Glock Talk banner

Are you really worse off if you shoot someone with a customized gun?

12K views 153 replies 50 participants last post by  collim1 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
We've all heard that if you end up using your gun for self defense that it's better legally if your gun is stock. What I'm wondering is whether that's actually true, or if it's one of those urban myths that gets repeated so often that we take it as gospel.

Maybe there are some LEOs here that have actual empirical evidence of someone having a rougher time in court because their gun was hot-rodded. Is there data to support that claim? I certainly don't know one way or the other, but my hunch is it's probably just one of those oft repeated things without much actual evidence.



[Moderator Note: We are reopening this with the hope that readers will weigh the advice given by the qualifications of those giving it. RussP
 
#83 ·
I believe I already did when I mentioned the Alvarez case. Now your turn - kindly share with us any relevant experience in investigating shootings, or prosecuting or defending shootings, or offering expert testimony in shooting cases.
 
#84 ·
Please post the Alvarez case, the actual case and not an opinion page.

As for my experience, not the issue, as I never claimed to have any.

My question is to those that claim to have knowledge and first hand experience in actual Cases and case law where a modified Firearm was a factor in a SD case.

So, far there have been none.

Post em if ya got em, otherwise this is more opinion based as opposed to factual based.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockdude1
#85 ·
Here are a few quotes and comments on Mas's link. Quotes by Mas.

A common thread topic on shooting forums is whether a defensive handgun with a lighter-than-factory-spec trigger pull can cause problems in court. Because this is something that most people don’t have experience with, the topic is particularly vulnerable to misinformation.
On a recent thread, the original poster opened with the following link, in which instructors and lawyers mentioned several cases of too-light pulls resulting in injuries and severe legal problems: Gun Modifications, Light Triggers and Reloaded Ammunition .
But when we actually read the article, there is NO mention of a single court case to back up the opinion. Here it is again, please post the court cases Mas has claimed are written into the article.
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/gun-modifications

More from Mas's article.

The Scope of the Problem.
Extremely light trigger pulls are seen as “easier to shoot.” That’s the good news AND the bad news. Extremely light trigger pulls have long been associated with unintended or premature discharges, and we live in a time when both the gun culture and the firearms training industry – rightly or wrongly – have promoted the concept than any unintended discharge not caused by a mechanical defect is a “negligent discharge.”
No dispute there, but ND and AD are not what the OP asked for.

“There has never been a conviction resulting from the hair trigger allegation!” MISCONCEPTION. Here are two, just from my personal experience. NY v. Magliato, where Frank Magliato unintentionally discharged the cocked revolver he had pointed at his assailant, killing him. Sent to prison originally for Depraved Murder, the appellate court reduced the conviction only to Manslaughter, with the majority opinion holding that it was reckless and negligent to aim a gun with such a light trigger pull at a man one obviously did not intend to shoot at that moment. (The minority opinion held that doing so did indeed constitute Depraved Murder under NY law.) And in Canada there was Crown v. Gossett, a criminal trial involving a cop whose service revolver probably was cocked when it unintentionally discharged, killing an unarmed suspect.
Actually these add up to (0) not two.

Nether one of these case address the Modified Firearm used in a SD situation.

It appears to me that Mas is quoting case law to support his "opinion" in hopes that nobody will actually read the quoted cases. If we actually read his quoted cases we will find that so far, he has no court room cases to support his "opinion".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockdude1
#94 ·
It appears to me that Mas is quoting case law to support his "opinion" in hopes that nobody will actually read the quoted cases. If we actually read his quoted cases we will find that so far, he has no court room cases to support his "opinion".
Steve, before you went to snotty ad hominem arguments, you really should have done some research. You've made it clear that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

You asked for links to the Alvarez case? There are no "links" to court cases that were won by the defense. You wanted case law? If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that case law comes down from the appellate courts, and by definition the courts of appeal in the United States only take criminal cases in which the defendant was convicted. (Before some idiot says "If he wasn't convicted it doesn't matter," remember that Alvarez was under the sword of Damocles from the shooting in December '82 to his acquittal in April of '84. Saying that ordeal "doesn't matter" is as stupid as telling a cancer survivor "You're still alive, so cancer isn't anything to worry about.") The crux of the prosecution case was the allegation -- proven false to the jury -- that Alvarez had recklessly and negligently discharged a "hair trigger" gun causing the death in question.

