Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
From Law & Order and Judge Judy to Netflix’s “Making A Murderer” that glued people to the screen for two whole seasons, our fascination with law (mystery and crime too, for that matter!) is stronger than ever.
You can’t help but wonder what really happens behind the closed court doors. But thanks to one Redditor who asked “Lawyers of Reddit, what was your 'oh hold on' moment in court?” we may get some answers from people who have been there, done that.
Below, we wrapped up some of the most interesting stories lawyers shared in the thread, so scroll down and upvote your favorites as you go. And if you’re in the mood for some more legal stories, be sure to check out our previous post with lawyers revealing the moment they knew they won the case.
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
Sat in on a personal injury case where the plaintiff broke their leg in a [collision] and had a doctor on the stand as an expert. The woman's lawyer begins questioning the doctor about their experience with leg injuries (he was a well known orthopedic surgeon in the area).
She asks if he's ever treated a tibula fracture (the leg bones are tibia and fibula) to which he only answers "no" then she starts grilling him with questions about the tibula.
After about 6-7 questions she asks "how did you get a medical license and have been able to practice medicine this long if you've never treated a tibula fracture?" And begins a small rant about going after his credentials and those that gave it to him, to which he simply responds "there is no bone named the tibula".
The lawyer became beet red and everyone in the room tried their best to keep from laughing including the judge.
Random Panda 3 years ago
This is getting just weird now, why was the word 'accident' from the original post redacted to 'collision'?
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Anyone who attends court frequently as an expert witness is used to responding to questions succinctly. They're not supposed to offer extra information unless asked directly. The doctor did everything expert witnesses are expected to do.
Marcellus II 3 years ago (edited)
To an extent. Normally they'd have gone, "excuse me, WHICH bone?" once or twice and the point would be gotten across. They'd definitely do that for their own party, not to do it here was somewhat passive aggressive. But as you say, it's strickly within the rules (AKA malicious compliance).
Load More Replies...
cybermerlin2000 3 years ago
So, this so-called doctor didn't even try to fix the ancient town in the north of Sardinia? Useless!
RELATED:
#2
I'm not a lawyer but I was a character witness for my childhood dog in a civil trial between our neighbors and my parents. Opposing counsel was questioning me, I wasn't even out of elementary school at the time, and he asked if our dog was aggressive. She was a rottweiler and very loving and incredibly protective of me and my siblings. His final question to me is one I will never forget. He asked "Did your father tell you what to say before you came into court today?" I responded "Yes." Then he asked "What did he tell you to say?" I said "The truth." Now I was too young to remember the courtroom reaction, but according to my father the judge audibly guffawed and the opposing counsel lost all the wind out of his sails.
Brian Bennett 3 years ago
Telling the truth in court this is abnormal right?
Load More Replies... 
MyCatsTheRealPanda 3 years ago
Yes they can be but just like any dog they can get too rough and not know their own strength. My brother had a Rott attack him when he was younger and that dog fit my brothers whole face in his mouth. Even ripped off the corner of his nose, he had to have plastic surgery to have it fixed. Before this happened they were playing and as soon as the dog hurt my brother you could tell it didn't know what it did wrong. I have no doubt if that dog was trying to harm my brother, he wouldn't have stopped when my brother screamed and cried and he would have and could have done a lot more damage, even killing my brother had it wanted to. The dog belonged to my grandparents neighbors. The poor thing ended up freezing to death and Inoftennwonder if this incident had anything to do with why they let that happen.I hope not.
Load More Replies...
#3
I was a baby lawyer in my first year representing the 19 year old child of some rich people in San Mateo County CA. My client had gone on a bit of a shoplifting spree and we were cleaning all her cases up with a global plea (meaning we handled them all at once).
Being new, I filled out the plea form wrong swapping the counts she was charged with for the counts she was pleading to. It’s an easy mistake to make. Every court has their own unique form and I was unfamiliar with San Mateo’s.
