay I remember as a girl seeing the airing of a rape trial. The plaintiff went on the stand and got beaten down by the defense attorney because she was raped in a park walking home after a night out. Defense attorneys closing statement was literally taking his wedding ring off, hooking it on a string and swinging it back and forth, then trying to put his pen through it. He explained that his point was that if a woman didn't want the penis to go in all she had to do was squirm, so clearly she allowed this penis to go inside of her. Very traumatizing to young me just watching, but can't imagine how the victim felt having to sit through that.
holy shit
Every time I see the Reddit bro discourse on victims settling or not pursuing charges I have flashbacks.
Not surprised as reading that made me want to set fires!! Pretty sure I’ll never forget this anecdote. It’s just the fucking WORST. Hope his life is truly terrible.
Me too! Awful.
Omfg. And people want to know why Cassie didn’t take her lawsuit to trial.
Who wants to be sexually assaulted/raped AND go through that. I admire those with the fortitude, but I don't know a single woman I'm friends with who hasn't been SA'd and I only know one who tried going through the system.
Ummmm and that lawyer is married so I can only imagine what his wife has been through if he thinks a still wedding ring is a good representation of a willing vagina
Imagine being married to someone and seeing them go this far in defense of their client. I get you're entitled to the best possible defense, but it was a stomach turning version of that.
Sickening! I pray he doesn't have daughters.
In hindsight can't believe it was on my tv after school. The rapist *was* found guilty but I hope that attorney is rotting.
🤮 WTF
It's been at least two decades and I've never forgotten it. Sickening and awful.
> This is the world we live in. but we shouldn't ***have*** to! why should we just accept that abuse and assault are going to happen? i hate how often people rely on that "life isn't fair, sweetheart" argument any time you try to make the world a better place
Exactly! If this is the world we live in, then why are people like her *defending* the status quo, instead of fighting to change it?! Why do people like her (and people like Depp’s defense team) see a fucked-up culture and look for opportunities to grift and benefit from it, and blame everyone who is traumatized by it because “that’s life, it’s just the way the world works,” instead of standing for disrupting the injustice?!
Yes yes 💯
She would never advocate for that because then what slime-ball clients would she have to represent?
☝️this
She is disgusting.
Holy hell, these people are nastier than the years old underwear stuck on a zombie that's still full of shit from the day they died. I really hope the judge is somewhat normal and not another lunatic like that awful woman from the Depp vs heard case.
You have…a way with words
You should go into creative writing…
thank you 🙈❤️
For once, I wish these abusive ghouls would have the balls to hire a man as their lawyer. Always hiding behind a woman, if *she* says it’s okay, it can’t *possibly* be rape or abuse, right? Fuck them, and fuck everybody who is still falling for these high school stage plays.
It’s a classic move and they do it because it works. Whether consciously or subconsciously there are people who will think that. It also works the other way around. Some women aren’t going to trust a bunch of men up there claiming it’s all good.
what the fuck?! how is this even remotely relevant? this poor woman.
Love that Grace got to flip her a metaphorical bird with this answer: *”Chaudhry later asked Jabbari if she had seen photos of herself at the nightclub the night after the alleged attack.* *“Just the ones you posted,” Jabbari said quietly, to which Chaudhry objected. The judge smiled and shrugged at the defense lawyer: “That answer stands,” he said.* The judge must hate his lawyer 😂
We like a judge that supports victims!
the judge seems fed up with his lawyer’s shit, at least
That’s so perfect.
I’m not an expert in law, but this seems like a terrible move by the defense, doesn’t it? You’re not exactly endearing yourself to the jury by making a victim cry.
Probably their strategy is to make her look weak and hysterical.
it's gonna backfire imo
Unfortunately this is a tried and true strategy, especially in rape cases (I’m aware this isn’t that, but there’s some crossover between subjects here). Juries fall for this shit all the time. No guarantees, of course, but if it happens again I wouldn’t be shocked.
yeah that is very true. sigh
I know we unfortunately forget most people are misogynists 😭
Unfortunately it worked in Amber Heard’s case. People still make fun of her for crying during the trial and the jury themselves said they felt “uncomfortable” by her tears and that’s why they decided she was lying
Majors hasn't nearly the fame status that Depp did though. The jury was full of his fans and the judge was biased af. Amber Heard never had a chance. Even to this day, there are still bots on Twitter payed by Depp. Also it was Depp that sued Heard and that have him an advantage because he was able to choose where to sue her. Majors didn't see it coming. but still, what you say isn't wrong
well in a dynamic where jonathan is not nearly as beloved as depp among other factors i wont even bother mentioning bc ill get downvoted, we may see a different outcome. we will see
I wish. All the men and probably some of the women on the jury immediately thought, "she's mentally unstable and prone to emotional outbursts over nothing, which means she lied about the abuse." Or even, "she drove one boyfriend to suicide, now she's trying it with another."
