(Preface from original Canonical list site)
Jury: Twelve men and women trying to decide which party has the best lawyer. Justice: A decision in your favor.
Between the pigeons and the politicians, it's hard to keep the courthouse clean.
A judge in a semi-small city was hearing a drunk-driving case and the defendant, who had both a record and a reputation for driving under the influence, demanded a jury trial. It was nearly 4 P. M. And getting a jury would take time, so the judge called a recess and went out in the hall looking to impanel anyone available for jury duty. He found a dozen lawyers in the main lobby and told them that they were a jury. The lawyers thought this would be a novel experience and so followed the judge back to the courtroom. The trial was over in about 10 minutes and it was very clear that the defendant was guilty. The jury went into the jury room, the judge started getting ready to go home, and everyone waited. After nearly three hours, the judge was totally out of patience and sent the bailiff into the jury-room to see what was holding up the verdict. When the bailiff returned, the judge said, "Well have they got a verdict yet?" The bailiff shook his head and said, "Verdict? Hell, they're still doing nominating speeches for the foreman's position!"
It had to happen sooner or later. Lawyer Dobbins was wheeled into the emergency room on a stretcher, rolling his head in agony. Doctor Green came over to see him. "Dobbins," he said, "What an honor. The last time I saw you was in court when you accused me of malpractice." "Doc. Doc. My side is on fire. The pain is right here. What could it be?" "How would I know? You told the jury I wasn't fit to be a doctor." "I was only kidding, Doc. When you represent a client you don't know what you're saying. Could I be passing a kidney stone?" "Your diagnosis is as good as mine." "What are you talking about?" "When you questioned me on the stand you indicated you knew everything there was to know about the practice of medicine." "Doc, I'm climbing the wall. Give me something." "Let's say I give you something for a kidney stone and it turns out to be a gallstone. Who is going to pay for my court costs?" "I'll sign a paper that I won't sue." "Can I read to you from the transcript of the trial? Lawyer Dobbins: 'Why were you so sure that my client had tennis elbow?' Dr. Green: 'I've treated hundreds of people with tennis elbow and I know it when I see it.' Dobbins: 'It never occurred to you my client could have an Excedrin headache?' Green: 'No, there were no signs of an Excedrin headache.' Dobbins: 'You and your ilk make me sick.' " "Why are you reading that to me?" "Because, Dobbins, since the trial I've lost confidence in making a diagnosis. A lady cane in the other day limping ..." "Please, Doc, I don't want to hear it now. Give me some Demerol." "You said during the suit that I dispensed drugs like a drunken sailor. I've changed my ways, Dobbins. I don't prescribe drugs anymore." "Then get me another doctor." "There are no other doctors on duty. The reason I'm here is that after the malpractice suit the sheriff seized everything in my office. This is the only place that I can practice." "If you give me something to relieve the pain I will personally appeal your case to a higher court." "You know, Dobbins, I was sure that you were a prime candidate for a kidney stone." "You can't tell a man is a candidate for a kidney stone just by looking at him." "That's what you think, Dobbins. You had so much acid in you when you addressed the jury I knew some of it eventually had to crystallize into stones. Remember on the third day day when you called me the 'Butcher of Operating Room 6'? That afternoon I said to my wife, "That man is going to be in a lot of pain.' " "Okay, Doc, you've had your ounce of flesh. Can I now have my ounce of Demerol?" "I better check you out first." "Don't check me out, just give the dope." "But in court the first question you asked me was if I had examined the patient completely. It would be negligent of me if I didn't do it now. Do you mind getting up on the scale?" "What for?" "To find out your height. I have to be prepared in case I get sued and the lawyer asks me if I knew how tall you were." "I'm not going to sue you." "You say that now. But how can I be sure you won't file a writ after you pass the kidney stone?"