The judge calls my line, starts reading off the plea form, notices the mistake and then starts screaming at the top of his lungs “COUNSEL! WHAT IS THIS?! WHAT IS THIS?! IS THIS YOUR FIRST DAY ON THE JOB? THIS IS A COURT IF LAW AND WE DO NOT ACCEPT MISTAKES! FILL THIS PLEA FORM OIT CORRECTLY OR I WILL HAVE YOU TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FOR CONTEMPT!”
I did not expect a reaction like that. My client, who had clearly just taken a huge [rip] at 8 AM and who was wearing an all-pink velvet track suit was looking at me like I was the biggest idiot in the world.
I corrected the plea form. The judge made me wait until the very end of the calendar to take my plea. Afterward, he called me up to the bench. In private he told me, “Sorry to ream you like that. Everyone messes the plea form up so I always pick the youngest lawyer to yell at. The older guys will grumble and complain, but if you noticed they all fixed their own forms and we didn’t have any more problems. Keeps the calendar running smooth. Where did you go to law school?” After that he invited me into his office for coffee and gave me some really good life/work advice. Turns out he likes talking to new lawyers.
Aran Lindvail 3 years ago
Judge is still TA for screaming in the first place. Maybe design better forms if everyone keeps getting them wrong instead of acting like a psycho.
Saint Thomas 3 years ago
That's a very stupid way of passing a message... It's just agressive and abusive. Made me think of those 'quirky' university teachers who start the year with some kind of grandiloquent speech about "the guy next to you is gonna fail".
Paul Davis 3 years ago (edited)
Sounds like a very poorly designed form. Yell at the incompetent bureaucrats who made it.
The Penguin Bandit 3 years ago
Sorry I can't get past the first sentence "I was a baby lawyer"
Lp Johnson 3 years ago
So, this narcissist PUBLICLY humiliates to establish dominance, then flips to 'mentor' mode to establish control. Gotcha.
#4
I think this qualifies, though it wasn't me that was the lawyer.
Got called for jury duty. Was at the jury selection phase, and they asked if "anyone here thinks they should not..." blah blah. Defendant was in the room.
I raised my hand. The defending lawyer looked at me like "oh this oughta be good" and asked me to explain. I suggested I tell them in private. He insisted I tell the courtroom.
I said:
"OK...I probably shouldn't be on this jury because I was on a previous jury for this man which returned a guilty verdict".
Lawyer's face went "oh sh*t".
Commotion and a wait while they looked up records. Yep; verified. Whole jury was now "tainted."
Everyone goes home, and they start over.
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
'Similar jury selection story in a small town. I was working on the transcript. Judge asks the prospective jurors if anyone knows each other. Most hands go up. Judge goes down the line asking who knows who and how. Jurors 2 and 3 know each other because they are married. Jurors 1, 5, and 7 go to church together. Almost everyone knows Juror 8 because he runs the local pizza shop. Oh, and the judge knows Juror 7 because they're in yoga class together.
Kiss Army 3 years ago
My dad had a similar incident... He tried to be discrete when they asked why he shouldn't serve and why my dad felt that he was biased, blah, blah, blah... but they would not let it go, so finally my dad blurted out "Hell yeah, I think he's guilty, otherwise my son wouldn't have arrested him!"
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Jury selection is my favorite part of cases -- and something that is rarely if ever shown on tv. It's not at all unusual even in bigger cities for a prospective juror to have a conflict with the defendant. It must have been a very new judge in this case because if a prospective juror says they have a possible conflict they want to share in private, they may have to wait until recess, but they will always be allowed to share in private.
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Watch "Bull" TV show - it's all about jury selection.
Load More Replies...
Kusotare 3 years ago
I was in a jury pool for a murder trial. Both sides ask questions of the pool and dismiss members for various reasons, but I stayed in for quite a while. Finally, the judge says from the bench (to me): We know each other, right? Me: Yes. Judge: Please tell the court how we know each other. Me: You were the prosecuting attorney in an assault and murder trial in which my brother was a surviving victim and his best friend was killed. Judge: Is that all? Me: No. Your son was also a student of my mom's in preschool. Defense Attorney: We move to strike [me] from the jury. The judge later told my mom he thought it was a mistake for the defense to excuse me.