Bruce M has already told you where you can find the transcripts of the eight-to-nine week trial of Luis Alvarez. Have at it. Those of us who participated and lived it know what happened. You, Steve, obviously don't.

On one side of the discussion in this thread you have Spats McGee, whom I've met and know to be a knowledgeable attorney who has deeply studied these matters; Bren, whom I have met and know to be a knowledgeable attorney who has experience with this very issue; and an 38-year expert witness who has seen the issue come up repeatedly. On the other side, you have people who've never seen it (most of whom would never BE in a position to see it), saying that because they haven't seen it it must not exist.

Thinking GT readers who don't have a personal agenda can come to their own conclusions.
 
#89 · (Edited)
We won’t get a link to anything that out-and-out says that trigger weight or gun mods were a factor because these aren’t questions juries are asked in their jury instructions. It takes detective work to find the answer.

We may be able to purchase transcripts from trials where we think trigger weight/gun mods may be a factor, and read them to understand what was said. We may read that the state’s expert witness testified that the trigger was light, and the defendant’s expert (which he had to hire and pay perhaps thousands of dollars) testified that it wasn’t a factor. Then, considering the other testimony and evidence, we have to read between the lines to figure out why the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty. That’s it. Juries don't answer the question "why." There is no straight line between trigger weight/gun mods and trial outcome. We won’t read a jury statement saying “we find the defendant guilty (or responsible) because he modified his gun.”

The thing we do have is an expert like Mas, who has done analysis, prepared reports and sat through and testified at many trials, and an attorney like Bren, who has represented many and spent countless of hours in court. There is no substitute for being in a courtroom to see it happen, compared to reading a dry transcript. They see the thrust and parry of state and defense counsel, sees jurors faces as they hear testimony, and can size it up, sum it up, and present it hear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bruce M
#91 · (Edited)
We won’t get a link to anything that out-and-out says that trigger weight or gun mods were a factor because these aren’t questions juries are asked in their jury instructions. It takes detective work to find the answer.

We may be able to purchase transcripts from trials where we think trigger weight/gun mods may be a factor, and read them to understand what was said. We may read that the state’s expert witness testified that the trigger was light, and the defendant’s expert (which he had to hire and pay perhaps thousands of dollars) testifies that it wasn’t a factor. Then, considering the other testimony and evidence, we have to read between the lines to figure out why the jury found the defendant guilty or not guilty. That’s it. Juries don's answer the question "why." There is no straight line between trigger weight/gun mods and trial outcome. We won’t read a jury statement saying “we find the defendant guilty (or responsible) because he modified his gun.”

The thing we do have is an expert like Mas, who has done analysis, prepared reports and sat through and testified at many trials, and an attorney like Bren, who has represented many and spent countless of hours in court. There is no substitute for being in a courtroom to see it happen, compared to reading a dry transcript. They see the thrust and parry of state and defense counsel, sees jurors faces as they hear testimony, and can size it up, sum it up, and present it hear.
It has been posted several times that Mas has sited several cases where a Modified Firearm was a factor in a Self Defense Case.
Now you tell us that there is no way to support this claim and no way to post the actual court case. How convenient.
So we are to just sit back and believe whatever we are feed as fact without a shred of evidence?

Juries are not asked questions, they just listen.

OH, and case transcripts and juror interviews do indeed shed light on an "actual" case.

Take Harold Fish for example.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15199221/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trail-evidence/#.WK40o28rKUk

He was convicted of killing a man with his 10mm handgun.

The Prosecution made a big deal about the 10MM being bigger and badder that anything Law Enforcement uses.

Not only Harold's use of a big bad 10mm, but his use of Hollow Point Ammunition. Not handloads as Mas poo-pooes repeatedly,again without a single court case to back it up , but with Factory Hollow Point ammunition.

And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.
So we have a juror admitting that a factory Hollow point Bullet "was" a factor, yet Mas continues to advocate Factory Hollow Point Ammunition in our carry guns knowing full well that it can and has been used against the Shooter in a justified SD case.