One evening, after attending the theater, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young lady walking ahead of them. One of them turned to the other and remarked, "I'd give $50.00 to spend the night with that woman." Much to their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, turned around, and replied, "I'll take you up on that." She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment. The following morning, the man presented her with $25. 00 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money, stating: "If you don't give me the other $25.00, I'll sue you for it." He laughed, saying: "I'd like to see you get it on these grounds." The next day he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer said: "She can't possibly get a judgement against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented." After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as follows: "Your honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot, surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of time for the sum of $50.00. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises, he paid only $25.00, one-half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgement be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance." The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense, therefore, was somewhat different from the way he originally planned to present it. "Your honor," he said, "My client agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labor performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for rental of said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted." The young lady's lawyer answered thusly: "Your honor, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. However, had the defendant not known that the well existed, he would never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others. We, therefore, ask that judgement be granted." And it was. She won the case...
Sam Cohen, father of 3 and faithful husband for over 40 years, unexpectedly drops dead one day. His lawyer informs his widow that Stu Schwartz, Sam's best friend since childhood, is to be executor of the will. The day comes to divide Sam's earthly possessions, over a million dollars' worth. In front of Sam's family, Stu reads the will: "Stu, if you're reading this, then I must be dead. You've were such a good friend for so long, how can I ignore you in this will? On the other hand, there are my beloved Sophie and my children to be looked after. Stu, I know you can make sure my family is taken care of properly. So Stu, give what you want to her and take the rest for yourself." Stu then looks at the survivors and tells them that, in accordance with Sam's instructions, Stu will give fifty thousand dollars to Sam's widow. The rest he is retaining for himself. The family is beside itself. "This is impossible! Forty years of marriage and then *this*?! It can't be!" So the family sues. Their day in court arrives, and after testimony from both sides, the judge gives his verdict: "To Stuart Schwartz, I award fifty thousand dollars of the contested money. The remainder shall go to Sophie Cohen, widow of the deceased." Needless to say, the family is elated, but Stu is dumbfound. "Your honor, how can you do this? The will made Sam's wishes quite clear: 'Give what you want to her and take the rest for yourself!' I wanted the lion's share! What gives?" The judge answered back, "Mr. Schwartz, Sam Cohen knew you his whole life. He wanted to give you something in gratitude. He also wanted to see his family taken care of. So he drew up his will accordingly. But you misread his instructions. You see, Sam knew just what kind of a person you are, so with his family's interest in mind, he didn't say, "give what you want to her and keep the rest for yourself.' No. What Sam said was, "Give what YOU want to HER; and keep the rest for yourself."
In a courtroom, a pursesnatcher is on trial and the victim is stating what happened. She says, "Yes, that is him. I saw him clear as day. I'd remember his face anywhere." At which point, the defendant bursts out, "You couldn't see my face, lady. I was wearing a mask!"
Matthew P. Dukes, 26, sentenced to 30 days in jail in 1989 following his sixth drunken-driving conviction, tried for 15 months (through December 1990) to get into jail in Ravenna, Ohio, but each time was turned away because the jail was full. In December, Dukes filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated by the jail's refusal to admit him.
A Norwegian friend of mine told me that a Swedish chainsaw manufacturer began marketing their product in the US, with an English language manual noticeably larger than the Swedish or Norwegian versions. News commentators explained with great humor in a report that this was because of all the additional warnings, including (they pointed out specifically) "Do not attempt to stop the chainsaw with your hand." This was made even more humorous a couple of years later, when they were saved a pile of money in a lawsuit brought by a U.S. citizen who was injured stopping the chainsaw with his hand. He was unable to collect, since the manual specifically warned against it. Rune surmised that the warnings were legally unnecessary in the Scandinavian manuals, since no Scandinavian would publicly admit to doing anything that stupid. I've always thought the problem could be solved if all products had a label on them stating: Warning: This product not intended for use by stupid people. Let this guy try to prove in court that, although he propped the ladder up on a manure heap, he is *not* stupid and didn't violate the instructions.
A man on trial in the Fourth Judicial district of Tennessee had previously pleaded "not guilty." However, once the jury, eight women and four men, had been seated and the trial was under way, the defendant switched his plea. "Why the change?" asked the judge, "Were you persuaded to plead 'guilty'?" "No Sir," the man replied, "When I pleaded 'not guilty', I didn't know women would be on the jury. I can't fool one woman, so I know I can't fool eight of them."
Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!
A witness was called to stand to testify about a head-on automobile collision. "Whose fault was this accident?" the lawyer asked. "As near as I could tell," replied the witness, "they hit each other at about the same time."
The U. S. Attorney in Miami declined to prosecute a drug smuggling case in which the Customs Service had confiscated a half ton of marijuana because the office is overworked and won't touch cases under the 2.5 ton minimum.
There once was a young fellow who fell prey to a speed trap in a small southern town. The cop wrote him a ticket and then hauled him before the local Justice of the Peace. The Justice fined the young man $200 and collected the money on the spot. The young fellow turned to go but was called back by the Justice and handed the old ticket. The speedster said, "Just what am I supposed to do with this? I paid my fine!" Whereupon the old J. P. replied, "Keep it, when you get three, you get a bicycle!"
In 1993 in Bangladesh, Falu Mia, 60, was released from prison after 21 years. He had been locked up until his trial for theft in 1972, then found not guilty, but a lethargic bureaucracy failed to release him. He recently filed a lawsuit against the government for 21 years' back wages (about $26,000).
From "Disorderly Conduct - Verbatim Excerpts from Actual Court Cases" selected by Rodney R. Jones, Charles M. Sevilla, and Gerald F. Uelmen. The Court: In this case the request is made for the appointment of the psychologist for the performance of an IQ test. The court does not see the need for an IQ test since it appears to me that he is dumber than a fencepost. Counsel: Has the court started it in numerical terms? The Court: His IQ is less than zero. Counsel: What device do you have in your laboratory to test alcohol content? Witness: I have a dual column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard 5710A with flame analyzation detectors. The Court: Can you get that with mag wheels? Witness: Only on the floor models. Counsel: Now, in your report under "Foundation" you indicated that there is a minimum of cracking and no signs of settling. Witness: Yes. Counsel: When you say there is a minimum of cracking, I take it that you did find some cracking. Witness: No. Because if I said there was no cracking, I would be in court just like this answering some stupid lawyers' questions. So I put minimum in there to cover myself, because somebody is going to find a crack somewhere. The Court: I could say I would like to shake your hand, but I won't. Counsel: Move to strike - The Court: No. We are not going to strike it. Counsel: Move to strike the word "stupid," Your Honor. The Court: The most appropriate word you want stricken? It is worth the whole trial. Defense counsel: The truth of the matter is that you are not an unbiased, objective witness, isn't it? You too were shot in the fracas? Witness: No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval. Counsel: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? Witness: Yes, I have been since early childhood.
From "The Houston Chronicle" A defense attorney in a Northern California murder case says he believes Max the parrot may hold the answer to who smothered Jane Gill to death in her bedroom two years ago. But an attempt to get the African gray parrot's testimony into evidence last week was blocked by the judge. Max was found dehydrated and hungry in his cage two days after Gill's murder. After the parrot was coaxed back to health at a pet shop, the shop's owner said the bird began to cry out, "Richard, no, no, no!" The man charged in the case is Gill's business partner, and his name is not Richard. He says he is innocent. Gary Dixon, a private investigator working on the case, surmised that the bird is now in a witness-protection program. "Max's identity has been changed, and he is now a macaw," he said.
In December 1993, Atlanta attorney Dennis Scheib stopped by the prosecutor's office on his way to court to represent a new client in a criminal case. Just outside the office, he saw two officers chasing a man down the hall, and he joined in to help. After the three men caught the escapee and handcuffed him, Scheib learned the man was the client he had been on his way to court to represent.
From the Chicago Tribune, 6/8/90: Naples, Italy(AP): ...the claim (for damages) involves an accident in March involving a medium-sized Regatta and a tiny Panda car. The young man claimed he and his girlfriend were engaged in amorous activity in their car when the large car hit it from behind. The impact momentarily made them lose control, resulting in pregnancy. The suit demands compensation for the cost of repairing the Panda and the cost of the wedding the couple decided to have after discovering the woman was pregnant.
In February 1994, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., accused murderer Donald Leroy Evans, 38, filed a pre-trial motion asking permission to wear a Ku Klux Klan robe in the courtroom and to be referred to in legal documents by "the honorable and respected name of Hi Hitler." According to the courthouse employees interviewed by the Associated Press, Evans thought Adolf Hitler's followers were saying "Hi Hitler" rather than "Heil, Hitler."
