Thomas Neville (scary season)
LightNews LightNews
banner
goobermunch.bsky.social
Thomas Neville (scary season)
@goobermunch.bsky.social
4.1K followers 1.8K following 16K posts
Colorado Lawyer. Gamer. Dad. He/Him/His. Grammarchist.

Law: personal injury, insurance, video games, appeals, litigation.

Games: tabletop, war, video, minis.

My job is cooler than yours.
Posts Replies Media Videos
goobermunch.bsky.social
You don’t hang out at Cape Colfax?
November 27, 2025 at 8:44 AM
goobermunch.bsky.social
Our legal system breaks when it gets down to the question of when people (or their byproducts) become property. You see it in reproduction cases (post-mortem and fertilized eggs from IVF), in cases involving the disposition of remains, and in the case of Henrietta Lacks and the HeLa cell line.
November 26, 2025 at 3:34 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
I wonder how much of this is a result of having five generations of fathers suffering PTSD since 1917….
November 26, 2025 at 3:22 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
I’m a terrible person.
November 26, 2025 at 3:15 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
The worst.
a young boy in a blue shirt is talking into a microphone
ALT: a young boy in a blue shirt is talking into a microphone
media.tenor.com
November 26, 2025 at 8:08 AM
goobermunch.bsky.social
Just nuked the defense expert into shiny glass.
November 26, 2025 at 5:38 AM
goobermunch.bsky.social
Our front door doesn’t have a window or peephole. So I like having a way to see who’s out there. But I do not want the cops asking me for surveillance footage of my neighbors. Worse, I don’t want some company deciding to just share it because the taste of shoe leather gets them hot and bothered.
November 25, 2025 at 9:37 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
He irradiated their experts. Defendant could call them. He could elicit testimony. But if they criticized our expert on something that the defendant could have clarified, Judge Jackson was going to tell the jury about what happened.

We’ve been fortunate to have him.

Alt text continued in image.
Even if defendant does not call Ms. Hoffman or Ms. Ward, the door will have been opened if any defendant suggests or implies that plaintiff's reconstruction is faulty because it described the positioning or actions of Agent Braley or Agent Davies inconsistently with Agent Braley's testimony. If the door is opened, the Court will permit the jury to be informed of defendant Braley's objection to plaintiff's proposal, the reasons given, the Court's acceptance of the reasons at the time, Agent Braley's later participation in the defendant's experts' inspection and reconstruction, and the Court's present views, in a manner that appears to be most appropriate in the context in which the matter arises.
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
We went ballistic. We asked Judge Jackson to strike their experts. He denied our motion. No exclusion. Instead, he did something I’d never seen:
Approximately seven months later Agent Braley's counsel arranged for Agent Braley to spend approximately 5-6 hours with experts Hoffman and Ward at the actual scene, walking them through the incident, demonstrating his actions, posing for pictures, and assisting them in creating their own reconstruction and rebuttal to Dr. Ziernicki's opinions. ECF No. 171-1 at 8-11; ECF No. 171-7 at 9 (depo. of Ms. Ward, p. 125); ECF No. 171-6 at 2-3 (interrogatory answers of Agent Braley). It is no wonder that plaintiff cries foul. If participating in the demonstration requested by plaintiff was too emotionally traumatic for Agent Braley, then how does one account for his participation when his own lawyer requested it? If Agent Braley's deposition testimony and other available information were sufficient to assist plaintiff's experts in creating a reconstruction, then why did defendant Braley's experts need Agent Braley's extensive on-scene assistance? I now find that defendant's reasons for objecting to Agent Braley's participation in the demonstration requested by plaintiff were exaggerated at best and, if counsel anticipated at the time that he would later ask Agent Braley to participate in a "demonstration/reenactment" of his own, misleading at worst? Nevertheless, I exercise my discretion to decline plaintiff's request to exclude the testimony of Ms. Hoffman and Ms. Ward under the doctrine of judicial estoppel or otherwise. In my judgment that would be an overreaction for several reasons. First, this is relevant evidence that would assist the jury in evaluating Dr. Ziernicki's testimony and, ultimately, in determining what likely happened. Second, exclusion of the evidence would deprive Agent Braley of an expert rebuttal to the Ziernicki evidence, and I am not satisfied that this would be fair to him. Although counsel indicated that both he and Agent Braley were concerned about plaintiff's proposal, I suspect that counsel was the driving force. Finally, and most importantly, although Ms. Ward herself admitted that having Agent Braley available to them at the scene gave them an advantage over Knott Laboratory, ECF No. 171-7 at 3 (depo. p. 76), I find that Dr. Ziernicki was able to develop his reconstruction and opinions quite capably based on the physical evidence without the demonstration plaintiff requested; put another way, I do not find significant unfair prejudice to the plaintiff from allowing this evidence. Footnote begins: ' Counsel now offers, "in the event the Court has any concern," to make Agent Braley available at the site in the presence of Dr. Ziernicki to do a demonstration for him. ECF No. 193 at 7-8. I leave it to plaintiff and Dr. Ziernicki to decide whether another inspection would be helpful and cost-effective, but it does not fix the problem. Any opportunity plaintiff had to pin Agent Braley down to a visual depiction of the incident before Dr. Ziernicki and plaintiff's standard of care experts did their work and before Agent Braley's recollection was potentially affected by such things as his participation in the defendant's experts' site inspection has been lost. Footnote ends However, I essentially warned Agent Braley's counsel during the argument on his objection to plaintiff's requested deposition demonstration that if he "opened the door," I would permit plaintiff to inform the jury of defendant's objection to having Agent Braley participate in a demonstration or re-creation of the incident. See ECF No. 34 at 10-11. If counsel calls Ms. Hoffman or Ms. Ward and solicits opinions consistent with their report, the door will have been opened. Alt text continues in next post.
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
…wasn’t as good as we wanted. Still, our experts did their reconstruction and issued their report.

Fast forward a few months, and his experts issue their report. They did a reconstruction also. On site. With the defendant. And the gun he used. And in the photos, dude was smiling.
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
…the officer’s movements through the space.

His lawyers went nuts when they found out. They objected and told Judge Jackson it would be too traumatic. Judge Jackson accepted counsel’s representation and said we couldn’t do it.

We found a workaround that got us some of the data we wanted. But it…
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
goobermunch.bsky.social
…amazing experts. We went out to the scene, and they did a 3d scan of the site. It was amazingly accurate. They dumped it into Unity so we could navigate it. And, when it came time to depose the shooter, they built out a “wireframe” of the site out of 2x4s so they could basically motion capture…
November 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM