Don Giller

In my experience, jurors see through this kind of garbage Weinstein's lawyers are pulling here. Politicians get away with this cheap crap all the time, but jurors tend to be turned off by these kinds of gimmicks. https://www.primetimer.com/features/how-david-lettermans-biggest-fan-became-a-pawn-for-the-defense-in-the-harvey-weinstein-trial …

We notice jurors who seem to get it wrong. Those cases get way more notoriety. But bad lawyers try to use out-of-context stuff VERY often and jurors, while not great at a lot of things, understand context far more than people realize.

This is especially true in situations where they are presented with something they understand, like an actor on a talk show. They'll pay MORE attention to that and are MORE likely to discount Weinstein's lawyer's angle here than if you just showed them an out of context email.

Which is to say: probably a pretty dumb tactic by Weinstein's lawyers here.

I mean, shame on the judge for allowing a private archivist to be subpoenaed for video that belongs to Worldwide Pants?

Yeah. Why are they subpoenaing some dude. Would Worldwide Pants have put up a fuss and the lawyers would rather just bully this guy?

If so the subpoena compelled someone to commit a copyright violation. It would be fair use if the archivist were a party in the trial, but he isn’t.