Heard through friends: Rumor has it that the state of California, which recently enacted a "Three Strikes" crime bill (three felonies and you're jailed for life), was considering the following amendment: Three strikes and you're out, unless the judge drops the gavel on the third strike and you can run out of the courtroom before the bailiff grabs you.
Rachel Barton-Russell petitioned a court in Springfield, Ore., in February 1994 for a ruling on the meaning of the state's law against corpse abuse. Her deceased husband, Donal Eugene Russell, had declared in his will that he wanted his skin used to make book covers for a collection of his poetry, but the state Mortuary and Cemetery Board claims that carrying out that request would subject a funeral home to liability for corpse abuse.
From the Dallas Morning News: A prospective juror in a Dallas District Court was surprised by the definition of voluntary manslaughter given the panel: "an intentional killing that occurs while the defendant is under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, such as when a spouse's mate is found in a 'compromising position.'" "See, I have a problem with that passion business," responded the jury candidate. "During my first marriage, I came in and found my husband in bed with my neighbor. All I did was divorce him. I had no idea that I could have shot him." She wasn't selected for the jury.
The defense attorney was hammering away at the plaintiff. "You claim," he jeered, "that my client came at you with a broken bottle in his hand. But is it not true, that you had something in YOUR hand?" "Yes," he admitted, "his wife. Very charming, of course, but not much good in a fight."
Columbia, S.C. (AP) - A retired judge drew 1 1/2 years in prison for awarding a woman child support and custody of her child in exchange for sex. The woman's lawyer, who arranged the trysts, got a two-year sentence and a $1,500 fine from by Circuit Judge Thomas Cooper. Former Family Court Judge Sam Mendenhall, who retired in 1992, pleaded guilty Monday to misconduct. The lawyer, Samuel Fewell, pleaded guilty to conspiracy. Mendenhall, 54, and Fewell, 58, are former state legislators. Dorothy Carpenter said Mendenhall awarded her custody and child support in 1983 and 1984 in exchange for sex. Carpenter said she also had sex with Fewell in exchange for legal services but fired him in 1985 after he and the judge grew too demanding. Carpenter, who is facing unrelated arson charges, filed a complaint against Mendenhall and Fewell in 1991 with the state Supreme Court, which oversees the judicial system. She said her lawyer in the arson case urged her to file the complaint. Carpenter is charged with conspiracy in connection with a 1991 fire in her Clover home that killed two people. The case is pending. Fewell's sentence will run concurrently with a 2 1/2-year federal sentence he received in March for cocaine possession and tax evasion.
Found in the April 1992 issue of "The Working Communicator": From the Salt Lake City Deseret News: "Juvenile Court To Try Shooting Defendant" From the Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger: "Suicides Asked To Reconsider" From the Sacramento Bee: "Drug Firm Ordered To Supply Women" From the San Francisco Examiner: "New Autos To Hit 5 Million" From the Honolulu Pacific Business News: "Office Building Permits Plunge"
The lawsuit Irene Geschke, then age 55, filed against a mortgage company in 1979 in Chicago has passed its 15th anniversary without coming to trial. There have been more than 530 motions and orders, and nine dates for trial have come and gone. Geschke claims the mortgage company caused her to go out of business when it wrongly foreclosed on a loan and is now acting as her lawyer, managing the one ton of legal documents involved in the case.
Apparently weary of interfamily bickering in the federal bankruptcy case of Judith Herskowitz of Florida, Judge Jay Cristol ordered Herskowitz in March to "obtain and mail to" her sister Susan Charney, at least five days before Susan's next birthday, a card which reads "Happy Birthday, Sister" and contains the signature of Ms. Herskowitz. Further, Cristol ordered that "the card shall not contain any negative, inflammatory, or unkind remarks."
Questions Asked Of Supreme Court Nominees Have you read all the John Grisham novels? Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon? Jockeys or boxers? What do you like on your pizza? Asphinctersays WHAT? How 'bout that O.J. mess? Okay, let's say a long-time senator from a very famous family goes for a drive with his secretary, and kind of, ya know, drives off a bridge or something, killing the babe; he wouldn't be guilty, would he? Ever done Madonna? Should the rabbit be allowed to eat Trix? Is justice a) eagle-eyed, b) sorta near-sighted, or c) blind as a bat? Is that Regis Philbin just nuts or what? Have you ever appeared, or do you ever plan to appear in a Bruce Willis movie? How come you don't have a babe-magnet beard like Bork's? Got any naked photos of your illegal nanny? Can you give Justice Souter a lift to work when his mom's sick? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?
