The legal field is like a vast, deep blue sea full of complex problems that require even more elaborate solutions. In short, not everyone was born to be in it. The long answer is, read those volumes upon volumes of law books and you’ll find out.
But there are few things more entertaining than having the legal pros share their experience in the big court game. One Reddit user decided to curb everyone’s curiosity and pose the question “Lawyers of Reddit, what was your 'Hold It!' moment where you knew you would win?” on r/AskReddit.
The question got 74.9k upvotes and 10.6k comments with people from the legal field sharing their incredible trial, defense, and prosecution stories that all led to the moment of cracking the case. So get your seat closer, sit back, and let’s see what lawyers had to say.
This post may include affiliate links.
Not as a lawyer, but a defendant. I was a concierge and named in a lawsuit against the building by an unlicensed realtor who was barred from entry after headbutting me while he was wearing a bike helmet. He was representing himself in court.
He cross examines me over how I had barred him from entry and had some preamble about the vendetta I had against him. Then asked me to repeat what I said when I asked him to leave the building.
I responded, "I'm sorry, was that before or after you hit me?"
He immediately answered, "After I hit you." Took him a minute but his face fell pretty far after he caught on to what he just admitted.
Case dismissed.
Very abbreviated - I was prosecuting a convenience store owner for luring a young girl, who regularly came into the store, back to a part of the store to grope/fondle and kiss her (child enticement). It was the only section of the store without surveillance camera coverage. They were in the back room for about two minutes and seventeen seconds, per the timestamp on the videos. Of the many arguments the defense put on, one was there was no way there was enough time for anything to happen. In my rebuttal on closing, I asked the jury to imagine what could happen in the room in that amount of time, and I asked them to all close their eyes while I timed out 2 minutes and 17 seconds on my watch, in silence. After about 60 seconds two of the jurors started crying. Knew it was going to be guilty right then.
I dread the day I am called for jury duty, especially in such awful cases. These jurors only had to imagine what could happen in that time, this poor girl and millions of other people have had to physically experience something like that.
My friend was defending a guy who was asleep in the backseat of his car while intoxicated and a NYS Trooper arrested him. On the stand, the trooper testified that he visually saw 'the key in the ignition.' My friend gave him like three chances to walk it back. 'Are you sure, trooper, that you actually saw the key in the ignition?' He said yes. And then my buddy dropped the hammer, 'You are aware that my client drives a Toyota Prius?
I am guessing the Toyota Prius doesn’t have an ignition, otherwise I don’t get it.
Bored Panda talked to Reddit user u/prince-surprised-pat, who came up with the question “Lawyers of Reddit, what was your 'HOLD IT!' moment where you knew you would win?” to post on r/AskReddit. u/prince-surprised-pat’s post now has 75k upvotes and 10.7k comments.
“My partner and I are playing a lawyer couple in a table role-playing game called Vampire the Masquerade. Being that I would be playing as a vampire lawyer, I needed to know what actual lawyers did, namely the really interesting part.”
The Redditor said that “I wanted to hear real-life stories of when real lawyers looked at their desk and just went 'oh my god' and suddenly had all the pieces of evidence they needed to disprove their opponent.”
My brother went to court to gain some custody rights of his daughter. Ex-wife says he shouldn't be allowed to be alone with the daughter cuz he looks at porn. The judge, who happened to be a woman, laughed and said, "honey, if every man who looked at porn wasn't allowed to see their children then there would be no child with a daddy in this world".
Not a lawyer, but I'm currently in a custody battle. Mother is saying I can't be trusted because I've been refusing to take our child to the therapist. The therapist testified I couldn't bring our child in because therapy must have both parents' consent, and mother has retracted consent.
The thing I always wonder about custody/access battles is, wouldn't you want the best for your own child? Some parents seem not to. Not just talking about therapy or whatever, you'd think they would want their kid to have contact with the non custodial parent too to smooth over the loss they'll feel. But maybe it's just me..
I'm not a lawyer, but I took my old landlord to court when I was in college. They stole my security deposit over bulls**t: They claimed I "trashed" the place, not knowing that I took pictures and video when I moved in and out. Their "evidence" was a VHS quality recording of going through a perfectly clean apartment in better condition than it was when I moved in, but then they opened up the top of the stove and found a single piece of elbow macaroni under it, holding it up triumphantly. That was the crux of their "defense", the judge was not amused and I got all my money back plus my lawyer fees and the filing fee. She then fought against her own lawyer to avoid paying him. As**ole. Edit: Any time you move into a place, take pictures, take video, make notes about any damage. When you move out, do the same thing along with noting any repairs you made. Pretty hard to argue against solid evidence. Protect yourself.
They were playing another goofy Nintendo game where you play a lawyer and put the evidence together. “To win the case, you shout 'hold it!' and the music would kick up and you wow the jury and the judge,” u/prince-surprised-pat said.
In reality, the Redditor knew nothing about the legal field and wanted to find out. Their favorite response was the BWW story. “A man was arrested for DUI. The police officer swore under oath that he was not in the bar (Buffalo Wild Wings, btw) and that he had pulled the man over when he was driving. But the lawyer had gone to the BWW and got the interior and exterior CCTV tapes! And I could just imagine (though I imagine it’s poor court etiquette) the lawyer just saying 'HOLD IT!'”
Man I’m always too late but I’ve got a good one. When I was interning at the criminal court for a judge I observed a pre-trial hearing for a murder case. The defendant allegedly murdered his grandmother because she wouldn’t give him money, then stuffed her in a closet and called a hooker for sex in the bed right next to the closet. Horrifying stuff.
During the hearing the defendant’s lawyer, prosecutor, and judge went through some typical procedures, then the judge asked the defendant if he had anything to add. The defendant smugly said yes, actually, I don’t think I’m mentally fit to stand trial according to article x under the criminal procedure.
The judge let him finish, looked him dead in the eye, and said: “The fact that you just told me this shows you’re perfectly fit to stand trial.”
