Mr. Jones testified in a trial that will determine how much he should pay the parents of a child who died in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. He had already lost the case by default after failing to provide documents and testimony related to by spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. Amid cross-examination, a lawyer for the parents, Mark Bankston, sprung a surprise: Twelve days earlier, Mr. Jones’ lawyers had sent data from his iPhone, including two years’ worth of text messages, to the plaintiffs. The revelation prompted Mr Bankston to suggest Mr Jones had committed perjury in previous depositions. It also raised questions about exactly how the phone data was shared. Here’s what legal experts thought when Mr Jones was confronted with his phone details. Attorney Mark Bankston told #AlexJones that his attorney messed up and sent him all of Jones’ cell phone history. “Did you know your lawyers messed up and sent me your entire cell phone message history 12 days ago?” asked Bankston. “Do you know what perjury is right?” pic.twitter.com/IfIiP5UTIg — Law&Crime Network (@LawCrimeNetwork) August 3, 2022
Alex Jones looked surprised, but was it really unusual?
Yes. “It’s wild,” said Helen Jaroszewski, a distinguished professor of legal ethics at Hofstra University. “It’s really wild. It’s a wild situation in a wild situation with a wild person.” The exchange was impressive for several reasons. Information related to such disputes is usually turned over before trial, in a process called discovery. Bruce Green, a law professor at Fordham where he directs a center on law and ethics, said that Mr. Bankston, as part of that process, almost certainly had requested texts and emails that Mr. Jones had sent about Sandy Hook. Even if Mr. Jones’s lawyers wanted to withhold some of his communications as privileged, they would have to provide a list of those documents to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who could then try to gain access to the documents by appealing to the judge. Steven Good, a University of Texas law school professor who specializes in trial and appellate law, said in an interview that if what Mr. Bankston said Wednesday was accurate and that Mr. Jones’s lawyers had not acted after learned what they had done, “I would find it astonishing.”
Why should we believe what the parents’ lawyer said?
Mr Green said Mr Bankston was almost certainly telling the truth about how he came into possession of the phone records, for two reasons. First, Mr. Jones’ lawyers did not challenge his presentation in court, which allowed the records to be admitted into evidence. Second, it would be a disciplinary offense for Mr Bankston to lie to the judge. In most states, ethics rules require plaintiffs’ attorneys to notify defense counterparts of an inadvertent disclosure. Texas, however, has no such rule. However, Mr Bankston told the court on Wednesday that he had informed Mr Jones’ team of the disclosure, saying that “when they were informed”, the lawyers “did not take any steps to privilege it or protect it with anyone way. “ Professor Goode said that if Mr Bankston’s description was accurate, it had given a lawyer for Mr Jones the opportunity to claim privilege on the material in a more generous way than was required. On Thursday, a lawyer for Mr. Jones, F. Antino Reynal, filed an emergency motion asking the judge to order Mr. Bankston to return all hard copies of the documents from the cellphone records, seal them already entered into evidence and to give his team an opportunity to provide replacement copies of relevant evidence. At a hearing on the motion, Mr. Raynal also claimed a miscarriage of justice, based on Mr. Bankston’s use of cellphone records. He said that after delivering the documents by mistake, he had asked Mr Bankston to ignore the link he had been sent and expected the request to be granted. Mr Bankston, in response, said the words “please disregard” had created “no legal duty on me”, adding he was under no obligation not to review the documents. He called the move “frivolous”. (He also clarified that the link to the files had been sent by Mr. Reynal’s legal assistant.) The judge, Maya Guerra Gamble, denied the mistrial request and the motion.
Did Mr. Jones commit perjury? If so, is he likely to face consequences?
Experts said it was unclear whether Mr Jones would face perjury charges. Under Texas law, a person can be charged with perjury, a misdemeanor, if they make a false statement under oath or if, while under oath, they swear to the truth of a statement previously made, with a clear understanding of the statement and the intent to deceive. The person can be charged with aggravated perjury, a felony, if the false statement is made in connection with an official proceeding and could have affected the outcome of the case. If investigators with the Travis County District Attorney’s Office investigate the case and find that Mr. Jones committed perjury, he could be charged with a crime. The office did not respond to a request for comment. “At one point the judge actually said to Jones, you believe anything that comes out of your mouth the moment you say it,” Professor Goode said. “I don’t know what he believes or doesn’t believe, so I have no idea if Travis County prosecutors would be in any way interested in prosecuting or if they could actually investigate a case.”
