<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Internet Law Commentary &#187; Evidence</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/category/evidence/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com</link>
	<description>Blog on Florida law, cases, and legal news from a Palm Beach Lawyer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 13:41:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Privileged Documents Sent to Expert Not Waived?</title>
		<link>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/28/privileged-documents-sent-to-expert-not-waived/</link>
		<comments>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/28/privileged-documents-sent-to-expert-not-waived/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:26:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>internetlawcommentary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.floridalawcommentary.com/?p=243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because so many people are involved in the everyday step of sending records from a law office to an expert, the mistake of inadvertantly including privileged information occurs now and again.  Is it waiver?  Will the jury see it? In Nan H. Mullins, D.M.D. v. Alice Tompkins (Benton, Webster and Roberts),  the unfortunate defense counsel faced [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because so many people are involved in the everyday step of sending records from a law office to an expert, the mistake of inadvertantly including privileged information occurs now and again.  Is it waiver?  Will the jury see it?</p>
<p>In <a href="http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2009/07-21-2009/09-1148.pdf">Nan H. Mullins, D.M.D. v. Alice Tompkins</a> (Benton, Webster and Roberts),  the unfortunate defense counsel faced this discovery catestrophe and it lead to an appeal.  In this case, the defense expert received a copy of defense counsel&#8217;s evaluation letter sent to the defendant and insurance company as well as emails between defendant and lawyer.<a href="http://www.1099.com/c/ar/ta/HandOff_t038.html"><img class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-244" title="handoff" src="http://www.floridalawcommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/handoff-150x150.jpg" alt="handoff" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
<p>The court held that the documents were ordinarily privileged and that mere accidental production does not automatically waive the privilege, see Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(B).  Since, here, the expert testified he never read nor relied upon them, there was no breach and no reason for disclosure (although we are curious how this was not caught during the expert&#8217;s review of what was sent to him and the lawyer&#8217;s pre-deposition conference).</p>
<p>The Panel further pointed out that even if it was discoverable, it may not be admissible to be paraded in front of the jury.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/28/privileged-documents-sent-to-expert-not-waived/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Should A Judge Instruct A Jury Not to Text, Twitter or Google?</title>
		<link>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/01/how-should-a-judge-instruct-a-jury-not-to-text-twitter-or-google/</link>
		<comments>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/01/how-should-a-judge-instruct-a-jury-not-to-text-twitter-or-google/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:04:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>internetlawcommentary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.floridalawcommentary.com/?p=235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look no further than our brethren in Michigan, who hustled out a June 30, 2009 order providing the anti-Twittering jury instruction for trial judges.  The rule goes into effect in September. No, it may not be required here in Florida yet, but isn&#8217;t it a good idea?  Why not offer to the judge for your [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look no further than our brethren in Michigan, who hustled out a June 30, 2009 order providing the anti-Twittering jury instruction for trial judges.  The rule goes into effect in September.</p>
<p><img class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-236" title="twitterfedup" src="http://www.floridalawcommentary.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/twitterfedup-150x150.jpg" alt="twitterfedup" width="150" height="150" /></p>
<p>No, it may not be required here in Florida yet, but isn&#8217;t it a good idea?  Why not offer to the judge for your next trial?</p>
<p>Would the other side actually disagree?</p>
<p>The rule is <a href="http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Resources/Administrative/2008-33.pdf">here</a>.  The Detroit Free Press article is <a href="http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009907010335">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.internetlawcommentary.com/2009/07/01/how-should-a-judge-instruct-a-jury-not-to-text-twitter-or-google/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