Not a lawyer but got robbed at gun point in my home. Long story short, he would have gone to prison anyway but the kicker is that the shoes he wore to court were the same shoes he stole from my house. Judge asked if I wanted them back. I said yes. Judge made him take them off in court and walk back in socks. Donated the shoes, it was more about the principle.
Obligatory, not mine but my Moms story. She was fighting for custody on behalf of the father, trying to prove that the kids were living in subpar conditions with their drug addict mother in spite of the ample child support provided. It was a tough case because courts are so hesitant to pull kids away from their moms. Then the mom burst out that she had been feeding the kids cat food as proof that she wouldn’t let them starve. Needless to say, the judge didn’t take that as a good reason for the kids to stay with their Mom.
I reckon there should be some sort of study done to have cases like this but the parents were anonymous so the judge doesn’t know which one is the mother and which one is the father. And do the whole process that way using live feed with black out screens and voice changers etc to keep the anonymity. Maybe then the judge will base their findings only on what is said, done etc and not basing it on the archaic ideals that kids should stay with their mothers. Just because you are a mother, doesn’t mean you are the most suitable in having most or full custody.
I was an attorney for an insurance company defending a lawsuit where the plaintiffs were two girls who claimed they were irreparably harmed and their lives would never be the same because severe back injuries kept them from being active. They forgot to set their Instagram accounts to private and the accounts were full of pictures of them riding jet skis, dancing, and pictures of them at the gym. The underage drinking pictures were just icing on the cake.
At a termination of parental rights proceeding:
State: Ma’am, when was the last time you used illegal substances?
Witness/bio mother: I used meth this morning before I came to court
She is no longer a legal parent to that child.
I had a ton of these when I used to do Family Law. Off the top of my head: my client's husband was alleging she had been high and nude in public. As I'm crossing him I get him to admit that she was in fact changing out of her bathing suit at the beach and covered by a towel at all times. He says: "well, she was naked...under the towel," I come back with: "just like you're naked under your clothes right now?" Even the judge chuckled.
Yes, but was she *high*? There are places where nudity or partial nudity at a beach isn't a big deal.
A thief robbed someone's houses in the winter in Colorado, and all the police had to do was follow the footsteps back to his house where he was hanging out with the stolen items and a small amount of drugs and a sh**ty handgun. Idiot.
Parent termination case I was prosecuting. Dad went on how he has changed his life around and worked the AA program. Asked him what step he was on, and he proudly proclaimed 3. Asked him what step three is, he had no idea. Then asked him step two was. Again, no idea.
Parental rights terminated.
Not exactly a “knew you would win” moment, but I got a hidden shout out from a federal judge in a ruling that I consider to be one of the high points of my career. Here’s what happened. Before a hearing for an emergency injunction against USDA, I was watching the hearing before mine (a trademark infringement case). At the end of that hearing, the judge accidentally used a pun, and could not stop laughing. She was literally crying. I decided at that moment I was going to intentionally use a pun in my hearing. I did—I accused USDA of engaging in a “shell game” by illegally diverting some federal funds to an egg industry trade group. The judge called me on it, but laughed heartily. My client won (the judge threatened to put the Secretary of Agriculture in jail). A major newspaper reporting on the case said the judge “winced” at my puns but agreed with my arguments. False! When the written ruling was issued, the last sentence said that an injunction was issued against USDA’s use of the funds for “any plans they may be hatching”. Undeniable shout out.
I knew the cops beat up my client and framed him. They described a knife in his possession that “caused them to fear for their safety.” Oddly, they never seized it. We won the criminal case and filed a civil rights case. While deposing one, he described the knife in detail. No more than three minutes later, he slipped up and claimed his partner told him my guy had a knife, but he never saw it himself.
I told him, “that’s not what you just said,” and saw him panic. His lawyer panicked too and asked to see me outside. When we got in the hallway, I withdrew my settlement demand, and the case settled for a substantially larger amount within 45 minutes.
Good. While not all cops are horrible people, it's the job of internal audits and courts to weed out the bad ones that suck at their job. Turning a blind eye and hiding behind a police union thinking all cops are great and none of them are ever wrong is beyond ignorance. Every job has it's shitty workers, even law enforcement.
We had some huge issues with a landlord (trying to enter without letting us know beforehand, not answering to fix issues, very aggressive when talking with us) when he decided to sell the place.
He didn't check with us about the visits and just showed up randomly with potential buyers. We told him to get lost, he eventually left but called us the same evening to threaten us. We sent emails to remind him of our rights as tenants and he answered by threatening us some more, IN AN EMAIL.
We eventually end up in small issues court (not from the US, don't know the name) and he fabricates a story about how we are terrible tenants and we try to discourage buyers.
We just showed the judge the emails as well as the open complaint to the police we filled a few days earlier, the judge couldn't believe it and gave him a formal warning, gave us 3 free months of rent.
In the end the guy just used a real estate company to sell the place, all went smoothly and we still live there with lovely landlords that aren't completely bonkers
Small claims court is the American term I think you were looking for.
My client was riding his motorcycle on a relatively calm street when this guy exited his garage, without looking, and run over him. In deposition, the guy brought a witness that was with him on the passenger seat. The whole time, the witness maintained that my client was driving too fast and that there was no time to brake the car. I asked him the same question a few times in different ways, making him tell the story again. In the fourth telling, he, already a bit frustrated, let it slip: “- Look, I’ve already told you. We were exiting the garage and, as soon as I lifted up from getting my cellphone on the car’s carpet-” “- Wait. So you didn’t even see the crash?” There was no coming back from that.
yeah- how could you have seen the crash if you were too busy looking at your phone??
My mom hit a guy on a bike with her car in a parking lot. She claimed he hit her (she also wanted to counter sue the cyclist for scaring her) in her deposition she started every sentence with “when I hit him...”
Dude. Sound like your mom sucks. Why did she want to claim the cyclist hit her if that wasn't true?
I trapped a defendant pretty badly one time. He testified in a deposition that he had a green arrow for his left turn, and that my client ran the red. Unfortunately for him, the additional turn lane arrow was installed two months after the wreck.
