Any legal eagles on DU?

[Baitball Blogger]

Is wilful blindness and "wilful failure to know" and "knew or should have known"...is that all the same thing?

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Different states of mind.

Willful blindness -- You see, you know, and you do it anyway and claim you didn't know. More or less the same thing for willful failure to know.

Knew/Should have known -- Presumption of knowledge. Burden of proof falls on the one to prove that s/he/they really didn't know. They were oblivious. They delegated. Poor communication. Poor organization. Take your pick.

[Brainfodder]

2. I want to know why he isn't being held as a flight risk?

This haul from his residence making it maddeningly more absurd?

GIMME GIMME PERP WALK!!!!!!!

[WarGamer]

5. detainment before indictment?

[EYESORE 9001]

3. I would expect the term 'plausible deniability' bandied about

Here’s hoping it falls flat.

[Effete Snob]

4. Slight difference

“Willful blindness” is sometimes called “Nelsonian blindness” after Admiral Nelson. He was blind in one eye and there is a story that, during a naval battle it was suggested he retreat. In response, he held a telescope to his blind eye and declared that he saw no enemy.

It is “willful” because an intentional act or omission is required in order to maintain ignorance of a fact that one has taken measures to avoid knowing. Nelson knew he was “looking” with his blind eye. This also lives in the phrase “turning a blind eye” toward something.

“Knew or should have known” refers to knowledge of facts that one would reasonably expect the person to know. For example, if my doctor prescribes me medicine X for one condition and medicine Y for another condition, and I die because those are incompatible medications, my doctor may not have actually known. However, the doctor has an affirmative duty to know whether two drugs prescribed to a patient have an adverse interaction.

[Ms. Toad]

6. Nice explanation. n/t

[Effete Snob]

7. Thanks

In the context of signing factual declarations on behalf of clients, the best way is not to sign factual declarations on behalf of clients.

There is, of course, the “two lawyer” strategy in which the first lawyer tells the client what would happen under various hypothetical circumstances in which the client seeks legal assistance and tells the lawyer x, y or z. This shapes the relationship between the client and the second lawyer, with whom the client communicates on the basis of the consultation with the first lawyer. The “two lawyer” strategy makes it difficult for either of the lawyers to get into trouble since, at some point, the second lawyer merely has to fall on their sword, resign, and say they were misinformed.

[Ms. Toad]

8. Agreed. n/t