Hypoxia Smurf 3 years ago
My father worked downtown in a medium-sized city, his office not far from the district courts, and he was tagged for jury duty fairly often. During one selection process, the prosecuter asked Dad if he was making a career as a juror. Huh? It's not like he volunteered to be there, or bribed his way in. ;)
Peter Wilcox 3 years ago
you aren't meant to know the defendants previous convictions and he/she must be tried on evidence alone. If you knew he/she had done something several times before you would be prejudiced in your judgement. usually the defendants previous is taken into account when sentencing and only then once the verdict is returned is it revealed.
Load More Replies...
#5
Not me but my former law partner. She was in court representing a client, I think in a hearing for a protective order against her soon-to-be-ex-husband. Our client was telling the judge that when they met to exchange the children for visitation, the ex had kicked her. He immediately angrily shouted "she can't prove it, I didn't leave a mark!" Thanks, buddy!
Serial pacifist 3 years ago
When God distributed brains, it obviously didn't leave a mark on you, pal.
#6
Not in court but at a tribunal, and also I was plaintiff, suing for wrongful termination.
My rep: so you terminated him because he was ill
Employer: yes
MR: and he was ill because he's disabled
Employer: yes
MR: so you fired someone for being disabled
Employer: yes
C. Wade 3 years ago
Definitely a legal, official POS, bet he's got a card and everything.
Load More Replies...
#7
I was representing a plaintiff in a hit and run case. Plaintiff is testifying and is, despite me preparing them for several hours the previous day, an absolutely terrible witness for her own case. Like, she couldn’t even identify the street she was crossing when she was hit by the car. (It was a major highway and we had gone through the sequence of events countless times the day before the hearing)
The “oh sh*t” moment came during cross-examination. Defense counsel pulls out a picture of my client dressed up and ready to hit the club which was posted to Facebook the day after the alleged [incident]. I, thinking quickly, object because the timestamp refers to when it was posted, not when it was taken. Defense counsel show the picture to my client and asked her when the picture was taken. Sure enough, they say it was taken the day after the [incident] when she was supposedly in unbearable pain.
Samantha Lomb 3 years ago
This seems like the lawyers shouldn't have even let this get to trial. I assume they were hoping to scam insurance into a big payday
Shaneen Porter 3 years ago
Lawyers don’t actually have the final say in which cases go to trial. We advise, and we can strenuously advise, but the client always has the final say. I’ve had a couple clients really screw themselves by going to trial against my advice.
Load More Replies...
Monkeyfunkster 3 years ago
I can explain this, as a criminal lawyer myself. You take client's instructions at the very start and make a statement. You might need to wait 2 years for Trial. Some clients can't remember their own case by then (whether it's true or not), so you need to go over their own statement with them like this. It's not for us to determine if the client is innocent, that's literally for the Trial. But yes, this does happen a lot. Even where backed up by footage- memories are a tricky thing!
Nahkaparturi X 3 years ago
Oh s**t, the plaintiff was honest. How dare they ! As a lawyer I can't accept this sort of deranged behaviour !
Lutz Herting 3 years ago
Here's an easy fix for that situation: Just refuse to work for scammers. It's as easy as that.
Arwen 3 years ago
If no one represented them then justice wouldn’t be served at all because you couldn’t hold a trial.
Load More Replies...
#8
Reposting myself from years ago:
Story from a friend of mine - he was defending a guy in court, don't remember what he was charged with.
The main witness for prosecution was on the stand, and was asked if she could identify the defendent. She was scanning the courtroom & seemed confused - my friend was already silently celebrating because if she couldn't identify him, he could probably get all charged dropped.
As he was mentally adding this case to the 'win' file, he happened to glance over at his client, who had just helpfully raised his hand to make it easier for her to identify him.
Even the judge facepalmed on that one.
Karin Jansen 3 years ago (edited)
One story I know was that of a man suspected of molesting a woman. The man kept insisting he had had a "secret" relationship with the victim and she had given consent even though she was adement that she didn't even know the guy when he groped her. In the middle of his statement, he signals to a woman in the courtroom saying something like: "She didn't want her husband to know about us.." at which point the district attorney asks him to point again. "Your honor, let the record show the defendant is pointing at my intern, not the victim in this case."