Not a lawyer, but we had no evidence that the woman who slammed into my stopped car going 85mph was drunk...until she indignantly admitted it on tape in her deposition.
She busted into my deposition and demanded she go first because I was a “lying bitch”. She excitedly told my lawyer that the police report was wrong because it said she was coming from the movie theatre when she was actually coming from her friends bar.
“Did you have anything to drink at your friends bar?” “Of course.” “How many drinks” “I dunno, they just keep my glass full.” “Did you take any medicine that day?” “Methodone and low blood pressure medicine.” “I see.”
The cops had refused to breathalyzer her at the scene because her husband was a firefighter that they knew personally. They told her to go home, sober up, and go to the hospital later. I heard the whole thing but had no proof until she handed it to me. They settled same day.
When I compared the scanned copy of the deed provided by the other side's lawyers to the original my client eventually got around to providing.
The scanned copy provided by the other side had a witness signature. The original did not.
I was reviewing the transcript of an interview with a child. The child made incriminating statements against my client. At one point, when discussing the allegations, the child used an odd word, but I didn't think much of it.
A few days later, I was watching a video of the child interacting with their grandmother (who hates my client) from about a week before that interview. The grandmother used the exact same odd word in the exact context the child later used it. At that moment, it became clear that child had been coached. It was the first real "ah ha!" moment of my career.
They said, 'This document doesn't state our company's name, so we are not involved in the settlement.' I said, 'Line 4 specifically lists the company as the defendant, and then the company is referenced to in lines 13, 27, and 33.' I swear, if you read the documents, you're a better lawyer than 90% of the ones out there.
All they had in their defence was "The document doesn't state our company's name, so we are not involved in the settlement"? Wow.
I’m a trial lawyer. I have a ton of these.
My favorite was probably a DUI where the cop was in a BWW with my client watching a fight. Like, the cop was standing at the bar in full uniform, then when my client walked by him to leave, followed him out.
Client was only actually going to his car to grab his phone charger because he was going home with the bartender (like, he hadn’t even closed his tab yet). Cop arrested him and charged him with DUI for opening his car door, then fabricated this story for his report about how client got in car, turned it on, and began to pull out of the space to leave the parking lot. He also denied being inside the BWW - on the stand, under oath, to my face.
Surprise! I talked to the bartender at BWW and got the security tape. It very clearly (like surprisingly good quality, don’t try to steal from a BWW btw) showed cop standing at the bar, watching my client walk out the front door, then follow him 30 seconds later. Parking lot cam also showed client barely touched the door handle before cop stopped him.
Not my case but my husband handled a paternity case pro se. His ex was trying to take basically full custody of their son and only give him visitation two days a month. Her reasoning was that he wasn’t involved, didn’t go to doctor appointments, didn’t take the kid to school, etc. My husband asked her, “When was the last time you told me about his doctor appointment?” She thought for a second and said “Never.” He asked “Would you have let me take him to school if I had asked?” Again she thought for a second and said “No.” Needless to say they got 50/50 time sharing with joint custody.
Not a lawyer but I played one in small claims court. My lease had an exit clause that said if I fronted two months’ rent, they would work to lease my place and return anything unused. I checked with the office ahead of time, they ensured me there was a waiting list, so I gave them the two months and moved. They never returned a dime. I talked to the new tenant and confirmed they moved in a week later.
In court, the judge was commenting on how he didn’t see anything explicitly saying they would return any unused rent, even though that intent was stated to me a few times. Dumbo from the leasing office piped in with “your honor, in almost every case we can return some money, but in this case we didn’t have a tenant in the two months after he left.”
So she gave the case back to me and I presented the affidavit from the new tenant confirming the move in date. Judge awarded me double what they owed. Turns out leasing office dumbos 1 and 2 thought they could lie to me and “return” my excess rent money to themselves.
At a restraining order trial it was essentially my client's word versus his, regarding a sexual assault. He did a good job dressing up and acting very appropriate during most of his testimony. But then he was asked a series of open-ended questions and he said something to the effect that, "She kept coming up on me with that f**king pussy" (allegedly during a lecture) and as soon as he said it a look came on his face and the judge's face and everyone knew the ruse of respectable young gentleman had failed. I won.
Some guy was accused of something — I cannot remember what — but the judge let him free because there wasn’t enough evidence he had done it. Guy said, 'Thank you, judge, I’ll never do it again.'
Not a lawyer but I heard this from an acquaintance who deals with law.
The young adult defendant was accused of drug possession. The lawyers managed to make the case that the drugs didn't belong to the defendant. The judge ruled in there favour. The defendant then said. "Great can I have my drugs back?". While the judge was in the room.
Custody case. We all knew Mom had drug issues but I was actually asking about another subject at the time, and I brought out a letter she had at some point written to the judge across town begging for her license back, claiming she had gotten sober and cleaned up her life now. This letter was in the public record on the other case.
As a complete surprise to me, she FREAKS OUT, asking me where I got this letter, claims someone must have broken into her house and stolen her diary, and says, "YOU CAN'T HOLD THAT AGAINST ME, I WAS HIGH WHEN I WROTE THAT!"
So yes, if that wasn't clear, while she's CURRENTLY on the stand swearing to one judge that she's clean and sober, she admits that she recently lied to another judge about being clean sober in an official court document. And apparently was so high she doesnt even remember submitting the letter to the court and accuses me of stealing it from her diary.
Not a lawyer, but was working as a paralegal for a law firm. We were defending a claim which had run into tens of thousands of pounds against our client (a holiday home), by a woman who had tripped over a speed bump while walking back to her caravan, and damaged her knee. The fall was genuine. The question was whose fault this was. She claimed it was the holiday home's fault because she hadn't seen the speed bump due to low lighting, poor marking etc. The claim had (outrageously) gone to months, and made it to court.
Going through the various questions to her, when our barrister asked how she knew the speed bump was poorly marked (or something similar). Her response "Well, I remember thinking how it wasn't well marked when I was walking up to it". Needless to say it was a short day in court after that point.