In Pittsburgh in March of 1994, Donita Jo Artis, 24, told prosecutors and the judge, after being denied custody of her 3-year-old son and sentenced to prison for beating him until he was blind, deaf, and unable to walk, "You guys are so unfair."
In June 1994 in London, lawyers for convicted murderer Stephen Young filed an appeal after learning from one juror that three other jurors had conducted a Ouija board seance during jury deliberations and "contacted" the dead man, who named Young as the killer.
The World's Worst Juror (from "Book of Heroic Failures", by Stephen Pile) It happened at a rape trial in Snaresbrook (U.K.) county court on an unusually warm and sultry day. One of the jurors fell asleep just as the victim was being questioned by the prosecuting counsel. "Would you," he asked, "tell the court precisely what the defendant said to you before the attack?" "No, she would not." she said. "It was far too crude and shocking." "Would you be prepared to write it down?" And she did, with every sign of distaste (it was, broadly speaking, a promise that nothing in the history of sexual congress compared with what the rapist planned to do to his victim), and the paper was passed to the judge, learned counsel, the clerk of the court, and the jury. In the second row, our hero slumbered on until he was suddenly woken by a sharp nudge from the smiling brunette next to him. She passed the note to him. He read the message thereon, gazed in wonder at his neighbour, read it again, winked at the woman, and slipped the note in his pocket. When the judge demanded the note back, the juror refused. It was, he said, a private matter.
The Lord Giveth, The Feds Taketh Away Associated Press - When William H. Irvin III received a government check for $836,939.19 in June, 1992, he considered it a gift from God since he had recently prayed for self-sufficiency. A federal court jury in Kansas City, Mo., was unmoved: it was a computer error, they said, not God, which boosted his $183.69 check to the higher amount. Convicted of knowingly spending government money, filing a false tax return and money laundering, he faces 43 years in prison and a $1.25 million fine.
Prosecutor: Did you kill the victim? Defendant: No, I did not. Prosecutor: Do you know what the penalties are for perjury? Defendant: Yes, I do. And they're a hell of a lot better than the penalty for murder.
Judge: Why did you kick Mr. Smith in the crotch? Defendant: How was I supposed to know he was going to suddenly turn around?
The following is a courtroom exchange between a defense attorney and a farmer with a bodily injury claim. It came from a Houston, Texas insurance agent. Attorney: At the scene of the accident, did you tell the constable you had never felt better in your life? Farmer: That's right. Attorney: Well, then, how is it that you are now claiming you were seriously injured when my client's auto hit your wagon? Farmer: When the constable arrived, he went over to my horse, who had a broken leg, and shot him. Then he went over to Rover, my dog, who was all banged up, and shot him. When he asked me how I felt, I just thought under the circumstances, it was a wise choice of words to say I've never felt better in my life.