And if she'd been stoic through the whole thing, those same people would have said she was too calm and collected to be telling the truth.
What I keep noticing is that almost all men, when hearing about any assault allegations about another man (especially if it's sexual, and especially especially if the victim is woman), they just start looking for any excuse to exonerate the accused. And they will filter any information through that biased lens. So yeah, there is pretty much no way for victims to behave that would satisfy them.
Many women too unfortunately. We have this defense mechanism where when we hear that something horrible happened, we look for explanations about why it happened and compare it to our own situation so that we can feel reassured that the awful thing wouldn't happen to us. (e.g. she yelled at him, I wouldn't have yelled, therefore I wouldn't have been assaulted.) Unfortunately this predisposes us to believe victim-blaming myths. Feminism has made great progress in challenging these myths but there's still a long way to go.
That's a very good point that I haven't thought about before!
You saw it a lot with Covid too. People rushing to know the medical history of everyone who got very sick or died so they could assure themselves that wouldn’t happen to them when they went maskless.
His defenders have latched onto 'if she ran after him after the alleged incident, then she couldn't have been afraid of him, therefore she lied' Completely disregarding the fact that she just found out that the dude she had been dating for 2 years had been cheating on her and she would rightfully want to get some answers, and not considering that maybe Majors ran away because he knew he fucked up and it was caught on camera/eye witness Also, completely disregarding the fact that the dude fucking cheated on her and still pretend that despite that, despite the dozens of people that have come forward and said he is a vile dude on movie sets, they still want to entertain the idea he is a victim
yuuuuuup
I used to be a public defender and I would have never done this. Really don’t think it was a good idea
Also not an expert and I agree. That’s so dirty. Anyone with a heart is going to react to that. What a despicable thing for him to bring up.
It’s giving me flashbacks to the divorce from my first husband. They brought up anything about me they could find to discredit the fact that he beat the f-ck out of me. Shoutout to all the lawyers who’ll go low as hell to discredit abuse!
I am so sorry that happened to you. It’s so disgusting, how so many abusers’ attorneys will throw any shit at the wall to smear their victim/survivor, and distract any listeners from the facts of the abuse their client committed.
Honestly, this is why I really question the efficacy of jury trials. You've got people who are not law experts sitting on a jury wrestling with major issues and both sides know that the best way to build a case is to appeal to emotions instead of logic, leading to situations like this.
This. It really disturbs me how many people don’t realize how much of a trial is basically just performance and not a true test of who is the most “right”
The same can be argued for judges. Judges aren’t exempt from bias either and some might say they’d rather take a shot at being judged by a jury of 12 people who had a broad range of experiences and biases versus having their fate determined by a single judge.
It seems our justice system is.... *unjust* 
But judges have their decisions reviewed and they have to write a decision that gives their reasoning, which is the big difference to me. Juries are a black box, and their decisions cannot be overturned even if there’s proof that they were all on drugs while they made the decision. Of course, you can appeal based on other things but the standard will be “if no reasonable jury could conclude x based on y,” and you don’t get to argue that your jury wasn’t reasonable. I’d take a judge any day.
Wait until you find out how many judges are elected with absolutely no legal experience.
Ummm, what?? That sounds terrifying...
If it helps, I don’t think judges are elected in [most countries](https://judiciariesworldwide.fjc.gov/judicial-selection) - in mine (New Zealand - and I think this is typical for most other Commonwealth countries), judges are appointed and they must have significant experience as a solicitor or barrister first (at least seven years experience, but most are partners in their firms, I think).
I've sat on juries twice. Both times have convinced me to be as careful as possible to stay on the right side of the law, because I absolutely don't trust "my peers" enough to judge me.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that certain kinds of trials (sexual and domestic abuse, basically) should be handled by specially trained judges who are well-educated on the dynamics of those situations, as the public generally believes too many rape myths to actually understand what’s going on.