I had a client who was accused of taking a young woman's car and then crashing it/fleeing the scene. The girl testified at trial that she had given him the keys that night because she was drunk and "would never, ever drink and drive". Apparently she was not aware that I had requested and obtained a copy of her driving record which showed she received a DUI a month after the incident. I still remember the look on her face when I handed her driving record to her and said "Except for that one time you got caught a month later, right?" The look on the judge's face was equally memorable.
Do. Not. Drink. And. Drive. Far too many people are dead or maimed because of drunk a-holes taking the car.
My dad was a lawyer and he told me about a case where a guy was on trial. He was there for statutory rape, and he kept using that phrase when questioning the guy.
He said "oh is that how its pronounced? I thought it was snatchatory, cause I snached all them girls up"
Don't know if that's a HOLD IT moment, but it always stuck out in my mind
Attorney here.
Here's a short one that happened two or three weeks ago: In a response to a motion to dismiss on some large litigation for a corporation dumping toxic chemicals, the attorney (probably intern) who wrote the response brief accidently attached the wrong document as evidence.
Instead of something or another that would vaguely work as a defense to the motion, they irrevocably proved our side of the case true with some ownership documents for property in a trust.
It gets better though, because we had no idea these papers existed and if their attorneys/ the client wanted to hide it during discovery, it was entirely possible we would have never found out about this stuff.
"My client has been keeping her son away from the father because the father has a new child. She is concerned that her son will act violently towards the new child and she could be held liable."
Judge: "That's not even a defense!"
I hate, hate, hate when parents use their child as pawns on their petty little games and revenge against each other. Keep your personal issues you have with each other to yourself, your therapist or friend. Do NOT involve the child.
This lying lifter said he couldn’t work and had back injuries after a minor car accident. I found a video of plaintiff squatting 300 pounds the month before his deposition.
So I filed the lawsuit in January. We exchanged "discovery" (each side sends questionnaires and gets carefully worded answers) over the next few months, and I file a motion for summary judgment, meaning I'm asking the court to let me win the case without a jury because the case is so obvious.
Right before I file this motion, I figure let's review the discovery materials and see if there's anything I missed. And what do you know, the other side made a massive mistake on literally just the fourth out of 100+ questions that I asked. It's a dog bite case, and every single time I asked about the bite, the response says something along the lines of "we admit to this and that, but we deny that our dog was involved in any dog attack."
Well, Question 4 asks whether they admit that their dog was not leashed on the day when it bit my client, and they simply answer, "Admit." Meaning, they admit their dog was not leashed, AND they admit that their dog was the one that bit my client. That was the ONE thing that was genuinely in dispute.
They tried to argue at the hearing that it was a mistake and they only meant to admit to the lack of a leash, but the judge held them to their word (most likely because the other evidence made it clear it could only have been their dog anyway).
Not a lawyer but I thought the story was funny. My mom got pulled over in my dads truck. They wrote the ticket in my dads name. Dad was at work an hour and a half away from where it occurred. Judge threw it out pretty quick.
Watched my lawyer have this moment last time we were in court. Short version: my ex abused my kid, I withheld visitation and hired a lawyer. I offered supervised visitation with a plan to integrate regular visitation once he completed anger management and parenting classes as well as had 6 months clean of all substances.
When he was on the stand he mentioned that he had been taking prescription meds for 10 years. (To illustrate that he’s been on meds for a decade and never had a problem being a “good” dad.) Lawyer asked what meds, and he listed off a bunch; meds like methadone, klonopin, Vicodin, OxyContin etc. She asked why he began taking those particular medications. He replied “well I messed up my back last year riding my quad” She asked him to repeat himself. He said it again. The look on her face was amazing. She said “So, you’ve been taking large amounts of meds for 10 years?” He said yes. She said “10 years of major medications due to an injury that happened two years ago?”
Tl:dr- judge agreed with my request for supervised visits pending his completion of all the necessary steps. Ex never completed any steps and kiddo hasn’t had to see him in 4 years.
Does the kid *want* to see the parent? SOmetimes, seeing the parent a few times shows everyone a lot of things they didn't like to see before ---- or know before. Like, "Wow, I'm a jerk, too" or "Wow, he/she isn't THAT bad" or "Holy crap, he/she is insane!"...
Went to court over a speeding ticket. It was 1am and I was on the highway going 69 in a 65. I camse to the top of a hill and saw a construction zone ahead which was 55. I started to slow down for it and a cop pulled me over and said I was going 75 in a 55 construction zone and handed me a several hundred dollar ticket.. But the key thing was he said he clocked me slowing down going into the construction zone. So the judge was informed of this fact and promptly dismissed the ticket and all I had to pay was court fees. Was a nice win.
I had that happen to me in Arkansas! The police officer clocked me just before the sign that dropped the speed limit by 10 mph. The the officer was extremely sarcastic and snotty to me when I was obviously upset by the ticket. The traffic court judge turned bright red with anger when I told him what happened, threw out the ticket, and apologized to me for the officer's behavior. Wow!
I worked on a case involving defective processors. In discovery we got emails from the defendant’s engineers that had worked on the processors. They were in an Asian country but the emails were in English because they were going to US executives. One of the more senior engineers basically laid out the exact defect we were suing over, explaining what the problem was and why it was their fault, and finishing with “this is big problem, we ship CRAP to customer!”
Needless to say we hit them over the head with that in mediation, and they settled shortly after.
OK, another custody trial:
It’s worthy to note that the opposition was pro se (representing herself), otherwise this never would have made it to trial.
Judge: How long do you need to present your case, EnderKCMO”
Me: I’ll need about 15 minutes, your honor. Then you’re going to rule for my client.
Judge (laughing): You’re pretty sure of yourself there counselor.
Me: I have pictures of the Respondent doing drugs in a crackhouse, Judge.
Judge: Call your first witness.
Me: I call the Respondent (who promptly started to ugly cry).
Good buddy of mine used to have a Toyota Supra with a Ferrari badge on it just for laughs. He would always take parking tickets to court because they'd be written out for a black Ferrari, and he'd just present his registration as being a Toyota!