Anna Tribe 3 years ago
I'd suck at this. I suffer from face blindness. No matter if I've known you for 20 years I wouldn't be able to describe you.
Candia Lee 3 years ago
The "dependant" is easy to identify by their location in the courtroom.
Phil Boswell 3 years ago
To be fair, if she was asked to identify "the Defendant", that's the guy sitting in the chair right there. Now if she had been asked whether the PERPETRATOR was present, that might have gone differently…or not ;-)
#9
Literally the first thing I ever did, was just a law student intern. Guy has a legit defense on a drug possession case. Hard substances found in a jacket, guy wasn't wearing jacket, they were going to have a very difficult time proving the jacket belonged to my guy.
Had a long meeting with client. Explained everything. Client was excited.
Day of the preliminary hearing, guy shows up and sits down directly in front of the officer who detained him...
... while wearing the jacket in question, the exact same jacket we were going to say they couldn't prove belonged to him.
Blackstone 3 years ago
Anyone else amused that Devil's Advocate is struggling with someone defending a guilty person?
Load More Replies...
Paul Davis 3 years ago (edited)
Did he "absentmindedly" get the jacket out of the evidence locker? Did aliens beam the jacket on to his body? If he was just wearing a similar jacket, what possible bearing would it have on anything?? This story makes zero sense.
Blackstone 3 years ago (edited)
I wish more "stupid" worked out this way. In my experience they tend to make bad decisions and get away with it more or less and it's the people around them that tend to suffer most.
Load More Replies...
Peter Buckley 3 years ago
Wouldn't the jacket be held as evidence? So, he has the same jacket as someone else.
Brian Bennett 3 years ago
Like I've said before god loves stupid people - he made so many of them!
#10
Not mine but my bosses one:
She had to defend a small time delinquent as duty solicitor. Before going to court he asked her what he should do; she explained to him if he was cooperative and truthful his sentence would be milder.
After hearing the case the judge asked him if he wanted to add something. He got up and explained to the judge: "my counsel told me to be truthful, so I wanted to tell you that I not only did the pilfering I'm being heard for but also several others in the region".
He continued to admit to several robberies that had been unsolved yet and everyone, even the state attorney were facepalming.
Gaya Knust 3 years ago
When the lawyer advises the client to keep their mouths shut, they usually have a good reason to advise that
Brian Bennett 3 years ago
You got to speak the clients language tell them to just "just shut the f**k up!"
Load More Replies... Mary Rose Kent 3 years ago
And solved several open cases in one fell swoop.
Load More Replies... Hk 3 years ago
Not stupid but very clever, he wanted to discontinue his life of crime by confessing everything at once.
MyCatsTheRealPanda 3 years ago
Or he was worried they were eventually going to find out he did those as well and figured if he got ahead of the game maybe it's be in his favor. Many sentences here come with some type of good behavior sentence if they are cut a deal so he may have been afraid of getting found out and getting his maximum time.
Load More Replies...
Roxy Eastland 3 years ago
I don't know, maybe emerging from it all with a clean slate might be helpful for him.
Seadog 3 years ago
Bank I worked for in the 90's got robbed in the early 80's. New branch, parking lot wasn't even finished when it got robbed. No leads, case went cold. Than over 10 years later some idiot got nailed for bank robbery (in NY I think) and admitted to the robbery here. No one had any idea he had been the one. Same bank, audit walks into a branch just on a routine visit. Teller thinks they're on to her, panics and admits to taking almost 20K that year, they had no idea any money was even missing because of the way she was doing it.
