London Man Wore Smart Glasses For High Court 'Coaching' (bbc.co.uk)
- Reference: 0180961854
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/12/236257/london-man-wore-smart-glasses-for-high-court-coaching
- Source link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6d4k65ky5o
> The claim arose during a ruling by Judge Raquel Agnello KC in a case brought by Laimonas Jakstys over the directorship of a property development company that owns a flat in south-east London and land in Tonbridge. Jakstys was told to remove the glasses after the court noticed he "seemed to pause quite a bit" before answering questions, and that "interference" was heard coming from around the witness. The judge later found that he had been "assisted or coached in his replies to questions put to him during cross examination" during the January trial.
>
> Once the glasses were taken off, an interpreter was still translating a question when Jakstys' mobile phone began broadcasting a voice -- which he later blamed on Chat GPT. Agnello said: "There was clearly someone on the mobile phone talking to Jakstys. He then removed his mobile phone from his inner jacket pocket." He denied using the smart glasses to receive answers, and denied they were connected to his phone. But the judge said multiple calls had been made from his phone to a contact named "abra kadabra," whom he claimed was a taxi driver.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj6d4k65ky5o
Ridiculous (Score:2)
Charge him with perjury, and while you're there have whichever lawyer brought him to the stand brought before his bar.
Re: (Score:2)
No need. Perjury is for punishing people in court. In civil offenses these are usually laughably light punishments. Sounds very much like this guy fucked himself over more than any other punishment would. He'll almost certainly have the case found against him now since he was being cross-examined as his own defense.
As for the bar, that's not how that works. Bar tribunals basically never punish a lawyer for the actions of a witness on the stand, even if there weren't plausible deniability that they had anyth
I see the problem (Score:2)
It's legal proceedings. He should have made his calls to Mumbo Jumbo. Abra Kadabra is purely for client presentation calls.
Smart glasses in London court? (Score:2)
Was it [1]this man [youtu.be]?
[1] https://youtu.be/RDUsZay38es?si=mNn_nGcI8t7Gx9tv
TBH, a taxi driver (Score:2)
Seems like a reasonable coach. Especially if they're still going after the rise of Uber, I'd take their advice. A good taxi driver has both a deep understanding of their fellow humans and the human condition. Also, probably as close as you get to a juror universal donor. Mistakes were made, but it wasn't a bad idea.
Why is this bad? (Score:1)
I may be naiive, but... why is this even illegal? What's the reasoning?
A witness should obviously not tell lies, but "cross examination" is, by definition, a very experienced person with law and law-language trying to poke holes in a person's story who might or might not be very experience. It's basically a roll of dice whether the witness is a lawyer or a layman; yet if they're the latter, they're not allowed access to knowledge and experience of the former?
It sounds like a rigged fight. As if the oppositi
Re: Why is this bad? (Score:3)
Because the cross examination is intended to verify the testimony of the individual who is being crossed examined, not their "taxi driver" helper.
It also leaks case information to the outside, which could further jeopardise the case or the safety of other witnesses.
The purpose of cross examination (Score:2)
If a witness is telling the truth, then the cross examination will not achieve anything. It will show that the truth is internally consistent and coherent. It's when the witness has something to hide that it will reveal that he's been lying. The fact that the witness in this case was depending on someone else to answer the questions strongly implies that he had something to hide.
I'm hopeful that the guy will lose the case and be charged with contempt of court and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Re: (Score:2)
a very experienced person with law and law-language trying to poke holes in a person's story who might or might not be very experience.
Yes, that's the job of an attorney in cases such as this. Find holes in a person's story. No legalese is needed to ask if a person was at a location on a certain date and time. It's a yes or no question. Nor is legalese needed to explain your side of the story. You said you were doing Y and here's what I did.
Go watch My Cousin Vinny. The courtroom scene is used insome la
Abra kadabra... Alakazam! (Score:2)
You've just been caught, you fucking ham.
Faraday cages needed, it seems (Score:2)
Putting one around the witness box might have the bonus of reminding witnesses what will happen if they tell lies...
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You'll have to ask that guy who ran on a platform of releasing the Epstein files.
Or ask that guy who promised to release everything once he got the power.
Or just ask Epstein's best friend
Or ask the person who was in the files more than anyone else besides Epstein himself.
It won't be as hard as you think. It's all the same person. He's the President, Donald Trump. Leader of the country and head of the Guardians Of Pedophiles party.