Maybe that good buddy should simply learn to follow basic parking rules.
Sued a former employer for $3500 in unpaid wages. It was a slam dunk (had a letter stating what my salary would be vs. paystubs that were less) IMO so I didn't bother getting a lawyer to save on fees. Turns out the company thought they could.try the same strategy. I show up to court and the manager of the local office is there with an affidavit from the CEO saying he's allowed to represent the company in court...the judge asks him "are you an attorney?" ..."no, just an employee"
A company can't have pro se representation. Judge immediately ruled in my favor. Felt fucking fantastic.
I can't believe I'm about to use the Not a lawyer BUT... lone but here goes, lol
Tried to sell my home myself and the buyers wanted a term period for land contract before getting their own mortgage. I agreed to one year, had a simple contract drawn up and after we both signed it everything seemed fine. Within thirty days the present me with their own legally drawn up land contract that was pages long to "protect their investment". About page three it very clearly stated that "if for any reason the home burns down, purchaser will receive all insurance proceeds". First, I still had a mortgage and the proceeds would legally go to pay that off. Second, that's a pretty targeted thing to say. Not lawyers terms of the house being destroyed, and it's surrounded by woods and waterways, just if it burnt down. Page four stated that this would remain a land contract until my mortgage was paid in full, so they'd never buy outright. I returned it to them with a letter stating those two things were never happening and I wasn't signing.
They stopped paying so I began eviction. Six months later the lawyer I hired was an idiot and I'm sitting down with their lawyer myself. He brings out the contract they'd tried giving me and began talking about their iron clad case due to the agreement. I asked him to show me my signature.... the look on his face when he realized it wasn't there. After we talked it turned out he knew them and wrote the contract without the burn the house down stipulation (seems they added it) and under the belief it was a long term land contract.
Not only did I "win" I'm pretty sure they lost a lawyer friend
Not lawyer, but represented myself in court.
Got a parking ticket and contested it due to misleading signs. Took a bunch of pictures and brought it to court. Judge agreed, and dismissed the case.
Hold Up!... What about the towing fees I asked, as he was about to read the next case.
Got those back too.
I represented an elderly indian couple, who didn't speak English very well and owned a rental property. They had a tenant at the time who had not paid rent in over six months. They had tried to evict her on their own, but when they got to court, the tenant produced some hand-written notes which they had given her the year prior thanking her for payment (but they failed to date the notes.) Of course, the tenant added recent dates herself. The tenant also produced a partial certified check receipt, but most of it was illegible. Anyway, because of their poor english, they had difficulty understand the questions and giving intelligent answers, so they lost the initial case. They hired me to help address all of the various lies that the tenant was putting forth.
Anyway, we refiled. I had my clients pull the banking records, so we could show the date that the certified check was actually deposited into their account.
The plan was simple, let the tenant make the same arguments and then present the banking statements showing the deposit date. My clients also found a photo copy of one of their notes, but it was undated (unlike the copy the tenant presented the last time).
Well, when the judge finally understood that the things the tenant had presented occured the year before, his cheeks turned bright red and he asked the tenant "what year did you make this payment?" The tenant started saying something like she couldn't be exactly sure when... and the Judge cut her off again in a very loud voice "what year?!"
Needless to say the clients got their eviction granted.
I'm sad that this person was trying to take advantage of people that don't speak the language very well and aren't savvy enough to protect themselves. It is so unfair. People say that immigrants are a drain on the system, and yet when they try to earn an honest living, they get taken advantage of. Infuriating.
Not a lawyer but a client.
In my divorce trial, my ex wife has spend about two hours explaining to the court what a POS I was and all the horrible things I had done to her and my children and that I was unfit to be a parent. Two solid hours... Lie upon lie.
Just six months earlier? My wife had snuck into my house -- she's the one who moved out -- and went on my computer to type me a love letter! "Oh, you're so wonderful! You're such an amazing father, great provider, great husband! You've done so much for the community. Please don't leave me!!! " That's the gist of it.
Well, she didn't print it or sign, it was just a file on my computer left on the screen for me to find.
So our challenge -- after all her testimony to the contrary --- get her to admit she wrote this letter.
I told my attorney -- ask her! She won't be able to lie if she's sworn in! Plus she's going to feel incredibly guilty about all these lies.
So...he handed her a printout.
He had one too.
He started reading it... He asked her...continue the reading.
She started to cry...
He asked her...do you remember writing this letter?
Her face was shriveling... She looked at her attorney and said "I'm sorry Sandy" (her attorney's first name)...then she looked at the courtroom and said "yes, I wrote this..."
There was silence for a few moments...
Then the judge said "attorneys -- in my chambers! Now!"
My attorney told me later:
"The judge understood that when your wife said 'I'm sorry Sandy' that meant that her attorney was aware this letter MIGHT be brought up and that she had instructed her client to lie."
The judge was F U R I O U S!!!
Back in the courtroom my attorney went down the list lie by lie. Did he really do this? Did he really do that? When you say he was doing this, wasn't it really that? Etc.
Then he had her read the entire letter again.
After that, my divorce went from me being 1/2 inch away from losing all custody and relegated to supervised visits to -- I got full custody.
Made for TV or what?
Not a lawyer but I got sued by my landlord for damages to a home.
I showed up with my lawyer. She showed up with her manager and some floorboards that were warped from water.
My lawyer asked her when I moved out. She said I was off the lease 2 months before it ended leaving only my roommates there. When the water damages got brought up, we showed her pictures of a text conversation of us reporting a leak from the back door. She sent a guy who looked at it and told us he needed a sill and never came back. When she questioned me why we didn't keep up with her I told her "I go to school and work 45 hours a week. I had already reported it and just cleaned it up when I could."
Funny part is they redid the floors with new flooring, more expensive and they also added gutters to the house.
My lawyer asked her why she added gutters to the house????
Probably because that was what was needed to stop the fucking rain from ultimately piling up behind the back door...