#11
Worked as a clerk at the local court after law school. There was this case about sending a 15 year old girl to a rehab/youth home since she had problems with alcohol. This girl had a backstory that made the story of the girl from "13 reasons why" look like a fairytale. Her parents had basically dumped her and her brother and left to live in another country, so they were called over Skype. So basically the girl had an attorney, the parents had an attorney and the state was represented by two attorneys. After reading her file I thought that no human being can be normal after the s**t she's been through, that she'd be a quiet, broken down girl during the whole trial. Boy was I wrong. She didn't even need an attorney, she basically out-argumented her parents attorney and the state attorney her self. I remember how awed I was of her strength and energy, but I also felt sad that I knew what she had to go through to get this strength. I always think back to that case, I really hope she's doing fine now.
Raven DeathShade 3 years ago
No. I heard it was about suicide, and I didn't want to be reminded of that.
Load More Replies...
Gini Sarver 3 years ago
when my long, drawn out divorce was finally over and done, my ex-husbands attorney approached me. offered to pay for college, law school and help with childcare expenses. omg i kicked his a** in court and my attorney just sat beside of me smiling lol
#12
Not a lawyer, but I got in enough trouble in my teens to know what a judge does/doesn't like. Uncles/father decide they're going to conserve my grandmother and put her in a secured perimeter memory facility. In reality, they just wanted to piss away her $20m estate. We end up in court with our lawyers. One thing I know about most judges/courtrooms. They want to be revered like a church. No talk back, no talking out of turn, wear a suit, even if it's a $20 goodwill suit. Father, uncles all show up. All of them spend about an hour badmouthing me. I'm keeping my mouth shut, looking at my feet. One of my uncles tries to examine me, I just keep my mouth shut until the judge tells him he's not a lawyer, and I'm not examination. None of them are well dressed, sneakers, dirty sweatpants. My uncle (who's the ringleader) decides to start talking over his own lawyers. My lawyer makes some comment, the judge starts talking to her and my uncles lawyer says something like, "Now hold on ladies!" All they had to do was keep their mouths shut, and not tell their lawyers how to do their job and they would have won. They pretty much handed grandma and I the win.
Seadog 3 years ago (edited)
Couple near me adopted all the kids from a family (don't remember the circumstances but they made sure the kids didn't get split up) 6 of them if memory serves me. When the new parents die, the kids couldn't agree to sell the house (nothing special, small house on maybe a 1/4 acre land on a country road). None wanted it for their own but wouldn't agree to sell either. County finally condemned it after roof fell in and gave them X number of days to have it gone completely. So now they have an empty lot neither neighbor wants and no one can build on due to new codes. Never fails, family starts squabbling over an estate, no matter how big or small, they usually end up with squat.
Vetus Vespertilio 3 years ago
You’ve mistaken the definition and intent of a “devil’s advocate”. It’s someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail. It’s not a Get Out Of Jail Free card for being mean-spirited and spiteful.
Load More Replies... #13
Not a lawyer, but I witnessed my ex wife try to argue with the judge that she couldn't be accused of kidnapping our daughter because our daughter was legally emancipated (not a spoiler: she wasn't) at the time of the kidnapping. My ex had legal statutes written on small sheets of paper she had torn out of books in the jail library, and she kept arguing with the judge after being told that none of it mattered.
After the fifth time my ex interrupted the judge with her nonsense, the judge slammed her hands down, stood up, leaned over her bench, and told my ex that she had been a juvenile court judge for 20 years and was well aware of the statutes. If she interrupted one more time then she would be held in contempt and spend several months more in jail.
My lawyer held up his folder in front of his face to hide his grin during this exchange. I walked out with full legal and physical custody of my daughter, court supervised visitation for my ex, and a full restraining order.
Monday 3 years ago
Curious how a restraining order would work in that situation. Is there a clause saying you can be within [x] distance of your ex during visitation times or does someone else have to accompany daughter to see her mom?
Insert Generic Username 3 years ago
I was in that situation with my ex husband. There's a neutral place for the supervised visitation and a state appointed person, usually a CPS social worker, who supervises the visit.
Load More Replies...
Roxy Eastland 3 years ago
This has the feel of utter desperation not to lose her daughter, tbh. Not saying it wasn't necessary for the child at that point, but it's kind of hard to feel like gloating.
#14
UK - Bear with me on this one. I was in court listening to the most boring old defence lawyer you’ve ever seen, he was questioning the arresting officer in the case. It was [hard substances] or something like that.
