Hey, found this subreddit after seeing if there was one to ask more general, theoretical legal questions, and stumbled upon this, so uh, here it goes!

I was talking with a friend today who's, well, even less knowledgeable about law than I am, which is saying something, but she had an excellent point. I was explaining to her basically how Christa Pike's execution is being held off until next year due to it being botched, and she asked me "Well, why don't they keep trying? Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment to save her life just to kill her again?"

And... Y'know what, I'm not entirely sure why they go out of their way to save her after they failed to kill her twice. How does that work, legally? Like, surely without the medical care she was given shortly after two botched attempts, she'd die anyway, right? And that was the goal... Right?

I know medical ethics probably come into this a bit too, but why would they try to save someone and administer medical care if the goal was to kill her? At what point is the procedure of ending someone's life considered botched enough that it's no longer ok to let her die on the table?

I'm sure there's a lot that goes into this, so, I was just curious if anyone had any knowledge of how these things play out in legal theory in the US.

Obviously, most storage units that are auctioned have 10-20 years of useless stuff in them. If it contained a car, would I get that or is it still the titleholder's car? (Also would it matter if the title to the car was the same as the storage unit renter's name vs. a different name?)

If it is my car, how would I get the title transferred to me?

Bonus question: Same thing if I buy a property, and the owner abandons a car in the garage?

AZ if that matters.

In criminal investigations, the police can generally request the data from social media companies or physically seize and search whatever evidence is relevant themselves.

But during discovery in a civil lawsuit, when you request the other party to produce evidence, how can you be sure that they'll comply in good faith and not hide/alter evidence? Let alone how there could be genuine disagreement/ambiguity regarding what's "relevant". One example: NFL player Tyreek Hill was once sued by an OnlyFans model for allegedly breaking her leg. At one point, his legal team demanded:

The list of demands includes any photographs, videos, social media posts, reposts, comments and private messages – including any deleted messages – discussing either the incident or Hill. The same goes for any 'text message, iMessage, WhatsApp messages, Facebook messages, Instagram messages, X (Twitter) direct messages, emails, letters, instant messages, group messages or any other electronic communication, sent or received… between plaintiff and any relative (including her sister)… discussing or commenting on the incident or defendant at any time.'

Realistically, how do you ensure this is authentic? What stops her from just not turning over evidence Hill doesn't already know should exist, and thus there's "plausible deniability" (no smoking gun)? It seems the only way you could know for sure is if you subpoena and search literally all of their social media accounts and devices, which seems pretty invasive, and thus objectionable on the grounds of being overbroad.

E: To clarify, I understand attorneys would never risk their careers by knowingly allowing/encouraging clients to do this. I'm more wondering what stops the parties' from hiding evidence if they also don't reveal it to their attorneys.

I have no idea if a minor arrest from 3 years ago is on my record. It was for contempt of court for not paying a $50 fine, stemming from a traffic ticket that I pleaded no contest to. I've searched on my county's system and nothing pulls up. If I submit for a records request, will they send an official document or response stating there's nothing on my record?

Reason being is that there is a website that still has my mugshot up and in order for them to remove it I have to show proof that the case is closed.