Yeah I offered to settle the 3600 suit for $600 bucks. She said no. Judge dismissed the case and she cried lol.
Hmm. In the States, evidence of remedial actions taken after the fact are usually not admissible in court.
I was trying a foreclosure case in front of a jury in a very progressive county that hates bank attorneys. I was the bank attorney. Defendant had been evasive and contradictory in depositions when questioned about her basis for not paying her mortgage for several years. Her answers ranged from “I didn’t know how” to “I paid it off” but couldn’t show the receipts, so to speak. At trial, I struggled with her on the stand and I was nervous the jury would just feel sorry for her and find against me out of the kindness of their hearts for this clearly unstable person. I finally got to the part where I asked her about the payments, not really sure what she would say. This time she said the mortgage was paid off. I asked who paid them. She said, loudly and proudly, “my man!” I asked who that was, and she said, “My attorney said not to say it, because it makes me sound crazy, but BARACK OBAMA PAID MY MORTGAGE!” I almost peed my skirt suit.
It wasn’t at trial, but during a deposition on a case where two former employees decided to start their own company in a VERY niche market, but decided to make their plans on company laptops they unsuccessfully tried to brick. One of the defendants was the one being deposed. She said she “answered to a higher power than the company.” When pressed on what that meant, she said “herself.” That got reused prominently at trial.
Edit: Because multiple people have asked and finding a clarification in the replies might be annoying, there isn’t anything illegal about wanting to leave one company and start your own. The problem was how they did it, which was trying to poach existing clients while still employed, which breached their fiduciary duty, particularly of loyalty. I believe we also went after them for intentional interference with contract, as they weren’t trying to solicit new clients for their business, but rather trying to get existing ones to break their contracts with our client. Using the company laptop to try to do it just made it way easier to catch them when the company IT guy found all the emails.
And for privacy reasons, I won’t say what industry it was, but to the person who asked, no, it was not a high-end escort service. I’ve never had to deal with one of those. I did have to ask a witness once about a sugar daddy website once, though. So that was fun.
Why are there edits replying to the comments when as of now, I'm the only commentator?
My client was accused of brutally murdering a dog. Cop testified that there was no testing of the blood, no body ever found, and admitted it could have, in fact, run away. The eye witness said she could see the killing down the hallway from the dining room. Cop testified there was no hallway and the dining room was on a different level of the house than the killing supposedly took place. Then the person who was leading the lynch mob against my client around town for the last year testified that she had been in the apartment between the two visits by the cop to evaluate the scene. No body, a compromised crime scene, witness who couldn't see anything, and admission that there was no proof the dog was dead. Closing argument lasted 3 seconds: "Your honour, I'm asking for an acquittal".
When I practiced insurance defense. Was handed a file to take over of a slip and fall. Guy tripped on a hose, tore his acl. The partner had taken the guys depo already so I read the transcript.
I'm a Michigan football fan, watched every game for 20 years. This guy testified he was the starting safety for a certain rival for certain years. Also that he graduated with a double major that doesn't exist at that school.
I immediately knew this was false. Partner didn't understand. Dug deeper, lied about so much stuff unrelated to the fall for no reason. Eventually found high school records from football injuries of head trauma, knee injuries, oh and a slip and fall injury a few months after ours. He also testified he rehabbed an ACL surgery after 1 month.
Motion for fraud on the Court filed, immediately settled.
The plaintiff testified to being able to walk 2+ miles to and from their chiropractic appointments each time
I was sued for a car crash. While the plaintiff was on the stand, she began recounting the event and everyone realized it was a completely different crash. Different cars involved, different time of day, everything. Upon cross-examination, she revealed that she had FOUR lawsuits running concurrently and couldn’t keep them all straight. The jury foreman looked at me and rolled his eyes!
Her eventual payout (paid by my insurance co) was a pittance, less than the initial settlement offer before the whole thing went to trial. Her lawyer was shaking with anger when court adjourned. He was one of those “we don’t get paid unless we get money for you” guys, so he lost a lot of money on that one.
If you have several lawsuits running concurrently about traffic accidents, you are a scammer.
A friend was in court trying to get custody of his young daughters. His ex-wife's new husband claimed, under oath, that my friend had shared a book of porn with his daughters. The new husband gave the name of the book, but said he couldn't find it, so it wasn't available as evidence.
Later on, during a recess, the new husband opened his briefcase, and there was the book for all to see. Not only had the new husband lied about not being able to find the book, but it was a book for explaining to children how babies are made. Not porn.
Apparently their lawyer tried to convince the husband retract their testimony, but the husband refused. Lawyer's have an ethical obligation to inform the court if their clients give false testimony. Not only did the lawyer inform the court that her client committed perjury, she later quietly apologized to my friend.
My friend won custody of his daughters.
Not a lawyer. Was contesting a speeding ticket. In front of the judge, it went like this:
Judge - "Mr Crookeye, you were given a ticket for doing 40 in a 30 area that's also a school zone on Turnpike road. How do you plead?"
Me - "Your honor, there is no school zone on turnpike road"
The judge looks at the paper again, then looks at the bailiff "there isn't a school zone there is there?"
Bailiff - "No judge, not to my recollection"
Judge - "Hmm... Well I guess you're free to go Mr Crookeye, have a nice night"
In case you didn't know, if the officer writes up the ticket incorrectly, it has to be thrown out entirely. Also, I don't think the officer was trying to get me on extra charges on purpose. There was one of those signs at the top of a hill that warns of a bustop over the crest of the hill. Think he just got confused.
This is not true. The violation can be upheld if the error on the court document is not egregious or malicious. For instance, if the officer writes a violation with the wrong middle initial, that is not sufficient for throwing out the violation, the same thing if the officer transposes and address number provided that information is not material to the violation - if the officer's report says that the drunk and disorderly incident happened in front of 103 Main Street and it happened in front of 130, that is not a sufficient reason to having the charge thrown out. This BS about how a ticket can be thrown out if it is not written perfectly, it wrong and sometimes harmful.