Anyway, he’s droning on about every little detail and the magistrate was constantly telling him to hurry along. The arresting officer was getting noticeably annoyed and the room became empty pretty quick. Everyone was very bored and annoyed. He was droning about details that I’m not sure anyone was really listening to or cared about.
Anyway, he went over [capture] times and the likes with the officer, time he admitted the suspect and released him. He had bored the officer to the point were he was barely paying attention.
“So he was admitted in at 21:45 on the night in question...?” “Yes” “...and released the night after...” “yes” “...and that was what? Just after 10pm?...” “yes” “What time after 10?” “I don’t know, quarter past 10 maybe” “so my client was detained for more than 24 hours” “erm...wait”
The penny dropped. The officer let his guard down and had revealed he kept the defendant for more than 24 hours, which is the max time for detention in the UK. The defence rested and the magistrate threw the case out immediately. Well played sir, well played.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
So, no other evidence mattered, nobody initially complained about the >24 hours, and the only proof of the times was the memory of a guy an no arrest logs? Really?
Random Panda 3 years ago (edited)
Why censor the word 'arrest'? And at the same time 'arresting officer' is not.
Dorothy Parker 3 years ago (edited)
On reddit capture was originally arrest. I agree. The censorship here is silly. Is this the same censoring in other languages?
Load More Replies...
Dave Witham 3 years ago (edited)
Calling BS on this one. The arresting officer isnt responsible for authorising the detention of the detainee here in the UK, and for obvious reasons it appears unlikely that the same officer would be there at both the time that detention was authorised AND the time that he was released as this occurred over a 24 hour period. HE didn't keep anyone in custody for 24 hours. *IF* this happened then this would have been the responsibility of the Custody Sergeant (in fact at least two of them as were talking about an apparent 24 hour period), and the only person who could be questioned on the issue of exactly how long someone spent in detention is the Custody Sergeant(s), who would undoubtedly have been called to testify if this had been the allegation as an officer cannot be expected to testify to the accuracy of or reasons for actions he did not conduct, authorise, or possibly wasnt even present for. Additionally, there are numerous occasions where people can be legally kept in detention for longer than 24 hours. finally, if this occurred in the last 20 years everything that happened to that detainee in custody - including his time of release - would have been digitally recorded. They wouldn't be asking someone to guess how long he was detained, it would be a matter of record. This sounds like a tall tale created by someone who learned everything they know from cop TV shows.
Stannous Flouride 3 years ago
The switch from the 24 clock to the 12 hour clock was calculated to do exactly what it did.
Monkeyfunkster 3 years ago
UK criminal lawyer here. Either this has been significantly edited and summarised, or it's not correct. Yes, 24 hour rule- but a lot more goes into it than this. I suspect this was actually for a breach of bail, with the original offence being drug related. If you deny the breach, you have to be bought before the Court *and* a decision made within 24 hours of arrest. If not, the breach (not the main offence) is thrown out. I once had one where we started the mini trial half an hour before the clock ended. I warned the Court (have a duty to, but don't have to keep reminding) and the Prosecutor spent that whole time just opening. It was such a simple breach too! So I stood up and interrupted, pointed out the time and was chucked. Half an hour to say the curfew tag said he wasn't in... client had proof it was faulty, so good result anyway.
Stephanie A Mutti 3 years ago
In the US that might get someone a bond or pre-trial release but it has no effect on the case.
Anna Banana 3 years ago
Not in Europe. Everyone here knows that 21:45 is 15 to 10. It's an automatic conversion that happens in the brain without thinking about it.
Load More Replies... #15
Watching a hearing when the defendant said "I mean I did stab her... But it was a gentle stabbing..."
CultOfBambi 3 years ago
Reminds me of when my older brother would get into trouble for punching me in the face and claim that "she walked into my fist"...
Load More Replies...