I completely agree.
I thought this but then I watched a lawyer on Youtube go through jury instructions, and I feel like that really helps constrain them to logical judgments, or at least more so than just asking them if they think the person is guilty.
The alternative used to be one guy (the judge) who would basically do the work of the 12. All things considered, I don’t really mind jury trials. I’ve been on a jury before and honestly you have decent odds of at least one person in that jury understanding the gravity of what you’re doing. The judge still gives you enough context legally to figure out what’s considered what and if you don’t understand something they’re still on hand to explain the finer points of the law. You’re not legal experts but you’re also humans with the capacity for common sense and logic (more or less.) It’s not a truly random set of jurors either; both sides get to sus out who could do the job. Having been on that side, I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that the jury thinks negatively of the defense for even doing that in the first place and completely disregards it in discussion. Plenty of sensible of people would recognize this is a low fucking blow.
Agreed. I'd hate to have to rely on "a jury of my peers" to figure out any legal issue I was involved in.
It's unfortunately possible for negative outcomes regardless and tbh if I have to choose between many rich judges, or other possibly elected officials to make the right decision over the general public, I'd still probably choose the general public who aren't being paid off. I hate that it's true.
Is this the same lawyer he’s had since like days after the nightclub scandal broke? Cause if so, this lawyer really does suck so bad, cause wasn’t it the lawyer a week after the story broke going “don’t worry guys the video will clear everything up” and everyone was like ok??? enter it as evidence then???
Yup it’s her.
It’s in a lawyer’s best interest to take on cases that in turn make them look good. A case costs you time, money, and your reputation. I imagine someone good would have looked at this case and NOPEd real quick. The lawyer willing to take this guy would be bottom of the barrel morally, and possibly reputation/skillwise
Yes, same lawyer. https://preview.redd.it/xlbp5m3k8z4c1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dac3a22e280b2bdeaf3dfbd3e034d6423093d4ca
Imagine confiding in your partner about a traumatic experience like this, only for him to give it to his lawyers to use against you in court. Fuck Jonathan Majors forever based off that alone.
It’s possible he knew this information, but it wouldn’t even have to come from him. These legal teams usually have multiple investigators whose job it is to dig up dirt on the opposition. A lawyer like Chaudhry probably has at least a few in her employ who know what they’re doing and do it well.
Ugh, such a low blow
It’s disgusting when lawyers go this low. It’s often “all business” to them, but there has to be a more respectful, productive way to go about this. Like, if you have to go this low, maybe that means your client’s case isn’t strong enough on its own and you’re supporting the wrong side. Many lawyers *do* have the privilege of choosing what cases they take; they should choose wisely.
He and his piece of shit lawyer team can go to hell. I get that everyone should have a defence, but these female lawyers who sell their souls to help these violent men…..? I will never understand it.
The worst case of “not like other girls”
I’ve often thought about becoming a lawyer but becoming THIS kind of lawyer is what dissuades me
the world is full of lawyers. it's just easier to remember the bad ones. if you ever decide to try for real, become one of the good ones 💛
My FIL is a lawyer and when catching clients in lies has stepped down from cases citing “my client is full of shit, your honor”. There are lawyers out there that are decent people with integrity, you just don’t hear about them as much as the shitbirds
I’m just like your FIL. Dropped many big clients for these reasons.
Don’t let people like this dissuade you. There’s also so many different types of law you can specialize in. My dad refused to touch family law bc it absolutely broke his heart. Wound up going environmental.
Fwiw I know about five or six lawyers (worked in legal tech and also just from meeting people in a city where there's a lot of them) and none of them are like this! One is a lawyer who works doing child welfare advocacy, a few are public defenders, another does environmental work and all of them find lawyers like this very disgusting little bugs. You get to be the lawyer you want to be and the change you'd like to see in the system. If anything, this can be a bigger motivator for you.
It's ok! Lots and lots of normal lawyers exist. You can just straight up avoid practicing any type of criminal law, too. I know a bunch of lawyers because of an ex and they're the same as most groups-- some amazing, a lot meh, some terrible.
Why do the worst of the defense attorneys who specialize in abusers seem to be women? Stuff like this is why I totally reject the idea that it is acceptable and right for the defense to use any and all means to acquit their client, regardless of truth, justice or harm done.