In family court representing the mom and the deadbeat dad’s trying to exert control over the family he’d not had much to do with before and tried to say they HAD to have joint custody, otherwise he wouldn’t be able to have a say in school choice and he’s such a devout Catholic he wants the kids to change schools to the Catholic school near his house.
I knew I had it when the judge said “when was the last time you went to church?” and dude couldn’t answer. I really knew I had it when Her Honour yelled at him: “get off your cross”.
Opposite land: I knew I was had in a different case when in response to my arguing that my client had $0 income and that’s what child support should be based upon, the opposing counsel sent me a link to my client’s very active escort web page. I saw sides of my client I never wanted to see. Including the inside. You couldn’t see her face, but the phone number in the ad was also the contact number she put on her court papers. We settled out of court shortly after.
Not that humor belongs in a custody case, but this is an EXCELLENT case for having a 'work phone' and a 'personal phone'
It was day two of a child custody modification trial. The opposition and her attorney were and are batshit crazy. Their allegations were so weak that I told my guy, “F**k it. Let’s go for custody ourselves.” I’m cross examining mom about her proposed custody plan for dad in some detail and I ask her, “Would you accept this for yourself?”
She snaps back, “Absolutely not!”
I ask, “Why not?”
“Because I’m a MOTHER.” To his credit, my guy kept a straight face the entire trial and never once got pissy. Her Petition was denied outright. Our was accepted by the Court.
If the mom or her lawyer hadn’t been such pains to deal with, my guy probably would have agreed to some small reductions in his custody just to keep the peace. Instead, the Judge gave us nearly everything we asked for.
My attorney had this moment in my initial consultation with him for my BWI charge (yes, boating). The sheriff’s department conducted the field sobriety tests on the deck or their small vessel in a heavily traveled waterway rather than taking me to dry land. Charges for thrown immediately out after my attorney brought this to the attention of the DA.
I represented a man in a maximum security prison, charged with 13 felonies (3 of which were life offenses) - basically pinned as “the guy” responsible for smuggling-in contraband (cell phones, and drugs - which led to overdose deaths). Prosecutor was cocky and didn’t even want to hear anything I had to say. That cockiness lasted strong up until he learned prison staff was responsible, and only my client and I knew who it was. Prison was shut down couple weeks later.
I call BS. You can't just shut down a prison in a couple of weeks. To many generality's, this is made up.
My opponents lawyers made some pretty serious fraud allegations. Like treasonous level s**t. When the judge asked their counsel if they had any evidence, they said no!
I knew then it was in the bag.
I had a client charged with battery. The alleged victim didn’t really support the prosecution’s case and in any event was reluctant to testify. They still had another witness though, and she said that my client was hitting the alleged victim, so it wasn’t looking great. The prosecutor and I were talking before court started, hanging out by the courtroom doors, when the witness walked in. She looked right at my client (who was sitting not five feet from me), then scanned the room and said “where is [client name]?” The prosecutor and I looked at each other for a minute, and then he said he needed to check on something. When I saw him a few minutes later, he told me he was dismissing the case
I was once representing an intellectual property owner as a plaintiff in an IP lawsuit against a large company alleging they stole his IP. I managed to depose their CEO over their attorneys' numerous objections and motions for a protective order.
I found some paperwork submitted to the US Patent and Trademark Office that would technically be fraud if submitted incorrectly, and that he as the CEO has signed personally. At the time he signed it, he was literally on parole for a previous white collar crime. I grilled him in the deposition on how the facts that he signed were technically not accurate, and since he was on parole when he fraudulently signed this document, he was committing a federal crime which would put him back in prison for violating his parole. He was extraordinarily uncomfortable, paused the deposition, and we settled on my client's terms right that very day with his attorney hemming and hawing and begging him to stop and not settle.
The depo transcript never made the light of day.
Oh my Intellectual Property lawsuit. My question is why do people think that it is OK to steal the mental work of another. They would be upsentif someone stole a physical item from another....
The best one I ever heard of happened right here in Portland and led to an express change in the black letter Trial Court Rules (or Supplemental Local Rules - I can't recall). The prosecution witness on the stand was asked if she recognized the man who did the deed in the courtroom. She pointed to the ringer sitting at the defense table next to the defense lawyer. "You're positive?" "Yes." "Absolutely certain?" "Yes."
Whereupon the lawyer asked the defendant to stand up, and this guy in the back of the courtroom rises to his feet. The prosecutor nearly swallowed his tongue objecting and IIRC the judge declared a mistrial. The defense attorney got reamed by the judge for violating the rule that says only lawyers, parties and witnesses can be inside the rail. I think there was also a bar complaint for "misleading the court" that floundered because the lawyer didn't intend to deceive the court at all.
In a gun possession trial. The defendant, his mom, his sister and his friend all said the gun was in a bag that belonged to the defendant’s dead father. The father had died three years before the arrest.
I looked at the bag and noticed it had a date on it after the dad’s death, it was an under armor bag. We contacted under armor, they sent a rep to us. When it was our turn to rebut UA rep testifies, we didn’t start making that bag until two months before the arrest.
Defendant already testified everything else in the car was his aside from the bag and gun.
The other was shooting case and it was not my ah ha moment but the defendant’s. Reading potential witness list before jury selection and come to a name. Defense attorney, “Who is that?” My response, the guy in the elevator that took off right after your client shot himself. We had grainy video of yhep
She turns to her client. Then to the Judge, “does the court’s offer still stand? Defendant wants to take the courts offer.”
I also had a guy plead guilty when we disclosed his phone calls from jail begging his witnesses to lie for him.
Everybody and their mother seems to forget that calls from institutions like jails and prisons are recorded. it always shocks me the number of people who implicate themselves because they do something over the phone in jail or prison, as if there aren't signs hanging by those phones saying "this call is subject to monitoring and recording."
Criminal defense attorney here. Any time a jury takes less than 15 minutes to deliberate it’s a win. It means the read the instructions and took one vote that was not guilty. They take a lot longer if they’re considering convicting someone. As far as judges are concerned the best way to get a read is just to ask “do I need to respond to that?” If the answer is no, you’re golden.