Mary Louise Gilman, the venerable editor of the National Shorthand Reporter has collected many of the more hilarious courtroom bloopers in two books, 'Humor in the Court' (1977) and 'More Humor in the Court', published a few months ago. From Mrs. Gilman's two volumes, here are some of my favorite transquips, all recorded by America's keepers of the word: Q. What is your brother-in-law's name? A. Borofkin. Q. What's his first name? A. I can't remember. Q. He's been your brother-in-law for years, and you can't remember his first name? A. No. I tell you I'm too excited. (Rising from the witness chair and pointing to Mr. Borofkin.) Nathan, for God's sake, tell them your first name! Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York? A. I refuse to answer that question. Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago? A. I refuse to answer that question. Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami? A. No. Q. Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated? A. By death. Q. And by whose death was it terminated? Q. Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods? A. No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region. Q. What is your name? A. Ernestine McDowell. Q. And what is your marital status? A. Fair. Q. Are you married? A. No, I'm divorced. Q. And what did your husband do before you divorced him? A. A lot of things I didn't know about. Q. And who is this person you are speaking of? A. My ex-widow said it. Q. How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney? A. Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney, and said he was really good. Q. Do you know how far pregnant you are right now? A. I will be three months November 8th. Q. Apparently then, the date of conception was August 8th? A. Yes. Q. What were you and your husband doing at that time? Q. Mrs. Smith, do you believe that you are emotionally unstable? A. I should be. Q. How many times have you committed suicide? A. Four times. Q. Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people? A. All my autopsies have been performed on dead people. Q. Were you acquainted with the deceased? A. Yes, sir. Q. Before or after he died? Q. Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence? A. Because he was argumentary and he couldn't pronunciate his words. Q. What happened then? A. He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify me." Q. Did he kill you? A. No. Q. Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? A. No. This is how I dress when I go to work. The court: Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any. Q. Did he pick the dog up by the ears? A. No. Q. What was he doing with the dog's ears? A. Picking them up in the air. Q. Where was the dog at this time? A. Attached to the ears. Q. When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station? Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot. Q. And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Okay? What school do you go to? A. Oral. Q. How old are you? A. Oral. Q. What is your relationship with the plaintiff? A. She is my daughter. Q. Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979? Q. Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim? Q. ...and what did he do then? A. He came home, and next morning he was dead. Q. So when he woke up the next morning, he was dead? Q. Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities? A. He didn't offer me nothing; he just said I could have the furniture. Q. So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp? A. I didn't see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital. Q. It was covered? A. Yes, bandaged. Q. Then, later on.. what did you see? A. I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head. Q. Could you see him from where you were standing? A. I could see his head. Q. And where was his head? A. Just above his shoulders. Q. What can you tell us about he truthfulness and veracity of this defendant? A. Oh, she will tell the truth. She said she'd kill that sonofabitch, and she did! Q. Do you drink when you're on duty? A. I don't drink when I'm on duty, unless I come on duty drunk. Q. ...any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial? A. The victim lived. Q. Are you sexually active? A. No, I just lie there. Q. Are you qualified to give a urine sample? A. Yes, I have been since early childhood. Q. The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn't it. You too were shot in the fracas? A. No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval. Q. What is the meaning of sperm being present? A. It indicates intercourse. Q. Male sperm? A. That is the only kind I know. Q. (Showing man picture.) That's you? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you were present when the picture was taken, right? Q. Was that the same nose you broke as a child?
Another Real-Life Courtroom Quote Q: You say you had three men punching at you, kicking you, raping you, and you didn't scream? A: No ma'am. Q: Does that mean you consented? A: No, ma'am. That means I was unconscious.
According to Department of Justice figures, 30,000 inmate lawsuits were filed last year (added to heavy backlogs, more than 28,000 inmate lawsuits in New York alone) against prison officials for "civil rights" violations, the vast majority described by judges and court officials as frivolous. Among the lawsuits were those prisoners complaining that the prison canteen supplied "creamy" peanut butter when a prisoner bought "crunchy", that guards wouldn't refrigerate his ice cream snack so that he could eat it later ($1 million lawsuit), that his toilet seat was too cold, that, as an inmate-paralegal in the prison law library, he should make the same wage that lawyers make, that prisons should offer salad bars ($129 million), that a limit on the number of Kool-Aid refills is "cruel and unusual punishment", and that the scrambled eggs were cooked too hard. In New York, 20 percent of the entire budget of the Attorney General's office is spent on prisoner lawsuits. budget
Amil Dinsio, 58, filed a $15 million lawsuit in May of 1994 against the United Carolina Bank in Charlotte, N.C. from his federal prison in Loretto, Pa., where he is serving four years for robbing the bank in 1992. Sentencing guidelines call for consideration of the amount of money involved in the robbery, and Dinsio accused the bank of fraudulently inflating the amount, resulting in his spending an extra 16 months in prison.
Here are a few lines spoken by people in county court during the last year: The stolen car fairy? - judge to a lawyer who said his client didn't know how a number of stolen cars had ended up on his property. Fortunately for you sir, there's not a section for gross dumbness in the Criminal Code. - judge to a man who reluctantly obeyed police orders to leave an area, yelling "sieg heil" and goose-stepping away. He is a consumer of judicial services. - judge explaining the politically correct way to refer to a criminal. So how old is your twin brother? - judge to a man who had stolen a car with his twin brother, and who had just identified himself as being 18 years old. This isn't "Let's Make a Deal." Do you see any doors up here? - judge to a man who, when asked to choose between a large fine and a short jail term for an impaired driving conviction, wanted to know the range of each to compare them and then decide.
