Attorneys-
notice below that Kristen Armstrong- Lance’s ex-wife refused during deposition to answer questions relating to Lance’s alleged drug use. Now- me being a layperson- would think- if Lance is clean- his ex wife could clearly say- Lance never took drugs, answer the questions honestly without repercussion, etc. I can also see if he DID take drugs- why Kristen would refuse to answer, so she wouldn’t incriminate her ex. Now- my question- name a reason she would refuse to say he didn’t take drugs//decline answering Lance drug related questions- if he truly didn’t take drugs?
Trial could take place in March
Last month, Armstrong’s ex-wife Kristin, was deposed by LeMond’s legal team in order to answer questions. She gave a sworn, videotaped deposition during which she repeatedly refused to answer questions pertaining to alleged drug use by Armstrong.
The dispute between Greg LeMond and Trek moved closer to a jury trial yesterday when U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle heard oral arguments connected to the case, and deferred ruling on two summary judgment motions.
He suggested to both parties that an out-of-court settlement is considered in order to avoid what could be an explosive trial next spring.
“We’re certainly not averse to settling it,” said LeMond’s attorney Jamie DiBoise, according to New York Daily News. Trek attorney Ralph Weber indicated that both sides would meet soon to decide availability for settlement talks.
If those talks fail, the trial would take place in Minnesota next March. Judge Kyle reportedly indicated that allegations about Lance Armstrong would be part of that trial, and that the multiple Tour winner could be requested to appear.
Attorneys-
notice below that Kristen Armstrong- Lance’s ex-wife refused during deposition to answer questions relating to Lance’s alleged drug use. Now- me being a layperson- would think- if Lance is clean- his ex wife could clearly say- Lance never took drugs, answer the questions honestly without repercussion, etc. I can also see if he DID take drugs- why Kristen would refuse to answer, so she wouldn’t incriminate her ex. Now- my question- name a reason she would refuse to say he didn’t take drugs- if he truly didn’t take drugs?
Trial could take place in March
Last month, Armstrong’s ex-wife Kristin, was deposed by LeMond’s legal team in order to answer questions. She gave a sworn, videotaped deposition during which she repeatedly refused to answer questions pertaining to alleged drug use by Armstrong.
The dispute between Greg LeMond and Trek moved closer to a jury trial yesterday when U.S. District Court Judge Richard Kyle heard oral arguments connected to the case, and deferred ruling on two summary judgment motions.
He suggested to both parties that an out-of-court settlement is considered in order to avoid what could be an explosive trial next spring.
“We’re certainly not averse to settling it,” said LeMond’s attorney Jamie DiBoise, according to New York Daily News. Trek attorney Ralph Weber indicated that both sides would meet soon to decide availability for settlement talks.
If those talks fail, the trial would take place in Minnesota next March. Judge Kyle reportedly indicated that allegations about Lance Armstrong would be part of that trial, and that the multiple Tour winner could be requested to appear.
well, i’d have to go with that they are all very tired of it and with a team of laywers attempting to turn and switch any and all words around by her, that Lance could afford better attorneys which told her to just not say a thing. remember when his needles from his cancer medications were found in their trash in Austin and what a fiasco that turned in to? remember when his ex was pregnant and in labor and they had to wait for him to take a drug test before Lance could drive her to the hosipital? gotta be tired of it by now.
Certainly the inference is not good. However, there are a variety of reasons, legally, for Kristen not to answer. Communications between husband and wife are privileged communications. The privilege may be asserted by either the husband or the wife. Therefore, technically, Lance could assert the privilege against disclosure of the communication. Kristen could as well.
There is always a risk in waiving the privilege and testifying about the communications. Once you waive the privilege, it is waived. One can argue that each individual communication is a separate incident and the privilege can be waived to certain communications, but, not others. However, the general rule is, once you waive the privilege on a certain topic, you cannot assert the privilege later as it pertains to that topic.
If I am the attorney for Lance or Kristen, I don’t care what the communication is, 99 times out of 100, I am going to insist on assertion of the privilege. Granted, it does create a “common sense” inference, but, not a legal one.
If I am the attorney for Lance or Kristen, I don’t care what the communication is, 99 times out of 100, I am going to insist on assertion of the privilege.