Funny that. ...or does sponsorship and product endorsement have something to do with this hypocrisy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Glockdude1
#90 ·
Add to that that defendants are not charged with violating Self Defense - they are charged with something like murder or attempted murder or manslaughter. Even if we wish to ignore the experts, (who have generously provided to for free us that for which they would probably charge thousands of dollars for were we to ask the same questions in their office) ample examples have been presented to say with certainty that when a gun is used and the person who shot becomes a defendant in a murder trial, a modified trigger has certainly been introduced into court as evidence.
 
#93 ·
If Fish was convicted how is it a justified self defense case?
 
#95 ·
I don't proclaim to be an expert in this area. I know of one individual's details that endured a self-defense shooting. He was a competitive shooter and prevailed in both the incident and the aftermath. To be blunt, most of us (experts excluded) have no idea the challenges you might face after an incident, the costs, and the stress.

How can you possibly look at high-profile cases and not see how many mods (not all) might add to the complexity of your case is beyond me. As I said in an earlier reply, to each his/her own. I have shot competitively for a long time and with a wide variety of guns. I don't view trigger mods on a self-defense firearm as a positive. If you believe it will make a difference in surviving an incident, then have at it. I don't.

And as for value placed in expert opinions, I am a member of 2 organizations that support responsible gun owners in the event of a self-defense incident. So yes, I value their opinions highly. I hope I never have to rely on their services, but you hope for the best and prepare for the worst. I wish I could capture the stress that the guy endured who I cited above - a self-defense case in his home that from the outside looked cut & dry. He did NOT have modified gun. His biggest concern was his competition background, how it related to the specifics of the case, and whether it would be a factor. I won't derail with the specifics because the point is really the stress after an incident and how you might not appreciate notching that up with additional considerations.
 
#102 ·
Well, here we are with 100 posts and not a single case where a citizen fired his/her carry gun in Self Defense, claimed Justifiable Homicide, claimed they feared for their life where their modified firearm was a factor at trial.

Lotsa, so-n-so said, and opinions posted but no actual court cases to back up these opinions.
 
#104 · (Edited)
How about the choice of firearm, as in caliber.

If we are to believe the hype and walk on eggshells in regards to our, firearm modifications, Choice of ammo, why not add more to the mix and preach the evils of caliber selection?

Harold Fish used a 10MM with factory Hollow Point ammunition.
Both of these were used against him by the prosecution at his trial.

The Hollow Point was "designed to kill", bad, very bad. Using hollow point ammunition can be used against you in court. Not an opinion, fact, with actual court case to back it up.

Do not use a big bad 10mm when there are other less "deadly" caliber/cartridges available. Not an opinion, fact, with actual court case to back it up.

If we are to follow the narrative, that ammunition can convict you, modifications can convict you( no actual court cases) and caliber selection can convict you, what are our options to "play it safe" and not give the Prosecution any ammo to use against us.

As for caliber/cartridge, the only safe way is to carry the smallest cartridge you own. If you own a 9mm and a 380, carry the 380, if you own a 45 and a 9mm carry the 9mm and so on, that way you will have proven to the prosecution that although you had ample means to kill instantly and make your attacker more dead, you took the human and less lethal rout and carried your smaller more bad guy friendly firearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slamdunc
#105 · (Edited)
This 100 pages report from the involved lawyers might shed some light into the Luis Alvarez case. Good read so far.

http://www.royblack.com/files/Alvarez.pdf
Yes, good read thanks.

When you get to page 62 you will read that the so called "hair Trigger" was a non factor as firearms expert Sefried testified that the revolver was within Smith and Wesson Specs.

...and on page 72-73, A Johnson senior firearms examiner from the BATF (the #1 firearms expert in the country) testified that Luis's revolver was, "safe", "mechanically sound" and Nothing was done to make it Unsafe.

So back we go to the same page.

No actual cases posted where a modified firearm was a factor in a Self defense case.
 
#120 ·
Assuming there is any merit to your argument (which there isn't), do you have any idea how much it costs to hire an expert witness and pay a lawyer just to fight this aspect of your trial? Would you really want your life depending on your expert witness (and lawyer) being more convincing than the states expert witness?
As far as depending on winning a case on appeal, that can be like being strapped to the gurney and waiting for the governor to issue a pardon. You've already lost and are counting on a legal mistake.
 