From the L.A. Times: A British court threw out a paternity suit against Boy George. The magistrate found the case a little odd...not to mention the defendant.
In May 1994, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision dismissing Richard Overton's $10,000 1991 lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch for false advertising. In the lawsuit, Overton had said he suffered physical and mental injury and emotional distress because the implicit promises in the company's advertisements, especially of success with women, did not materialize for him when he drank its product. Besides that, Overton contended, he sometimes got sick when he drank.
Ex-student Jason Wilkins sued the University of Idaho in July of 1994 for $940,000 to pay for injuries he suffered when he fell through a third story window while mooning students. Wilkins had climbed onto a three-foot-high heater to reach the window but claimed the university should have posted warnings.
The sentencing of Jose Manuel Miguel Xaviar Gonzales by Judge Roy Bean (1881): Jose Manuel Miguel Xaviar Gonzales, in a few short weeks, it will be spring. The snows of winter will flow away, the ice will vanish, the air will become soft and balmy. In short, Jose Manuel Miguel Xaviar Gonzales, the annual miracle of the years will awaken and come to pass. But you won't be there. The rivulet will run its soaring course to the sea. The timid desert flowers will put forth their tender shoots. The glorious valleys of this imperial domain will blossom as the rose. Still, you will not be here to see. From every treetop, some wild woods songster will carol his mating song. Butterflies will sport in the sunshine. The gentle breeze will tease the tassels of the wild grasses, and all nature, Jose Manuel Miguel Xaviar Gonzales, will be glad. But you will not be here to enjoy it. Because I command the sheriff of the county to lead you away to some remote spot, swing you by the neck from a knotting bough of some sturdy oak, and let you hang until dead. And the, Jose Manuel Miguel Xaviar Gonzales, I further command that such officer retire quickly from your dangling corpse, that vultures may descend from the heavens upon your filthy body until nothing shall remain but bare, bleached bones of a coldblooded, bloodthirsty, throat-cutting, murdering S.O.B."
Evidence produced at the Camden, New Jersey, kidnapping trial of James A. Howard, 39, revealed that he had done substantial library research on the crime, calculating the average prison sentence to be seven years and fixing at $500,000 the amount that would justify his risk in taking the teenage son of an Atlantic City businessman.
eye Weekly January 5 1994
Toronto's arts newspaper .....free every Thursday
Naked Eye Naked Eye
Will You Have A Fried Crotch With That, Ma'am?
by
William Burrill
In sue-happy America, a woman wins a $2.9 million lawsuit against McDonald's for
spilling a steaming hot coffee on her very own crotch. Thus encouraged, another
reportedly rather large plaintiff files suit for emotional harm caused by the
fact that she fell off the toilet while taking a dump at Mc.D's. This could be
the start of a whole new trend:
Here are then suggested reasons to sue McDonald's for gazillions of bucks in the
New Year (and, we at eye, of course, claim 15 per cent of any actual settlements
because, after all, it was our idea).
* * *
1. Sue for permanent case of nausea from looking at pimples on workers who cook
fries.
2. Sue for environmental guilt trip over having to throw away about 18 pieces of
plastic and StyroFoam containers and utensils after eating one Mc-Hap-Hap-Happy-
Wappy Meal.
3. Sue because you are constantly, against your wishes, being asked to have
"fries with that."
4. Sue because they never give you vinegar unless you specifically ask for it.
It should be your RIGHT, goddammit!!!
5. Sue because the cheesy-faced mock-jolliness of staff is obviously a deviously
conspired act to make you feel like a piece of shit because YOU aren't working
for minimum wage.
6. Sue because you have to look at those bad polyester uniforms.
7. Sue because the blithering, blabbering dickweeds you are forced to sit beside
are obviously inbred morons and your mental health might suffer from Second-
Hand Stupidity.
8. Sue because, just because you're a writer who sleeps until four in the
afternoon, you can't get a Big Breakfast after 11 a.m.
9. Sue because the lady in the lime green stretchie pants budded into line ahead
of you, causing you permanent anxiety disorders.