+1
And I am going to get a jury instruction on the topic. More than one if I can manage it.
“Deposition” is attorney-speak for “give up as little information as humanly possible,” also known as “tell the client to shut up and respond with only one-word answers wherever possible.”
.
Granted, it does create a “common sense” inference, but, not a legal one.
Key.
Any idiot can see that in all likelihood, if she had known LA did NOT take drugs, she would have said ‘LA did not take drugs’. Legally, a ‘no comment’ is just that. But in the real world? It’s hard to ignore the writing on the wall.
Of course we didn’t need this to know LA was on drugs. He was a cyclist in the era where they ALL took drugs. What more evidence does the layman really need?
Certainly the inference is not good. However, there are a variety of reasons, legally, for Kristen not to answer. Communications between husband and wife are privileged communications. The privilege may be asserted by either the husband or the wife. Therefore, technically, Lance could assert the privilege against disclosure of the communication. Kristen could as well.
There is always a risk in waiving the privilege and testifying about the communications. Once you waive the privilege, it is waived. One can argue that each individual communication is a separate incident and the privilege can be waived to certain communications, but, not others. However, the general rule is, once you waive the privilege on a certain topic, you cannot assert the privilege later as it pertains to that topic.
If I am the attorney for Lance or Kristen, I don’t care what the communication is, 99 times out of 100, I am going to insist on assertion of the privilege. Granted, it does create a “common sense” inference, but, not a legal one.
It would be interesting to know what the actual questions were that she declined to answer.
If the question was, “What did Lance tell you about his drug use?” or “Did Lance ever talk about drug use?” the spousal-communications privilege pretty clearly applies.
If the question was, “Did Lance ever take drugs?” or “Did you ever see Lance take drugs?” then it is harder to argue that the spousal-communications privilege applies. Although any good attorney would still try.
My guess is that her lawyer told here ahead of time “If they ask anything related to drug use, decline to answer. We will argue it out in court later if we have to.”
I was in a similar situation (someone was investigating me) and my ex-wife refused to answer questions. Its for the best, especially if you are lances ex-wife, you just don’t want to deal with it, its apart of your life that is over and even in my situation where I had nothing to hide she just wanted to stay out of it. I assume that is what Kristin Armstrong wants too. So its not an implication on Lance, its not like they are going to ask one question, they are going to probe. No one wants to be probed about an ex even if there is nothing to hide.
I can see someone inject themselves with a syringe from a bottle that says
it’s EPO and still say I don’t know. What was in the bottle? How would
I know that?
The difference between absolute knowledge and belief is huge.
It would be interesting to know what the actual questions were that she declined to answer.
If the question was, “What did Lance tell you about his drug use?” or “Did Lance ever talk about drug use?” the spousal-communications privilege pretty clearly applies.
If the question was, “Did Lance ever take drugs?” or “Did you ever see Lance take drugs?” then it is harder to argue that the spousal-communications privilege applies. Although any good attorney would still try.
My guess is that her lawyer told here ahead of time “If they ask anything related to drug use, decline to answer. We will argue it out in court later if we have to.”
Agreed. I too would love to see the questions. You can stretch the meaning of the word “communication” pretty far and it will cover certain non-verbal “acts” that could be considered communciations (e.g., head nod, hand gesture, etc.). But, as you mention, not sure how you assert the privilege if the question is “Did Lance ever take drugs” or “Did youever see Lance take drugs.”
I am sure she was well coached. Would love to be in on that deposition.
I had a depo a couple weeks ago where I deposed the wife of the former employee who is suing my client. The wife sent e-mails to the CEO of the company. I grilled her on the e-mails and her discussion with her husband regarding same. Plaintiff’s atty went nuts, but, knew he was screwed b/c by her sending the e-mail, she waived the privilege (with regard to the topics identified in the e-mail). It got quite heated during the depo. I can only imagine the Kristen depo was more intense.
Most attorneys worth their salt will never waive a privilege. If you are not compelled to answer a question, then you don’t. The less said the better.
Remember Martha Stewart? She was convicted of lying about a crime she did not commit. Scooter Libby too.
Does privileged communication while married still carry over once you are divorced?