#108 ·
In any 'justifiable' use of deadly force, your choice of weapon is not the issue. If I have to run over somebody with an backhoe to terminate the threat to my life the use of force is good. It doesn't matter if you empty a 17-round magazine, as long as they were still coming at you AND you still perceived the threat, it is good. If this theory was in play, if you added an extension to your magazine, that alone would change the dynamics.

When the family of the deceased sues you, then these things may or may not come into play. People really tend to overthink this aspect and insert anecdotal data to suit their purpose.
 
#110 ·
Nobody ever argued that a "justified" case was "made bad" by modifications. That's exactly what you guys never seem to get (yes, I have had this exact same discussion in several threads). Go back to may post and black and white answers vs. legal reality and "maybe."

I have posted case examples before, but they are irrelevant when you demand a "justified" case that was made "unjustified" - you ask for a logical impossibility (if the outcome of the case was that the shooting was found not justified, then there is nothing that says it was ever "justified"). That's half a step less honest that the classic "straw man" argument. I don't know the name for this type of fallacy, but I'm sure it has one.
The main problem, IMHO, with the idea that "a good shoot is a good shoot" is that it oversimplifies the whole process of determining when it's a good shoot to begin with. We'd all like to think that we wear white hats and that we'd never, ever, ever get into a questionable shooting. That said, the good guys don't get to shoot when and where confrontations happen. If they did, they'd be called "assailants." Once a shooting has happened, it's up to a whole bunch of other people (police, grand jurors, judges, lawyers, juries, etc.) to determine whether the shooting was in fact "a good shoot." Can they consider weapon mods? Sure, they can.

To ask for a "justified shooting turned bad by weapon mods" is to stack the deck in your own favor. If it's a justified shooting, the question of weapon mods has already been answered. If weapon mods were an issue, you can claim "it wasn't a justified shooting" to begin with. The problem isn't that weapon mods "will turn a good shoot bad," but that they can be used to complicate the issue of whether it a shooting is justified.
You will find several cases named here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/concea...facts-about-light-trigger-pull-liability.html . They'll be easy for you to look up.
Borg Warner, one case cited here (Alvarez) happened in pro-gun Florida. In pro-gun Arizona there's a case going where the accusers are making a big deal out of a slogan on the dust cover of the shooter's AR15. I've also seen it become an issue in pro-gun Texas (Santibanes v. Tomball) and pro-gun Louisiana (Galmon v. Phebus).

It's kinda like violent crime: you may encounter more of it in urban areas, but rural areas are not immune.
For your collective time and patience and for sharing your professional expertise my heartfelt thanks. For having been there to understand what happens when someone is criminally charged in a shooting and trying to keep us away from being subjected to that or to be on the strongest possible ground should we be subjected to that, my heartfelt thanks.

And from the thrifty part of me, for graciously sharing that which I would probably have to pay thousands of dollars for if I walked into an office of an attorney who is well versed in these matters to ask; or would have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege of sitting in classes to learn at this level; or (and perhaps the big point here) would be paying a hundred thousand dollars or more for this expertise at a criminal trial, me heartfelt thanks.

I am going to both hope and guess that at least a few others have also paid attention and learned something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spats McGee
#112 ·
Steve, you'e just digging yourself deeper. For example, you wrote...

Right, not only was his conviction overturned by the AZ Court of appeals, it sparked the AZ legislators to pass new legislation.
Legislation that that expands the rights of citizens to use lethal force when attacked and requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a criminal defendant was not acting in self-defense in order to get a conviction.

Case law.
...which clearly shows you don't understand the huge difference between actual black letter law emanating from a state legislature, and case law determined by a court of appeals.

You have said here that the Alvarez case was not a self-defense shooting complicated by an allegation of an improperly modified gun, yet the jury's acquittal shows that the evidence they saw in eight or nine weeks of trial convinced them it was indeed self-defense. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the 102-page excerpt from "Black's Law" in which the great Roy Black, lead defense counsel for Alvarez, discusses the case can see that he combination of the "cocked to hair trigger" element and "lightened trigger return spring element" was a critical part of the state's case against the officer. Bruce M was kind enough to post the link here,
http://www.royblack.com/files/Alvarez.pdf . For those who don't have time to read it, on Page 36 at that link Roy first makes reference to the state's BS allegations in that regard, he goes into more detail on Page 62, and on Page 83 quotes prosecutor Abe Laeser's final argument to the jury where Laeser made reference to the gun being modified "to become the most lethal machine for killing that a police officer is allowed to carry."