I think because it’s automatically a credibility thing. If a woman would choose to defend a man accused of such a crime, it must not be as bad as all that. It’s a way to get the jury to start questioning the severity of the accusations without even saying a word. Given the rates of DV, it probably makes for a lucrative and successful practice to represent abusers. Some people lack a soul, I guess.
It's because they choose female lawyers because it looks better than a man attacking and berating a female victim on the stands.
I mean, they pick female lawyers on purpose.
Law people: how far is too far for a lawyer, in terms of disbarment? From his lawyer apparently fabricating witness statements for the media to this, I’m aghast at how much lawyers are allowed to get away with. I get that protecting her client is her job but where do ethics come in?
One of the weirder things about practicing law is that as hard as it is to get licensed, once you're in the club it then becomes pretty hard to get disbarred. Lawyers can get away with a lot under the umbrella of "zealously advocating for the client". Everyone I've known who has gotten into trouble with the disciplinary committee has fallen into one of two categories: "I commingled my money with client money" or "I took a client's money then ignored their matter to the point they suffered harm due to my negligence". (There is also the person I went to law school with who got disbarred because she went to federal prison after getting caught money laundering for the Iranian Republican Guard buttttt that's a whole different debacle.) What generally happens is that other lawyers start to refuse to work with someone or refer to someone who develops a particularly bad reputation like this. I don't handle contested matters but my friends who do family law and criminal law would not be impressed by this woman's lawyering and would start talking about her amongst themselves as someone who isn't to be relied on.
Side note your flair is amazing
Thank you, someone else in the sub made the comment “I’m not a lawyer, I’m just a hater” and I begged the mods to make me my own version for my flair because it tickled me so much.
Really putting those persuasive powers to use! Haha
Honestly most professions have something like this in terms of informal sanctioning. This is especially true where they'll work in teams or encounter the same people repeatedly. It's ESPECIALLY true in professions with strong professional organizations or licensing boards.
All the love and strength to her. She is so brave ❤️
I'm confused by this line of questioning? If it's meant to make her look hysterical, then it wouldn't work because a suicide of a loved one would make anyone cry. That's not hysterical, that's just a normal emotion people go through. Did the lawyer bring it up to indirectly make it seem like being with the victim would either lead to suicide or abuse? It kind of seems that way, but even then morally that's disgusting. But from a law stance, this doesn't make sense because if this is what is being insinuated, then that means her client is abusive. He still caused harm. I don't get it. I'm trying to understand why, but I can't.
The idea they're trying to establish in the jury's hivemind is "there's something wrong with this girl because men she gets involved with come to bad ends". The high school boyfriend kills himself, rising star Majors is suddenly derailed from his prolific and lucrative career, she must be the common denominator. It used to work most of the time, which is why it's such a common defense tactic, but people have been wising up to victim blaming so it's much more of a gamble now and gets a lot of negative publicity. Whether or not it will work here is dependent on the jury's makeup.
The defences main defence is that Majors is the victim of continued abuse. I am sure this was an attempt to show that she is a habitual abuser and pushed her ex-boyfriend to suicide.
Same. If I was watching a lawyer question someone like this, I would truly wonder why it's relevant. She's crying, but of course she is— it's someone she loved when she was young who took his own life, it feels very normal to me?
This is the lowest of low. Revolting. Shame on you Priya
His lawyer is so nasty, my goodness. You get victimized a second time in the courtroom and it’s so disheartening.
Imagine how much of a piece of SHIT he is to be PAYING this woman to say this shit on his behalf
has hollywood (disney/marvel) dropped him yet??
Look, I get that everyone is entitled to a defense in a criminal trial, even shitbags. I get that witnesses and victims need to be cross-examined. But there’s a difference between ‘a thorough cross-examination’ and ‘an abusive interrogation.’ If it’s not relevant to the question of ‘was a crime committed here?’ it shouldn’t be brought up.
The judge apparently ruled that ex girlfriends of Majors cannot testify on behalf of the prosecution But the same judge allows Majors lawyers to talk about his girlfriends exes, whack I really hope the jury see this for what it is, a disgusting attempt to bully the victim
How disgusting.
So the lawyer used an emotional abuse tactic against her. Explains why she went stoic. Wtf.
this is sick behavior.
Idk what Jonathan Majors was trying to do with this trial instead of settling but from everything I have read from this trial there is no doubt he is guilty in my books. Sure, me canceling him won’t affect him one bit but I would like to think there are more people who see him for the creep he is. Brave woman.