10. Sue because they won't tell you what's in the Secret Sauce on the Big Macs.
How do we know it's not bull jism or something? The public has a right to know.
Issues of eye in archive gopher://interlog.com
Coupla Mailing lists available http://www.interlog.com/eye
eye@interlog.com "Break the Gutenberg Lock..." 416-971-8421
In an October 1994 trial in Corpus Christi, Texas, involving alleged indecent activities by one man toward another in a men's room toilet stall, both the prosecutor and defense attorney brought into the courtroom full-size models of that particular stall in order to demonstrate what did or did not take place.
From a Universal Press Syndicate article: In Detroit, the lawyer for accused murderer Rondelle Woods, 23, delivered part of his closing argument to the jury in rap: 'Went to a party, sweet 16, decided to stay on the scene.' Woods was acquitted. But in Las Vegas in December, Eric Clark, 22, pleaded with the judge, in rap for a light sentence: 'I'm sellin' dope, and I as gettin' paid too blind to see how I was gettin' played.' He got 23 years.
From Late Show with David Letterman; Friday, February 3, 1995
Top Ten Least Convincing Alibis
10. I was out drinking beer and picking up babes with Richard Simmons.
9. Busy trying to get Connie Chung pregnant.
8. Home watching CBS primetime.
7. Playing ping pong with Carol Channing. (videotape of Dave and Carol playing
ping pong)
6. Out buying hams for the audience!
5. Was attending a PBS fundraiser with Newt Gingrich.
4. Spent entire weekend trying to suck myself into a Pepsi bottle.
3. Hypnotized by the sound of Casey Kasem's voice.
2. Alone in my room doing some of that Joycelyn Elders stuff.
1. I'm Batman!
From Late Show with David Letterman; Thursday, March 9, 1995
Top Ten Signs You're Watching Too Much Court TV
10. Recurring nightmare about being trapped in Ito's beard.
9. You've named your poodles "Rosa" and "Lopez".
8. You have overpowering urge to pay people to lie for you.
7. You've let both foreign and domestic policy slide for months. (Bill Clinton
only)
6. When your kid breaks a neighbor's window, you yell, "Get in the Bronco and
drive!"
5. All your erotic fantasies seem to involve bailiffs.
4. You ask MCI to add Johnnie Cochran to your Friends and Family list.
3. Kato Kaelin no longer seems like a freeloading bonehead.
2. You go to the supermaket every day, but all you ever buy is O.J.
1. You're having conjugal visits with yourself.
[Music: "Watching the Detectives" by Elvis Costello]
In December 1994, a jury in Ellsworth, Wis., deliberated for three hours before ruling against Stewart Blair in his lawsuit against his friend Maurice Poulin for injuries incurred when Blair tripped over a snowplow blade. Blair claimed that Poulin caused the fall when he startled Blair by accidentally passing gas in his face. In a postscript to the trial, as the jurors ceremonially exited the courtroom, the foreman accidentally, audibly passed gas as he walked by the judge.
Some trues examples of frivolous lawsuits in Texas: A woman sued a man because he swore at her in traffic. He offered to meet her and apologize, but she refused and filed suit for $5,000. She won $2,500 at the trial court level, but the decision was reversed on appeal because she failed to prove her distress was more than what a reasonable person could endure. A man in Fort Worth filed a lawsuit against Elvis Presley Enterprises, contending that the King faked his death and ran off to live a normal life. He says he knows for certain that Elvis is alive because he has had frequent telephone calls from him. A South Texas man borrowed his neighbor's lawn mower. While mowing his own yard, he fell and pulled the lawn mower over his own foot. He sued his neighbor for $235,000. The jury awarded him nothing. An inmate sued the county jail because he claimed there was an abundance of feathers near his cell and he was allergic to feathers, which caused his asthma to act up. The assistant district attorney commented, "A jailbird should never be complaining about feathers." The inmate then sued the newspaper that reported the comment, claiming the guards made fun of him after they read it.
[All jokes are believed to be in the public domain. If you feel one of these belongs to you, please let us know the details and we will either remove the material or provide a link at your request.]
Unless otherwise noted, all photos and text is Copyright © Richard G Lowe, Jr.