"A Texas-based researcher named Lindsay Olson was paid $30,000 by a law firm representing a January 6 defendant to conduct a "community attitude" survey about D.C. jurors' feelings toward the Capitol rioters. Her conclusion was that D.C. residents felt about as much sympathy for insurrectionists as they do for telemarketers if those telemarketers also tried to hang the Vice President on livestream."
"Those attorneys did what lawyers do: they filed it with their venue change motion on the public docket. From there, the lawyers for other defendants did what they do: they pulled the public filing, attached it to their own motions, and also argued that D.C. jurors were unduly biased against people attempting to overthrow the government. All of these motions failed."
"But now Olson has sued a couple attorneys for including the report in their own motions claiming they "pirated" her expert report without paying her the requisite $30,000 fee that she charged the first lawyers. She's also suing the Trump administration to the extent federal public defenders used the report - which she claims happened at least 11 times - and there's a satisfying irony to Trump pardoning all these people and still being potentially on the hook for how they were defended."
Lindsay Olson, a Texas researcher, was paid $30,000 to conduct a 'community attitude' survey of D.C. jurors about Capitol rioters. Her findings reported D.C. residents had little sympathy for insurrectionists. The hiring lawyers filed the report publicly as part of a venue-change motion. Other defense teams copied the publicly filed report into their own motions and argued juror bias; those motions failed. Olson sued attorneys who reused the report without paying her fee and sued the Trump administration over federal public defenders' use. The report embodied expertise and effort and would be copyrightable, but its public filing placed it effectively in the public domain.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]