One of the cases I was a juror on was a very quick guilty. He was arguing with his own lawyer and not complying with his lawyers line of argument. It might have been better to not put him on the stand at all.
I contested speeding tickets because the law of physics was against the traffic department. The time stamp on one camera was wrong. I argued I would have to hit a speed of 360km/h in a short space of time, before slamming on brakes. Ticket cancelled
This was actually fairly recent. I was in a deposition of a fact witness to an automobile accident in which my client was killed. The defendant’s attorney had called the deposition and over the course of an hour and a half or so elicited a lot of testimony which seemed to place my client partially at fault, which would impact my client’s (edit: financial) recovery. After sitting quietly for an hour and a half I asked less than a dozen questions, the last of which was about the specific location of my client when he had first seen them. Based on his answer, it was clear that my client couldn’t possibly be at fault. I sent a follow up letter that same day and the case had settled within the next two weeks.
We were in a five week jury-trial on a civil case. Big business dispute. About 15 witnesses later, the plaintiffs call their last witness, their damages expert. The guy talks about his damage analysis, which was about the lost profits my clients allegedly caused this company. All the whole time, the guy has a PowerPoint slide up which shows his damages figures. But as lawyers know, it’s just an aid for the jury and not actually evidence.
Examination comes and goes and the plaintiff passes the witness to us. I look at my boss. He looks at me. The witness literally never read his damages number into the record. There was no admissible evidence because even though he showed the number on the screen, he never said the number, nor admitted it into evidence.
We didn’t ask the damage expert a single question. Plaintiff rests. We move for a directed verdict (asking the court to rule as a matter of law when there is no evidence) that they had submitted no evidence of any monetary damages. We won. It was more than $10 million. Simply because he didn’t read the number.
And that is why lawyers are scum and the legal system is broken. You were guilty but got off on a technicality. Just goes to show it is not about justice, but just a game.
During a deposition, the defendant’s corporate representative (of a Fortune 500) flat out admitted that the company committed fraud. 8 figure settlement shortly thereafter.
Tjat is a surprising moment. So, you knew you would win when someone made an admition? Such a great lawyer you are!
Not a lawyer, a witness. Shoplifting case. During cross, examiner asks the accused (based on his testimony during his arrest) “you listed as your employer. Why?” His response: “I make so much from them every year, they might as well pay me.” Public defender just collapsed.
My firm was attempting to hold Gruber Pharmaceuticals accountable for polluting Frog Lake, and my old law school buddy Brad, was the lawyer representing the defence. I felt it was an unfair case since his main tactics were to impress the women on the jury with his good looks, and perfect body. My 'HOLD IT' moment was when he showed us a video of himself swimming in the lake and proclaiming that it was perfectly safe. BUT, I asked him to take off his shirt (Which everyone agreed to) and he had Acute Dermatitis all over his body. That's a win win for me.
Before our custody case, my son had a psychiatric examination. I told him to listen carefully. He came home and said, "He wanted to know if I am afraid of you. He mixed the questions up to confuse me. I told him I was not afraid of my mom then went to play with the toys." Took 5 minutes. Unfortunately, any statement that starts with, "In my opinion...." can be fiction. In court his lawyer and witnesses had many opinions, but few facts. She rapid fired multiple questions at me during the trial to confuse me. My ex had lied about his income, in writing in the deposition. It was 3x more multiples according to his tax returns. Still the judge issued me a stern warning and threatened to take custody away. I had been told not to expect justice. The judge refused to allow my son into the court, he wanted to say, "Can you let my mommy be the boss of me. She wants the best for me. My dad wants to be mean to mommy." Never trust our legal system. Fairfax Virginia, in the 1990's. Men won.
OK, I'm sure people in the comments had good intentions, but if it's not your child and you are not personally familiar with the circumstances, keep your opinions on custody trials to yourself. From personal experience -- my daughter's "father" is an abusive psychopath who has emotionally scarred me probably for the rest of my life, are you really going to tell me that I'm harming her by not allowing her to have a relationship with him?
There was a story I heard about many many years ago. A guy in the States bought a Cessna four seater aircraft and took his family up, and then crashed. Everyone was fine but he was going to sue Cessna because they claimed to build the safest planes in the world. Well, it appears the guy never had a pilots license and this was the first time at the controls of an aircraft.
And his family agreed to go? Knowing he wasn't a certified pilot? I think I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.
Load More Replies... Before our custody case, my son had a psychiatric examination. I told him to listen carefully. He came home and said, "He wanted to know if I am afraid of you. He mixed the questions up to confuse me. I told him I was not afraid of my mom then went to play with the toys." Took 5 minutes. Unfortunately, any statement that starts with, "In my opinion...." can be fiction. In court his lawyer and witnesses had many opinions, but few facts. She rapid fired multiple questions at me during the trial to confuse me. My ex had lied about his income, in writing in the deposition. It was 3x more multiples according to his tax returns. Still the judge issued me a stern warning and threatened to take custody away. I had been told not to expect justice. The judge refused to allow my son into the court, he wanted to say, "Can you let my mommy be the boss of me. She wants the best for me. My dad wants to be mean to mommy." Never trust our legal system. Fairfax Virginia, in the 1990's. Men won.
OK, I'm sure people in the comments had good intentions, but if it's not your child and you are not personally familiar with the circumstances, keep your opinions on custody trials to yourself. From personal experience -- my daughter's "father" is an abusive psychopath who has emotionally scarred me probably for the rest of my life, are you really going to tell me that I'm harming her by not allowing her to have a relationship with him?
There was a story I heard about many many years ago. A guy in the States bought a Cessna four seater aircraft and took his family up, and then crashed. Everyone was fine but he was going to sue Cessna because they claimed to build the safest planes in the world. Well, it appears the guy never had a pilots license and this was the first time at the controls of an aircraft.
And his family agreed to go? Knowing he wasn't a certified pilot? I think I'm gonna call bullshit on this one.
Load More Replies...