Martha Stewart & Scooter Libby…were convicted. If they were proven innocent, they would not have been convicted… this could be an all day legal argument in of itself. Or we could go the OJ route… It’s all messed up, and legal ease is as well.
I’m not buying this legal bill of goods as it’s packaged!
Most attorneys worth their salt will never waive a privilege. If you are not compelled to answer a question, then you don’t. The less said the better.
Remember Martha Stewart? She was convicted of lying about a crime she did not commit. Scooter Libby too.
**Does privileged communication while married still carry over once you are divorced? **
Martha Stewart & Scooter Libby…were convicted. If they were proven innocent, they would not have been convicted… this could be an all day legal argument in of itself. Or we could go the OJ route… It’s all messed up, and legal ease is as well.
I’m not buying this legal bill of goods as it’s packaged!
Yes, generally this privilege does survive the divorce.
Most attorneys worth their salt will never waive a privilege. If you are not compelled to answer a question, then you don’t. The less said the better.
Remember Martha Stewart? She was convicted of lying about a crime she did not commit. Scooter Libby too.
Does privileged communication while married still carry over once you are divorced?
Martha Stewart & Scooter Libby…were convicted. If they were proven innocent, they would not have been convicted… this could be an all day legal argument in of itself. Or we could go the OJ route… It’s all messed up, and legal ease is as well.
I’m not buying this legal bill of goods as it’s packaged!
There are two privileges.
Communications. Any communication b/t husband and wife, while they were married, are privileged, regardless of whether they are still married. Either husband or wife can assert.
Testimony. A spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse. This only applies if you are married at the time of the testimony.
From Cycling News, "Trek attorney Webber clarified the company’s position. “Trek has always supported Greg in his comments about doping in general – those comments are fine, but the specific attacks on individual athletes were not. ‘No comment’ would have been a preferable statement to attacks on specific athletes. Trek would have been okay with that.”
“The two sides are now expected to have talks about a possible settlement.”
I see that Trek has deeper pockets and is in the position of power. Why would they settle unless there are skeletons? Just strategically speaking…? Very curious… I know, settlement is always cheaper, but when we have publicity attached, that is another story…
Most attorneys worth their salt will never waive a privilege. If you are not compelled to answer a question, then you don’t. The less said the better.
Remember Martha Stewart? She was convicted of lying about a crime she did not commit. Scooter Libby too.
Does privileged communication while married still carry over once you are divorced?
Martha Stewart & Scooter Libby…were convicted. If they were proven innocent, they would not have been convicted… this could be an all day legal argument in of itself. Or we could go the OJ route… It’s all messed up, and legal ease is as well.
I’m not buying this legal bill of goods as it’s packaged!
Not to put words in Brick’s mouth, but I believe what he was trying to indicate is that most people think that Martha was convicted of insider trading or securities fraud. She was not. In fact, she was convicted only of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators. She was found NOT guilty of securities fraud.
I believe Brick’s point was that she was found NOT guilty of the underlying crime at issue (insider trading and securities fraud), but went to jail for her handling of the investigation and her communications with the authorities. Take away lesson, say as little as possible and do not lie to federal investigators.
I see that Trek has deeper pockets and is in the position of power. Why would they settle unless there are skeletons? Just strategically speaking…? Very curious… I know, settlement is always cheaper, but when we have publicity attached, that is another story…
Depends on the terms of the settlement. I have settled a lot of bullshit cases b/c it made more fiscal sense in the long run. Sucks, but, you gotta weigh the pros and the cons. Settlement is not always cheaper. In fact, two weeks ago I rejected a $50,000 settlement offer in a class action case. Last Friday, we went to court on my motion to dismiss the action and won. So, in all, we had about $2k in atty fees or so to get the case kicked. No way we could have settled for anything close to that. Granted that was an exceptional case, but, it all depends.
“This only applies if you are married at the time of the testimony.”
So you Kristin can be called to testify, as she was, but still plead privileged information?
hmm…
What testimony will she give anyway? Yes, he did use EPO. Yes, he had cancer. Yes, he was riding his bike preparing for a race with cancer. ? When did he stop using EPO? Was this when he was cleared of cancer?