And you say it wasn't an issue? Who do you think you're kidding?

In a more recent post in this thread, you claim that since there was testimony that the death weapon was within factory spec, it wasn't an issue. This is "disingenuous at best," and frankly appears to be a deliberate mischaracterization of the testimony, since you fail to mention that the testimony was elicited BY THE DEFENSE: by Roy Black's superb co-counsel Mark Seiden on cross-examination of the state's expert, and by Mark in direct testimony from those of us called to speak on Officer Alvarez' behalf.

The very fact that the cross examination of the state's expert was necessary, as was the testimony of the witnesses the defense had to call, is obvious proof positive that the "hair trigger/modified gun issue" was indeed a cornerstone of the state's case.

Your commentary on the 10mm/hollow point issue in Arizona v. Fish is laughable. Anyone familiar with my work would know that I've repeatedly invoked this case and told good people how to beat those attacks (too bad Fish's defense lawyer wasn't familiar with that, since he did not effectively refute it, resulting in Fish's conviction, which in my opinion was a wrongful one).

Steve, I'll say it again: you literally don't know what you're talking about. You've compounded it by deliberately giving false impressions to the readers at GT. Whether it's from ignorance, cluelessness, or intent to lie is something only you can answer -- but that fact that you have grossly misinterpreted the reality of these cases is clear to anyone who does their due diligence and researches the documented facts. You know, like Bruce M did -- for which I thank him publicly.
 
#113 ·
Thanks but I believe Crockett deserves the credit for posting the link to Mr. Black's analysis. I am not sure how far the repercussions of the Alvarez case were felt, but I can say with certainty that locally literally thousands of revolvers were inspected because of this.
 
#114 ·
A somewhat related question for those with courtroom experience. In my very limited exposure, DAs and ADAs seem to vary widely in their assessment of self defense cases. I've been part of a GJ for a little over 6 months and heard 500-600 cases presented at a county level. I didn't see any signs of political agenda, etc. But it seems the approach to self defense cases varies widely. I think Ferguson was obviously politically motivated. In less known cases, there is still some astonishment that cases went to court. Is politics at play in most of these cases too? Incompetence?

Just curious what drives what appears to a person on the outside to sometimes be intentional punitive targeting of gun owners in self defense cases.
 
#115 · (Edited)
I am not disagreeing that some prosecutions are based on politics. And in some places all shootings go before a grand jury for review. Sometimes prosecutors send a case to the grand jury because it is easier to allow them to make the decision. I guess it could be argued that that is a political decision to not stand up for self defense rights.

But I have said here more than once or twice that here, and I am guessing in a fair number of other places, for every shooting that the police investigate in which the shooter is clearly justified and the person shot is clearly the only felon, there is another shooting or two in which the lines are very much blurred.

http://wsvn.com/news/local/some-charges-dropped-against-accused-mlk-day-parade-shooters/

http://www.local10.com/news/crime/a...s-dropped-against-suspect-in-mlk-day-shooting

Here is an example in which some were charged and then charges were dropped in part based on a claim of self defense - stand your ground. This was apparently a gang fight in which both guys were carrying guns without a permit, got physical with each other, then pulled out guns and shot, resulting in 8 being injured. I am guessing that on the scene it was difficult to decide who was clearly the criminal and who was clearly a justified shooter. And it may have not been immediately completely clear to the prosecutors as it appears they had to go before a judge to make the decision.
 
#117 ·
The prosecutions own witness and the expert from the BATF both testified that the firearm was safe and not modified beyond or out of factory specs, so nothing to see here, not an issue.
 
#118 ·
If it was discussed in court, with expert witnesses, the rules of evidence, for every court system in America, say that is only allowed if it IS AN ISSUE and is relevant and material to the outcome of the case and requires expert assistance for the jury to understand it.

Example: If you get arrested for DUI, you can't discuss, much less have an expert witness appear in court, to talk about how your car's engine and transmission work, unless you can show that it is relevant evidence that can change the outcome of the case and requires technical knowledge most people don't have.

If witnesses, especially expert witnesses, discussed the issue, it was definitely an important issue that could change the outcome of the case. That the defendant won (probably after spending every penny he had) does not make it a non-issue.

Going back to your post above, your "understanding of the criminal justice system is" the issue, because the thread is about how modified guns affect you in the criminal justice system. Because you don't understand that, you don't understand why you are wrong.
 
#119 · (Edited)
I my original request for court cases I used the term, "Factor", I should have stayed with "factor" and not used "issue".

fac·tor
ˈfaktər/
noun
  1. 1.
    a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome.
The Trigger pull was not a "factor" in the Alvarize case as it had no influence on the outcome. The prosecutions own witness shot down the claim that it had a hair trigger.

Was it brought up in court, yes, was it a "factor", nope.

Was Harold Fish's Factory Hollow Point Ammunition a "factor" yes.
 
#126 ·
RussP, thanks for re-opening this. I've been dying to make a few comments.

1) "Post the case." -- For those of you taking the position that "the case" must be posted or it must not exist, a few small points:
(a) I think that Alvarez and Magliato have already been posted. You may not think they're as relevant as I do, but gun mods were most certainly at issue.
(b) Cases are not automatically reported to media by the courts, and most media outlets are rotten sources for analyzing the legality of much of anything. Statutes and appellate opinions are much better.
(c) While appellate opinions are typically published online these days, they're not necessarily in a free, searchable format. If you want to search for appellate opinions, be my guest: Westlaw.

2) "That's just a matter of opinion." -- Perhaps, but not all opinions are equal. My opinion in legal matters is backed by 3 years of law school, a Juris Doctor degree, a law license, and ~15 years working in litigation. When it comes to flushing my transmission, my mechanic's opinion is worth far more than mine, but I do not ask him questions about Due Process.

3) Experts -- While you may not think hiring an expert is a big deal, remember:
(a) The State already has experts, and they're on salary. I, for one, do not care to get into a battle of experts with anybody who keeps experts on staff full time and has a budget hundreds of thousands of times as large as mine. You want to? Be my guest.
(b) I think the issue of experts running into 1000s of dollars underestimates the cost. If gun mods or other stuff requiring experts, testing and expert testimony, all come into play, I'd be surprised to get out without spending tens of thousands, maybe into six figures.​

I'm just not interested in spotting any points to the other side.
 
#127 ·
I never shot anyone "on the job" I had plenty of legal opportunities to justifably shoot people but luckily always could pass up the chance (as a supervisor I investigated use of deadly force incidents) - I worked with a female Trooper who came on the job as "Pure as the driven snow" and over the course of 12 years shot and killed 3 separate individuals, I have testified in civil cases arising from deadly force claims, If U shoot someone (cop or not) Judges will generally give wide latitude to claimants attorneys to cross examine you (especially in civil cases) about virtually every aspect of the case including the type of weapon and every conceivable aspect of it - if U installed any bells and whistles, night sights..... ad infinitum
 
#128 ·
In one organization that I joined, they furnished some great DVDs with great lectures. I think some could benefit from understanding what to expect after a self-defense shooting. By that I mean everything from the perspective of investigators, what you might endure, what to expect them to look at and do, and even the post-incident experiences that someone might personally endure - e.g., Dr. Gorski's 'mark of Cain'.
 
#129 ·
.... If you want to search for appellate opinions, be my guest: Westlaw.

.....
Apparently Westlaw seems to require one to sign up, and apparently not all of their products are free.

I am going to take a wild guess that A) this is a clue as to how one might run up a noticeable invoice from them

http://legalsolutions.thomsonreuter...ed-Annotated-Statute--Code-Series/p/100028484

B) in theory at least this may also help to be a start as to how much it may cost to retain
competent defense.

I would be surprised here if one got out of total costs for legal defense that went to trial if it was not at least halfway to seven figures.
 
#130 ·
Apparently Westlaw seems to require one to sign up, and apparently not all of their products are free.

I am going to take a wild guess that A) this is a clue as to how one might run up a noticeable invoice from them
That is correct. There's a free trial button on that page, but I suspect that it gets very costly very quickly once the free trial period has ended. I say "I suspect," because my office pays for mine. I have a limited (but admittedly pretty broad) plan, but I don't go out of plan without permission.

If I remember correctly, Westlaw has plans that charge by the minute in addition to other pricing models. And I know for a fact that they have reference attorneys on staff to help other attorneys do research. I know this because I have called the reference attorneys myself. No, I don't think they're cheap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bruce M
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top