Mindghost 3 years ago (edited)
A gentle stabbing... Like a muse kissing the artist... The air was crickling from tension between the two... she moaned quietly, as they both inhaled the gentleness of this stabbing and died a hundred deaths within seconds... somewhere far away, a dog was barking, as he let the knife go in gentleness... Sorry for that BS, i had 3 minutes to do something so i wrote this :/
Raven DeathShade 3 years ago
Meh, it passes my standards for short stupid writing.
Load More Replies...
Gavin Johnson 3 years ago
She only bled out gently, no spurting blood, just a gentle trickle as life ebbed out of her…..
Monday 3 years ago
I know right? I would literally die if a man did that to me <3
Load More Replies...
#16
I was involved in a pretty messy custody case. The other party was a mess and had kept the child from my client for a few weeks. OP was playing lots of stupid games and kept requesting continuances. I requested a drug test, which the judge ordered. However, the OP didn’t show up for it (to clarify, he did show up, he just stood in front of the toilet for literally 2 hours and claimed he couldn’t pee). I was representing the plaintiff so the burden was on me. I called multiple witnesses that testified to the defendant’s drug use. So, opposing counsel decides to call their client for direct examination and asks, “you don’t use heroin and crack, right?” That is, for the non-lawyers, a very stupid question for many reasons. Especially considering his client didn’t show up for his drug test. However, I fully expected the defendant to just lie and say he was clean. After the question was asked, there was a really long pause and the defendant said, “yes, I do both of those drugs.” My head almost exploded. I didn’t ask any questions on cross examination because I didn’t want to muddy the waters. I won, and the child is doing great.
Groundcontroltomajortom 3 years ago (edited)
Can someone explain why it's a stupid question to ask? Is it because it's leading? Thanks.
Kira Okah 3 years ago
It's a loaded question - it immediately implies that he not only takes drugs but takes hard drugs without him getting the chance to deny that. Counse should have asked him if he used drugs instead of implying that he did.
Load More Replies...
Jace 3 years ago
Doing drugs is not a smart thing to do. So here is an example of a person who by that answer proves he’s not high on the level of intelligence.
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Have you heard of Wolf of Wall Street movie? Folks who know how to manipulate markets are very intelligent. Stupid isn't necessarily a lack of intelligence.
Load More Replies... #17
Sat in the public gallery at a bail hearing for a man accused of heinous crimes against a very, very young female relative. The judge started laying out the conditions of bail and one of them was to surrender his passport. Man turned to his attorney and said, loudly, words to the effect of; "But you said I could fly back to my home country..."
The judge stopped himself, and revoked the man's bail.
Dorothy Parker 3 years ago
And men accused or guilty of crimes like that do very badly in prison.
#18
I'm not an attorney, but a reporter whose beat is the county courthouse, so I've had plenty of these moments happen in front of me.
A guy was convicted of attempting to murder several police officers.
At his sentencing, the prosecutor revealed the defendant got a prison tattoo while he was awaiting sentencing of a tombstone with the names of all the cops he attempted to kill. But the defendant still had the audacity to beg for a lenient sentence.
He got a few hundred years in jail.
#19
Not a lawyer but I had a big "Oh s**t" moment. I was in court for driving while suspended in a county and in front of a judge that were both notorious for putting people who did that in jail. My license wasnt supposed to be suspended, a pencil pusher forgot to press a button or something and it never got un-suspended after the time was up. I had proof of this, but I was still really nervous. The guy who went up to the judge before me walked to the table where we were supposed to stand, sat down, and put his feet up on the table. The judge asked him what he was doing and he gave a flippant answer and basically told the judge to get f**ked. This seriously pissed the judge off. The judge went off on this guy and the guy gave everything right back to him, pissing him off more and more. The judge ended up jailing him for contempt and had the bailiff cuff the guy and put him in a chair off to the side to await the marshalls who would transport him to the jail. My name gets called. The judge is looking at me like Im fresh meat and he is a Great White shark. Im already thinking to myself "OK, if this judge puts you in jail, run over and beat the s**t out of the guy that pissed the judge off so badly. He's why youre going to jail." The judge looks down at his paperwork and back at me and says "You're Mr my last name"? I said "Yes sir." He said "Yeah, we were talking about you earlier, Im going to void your arrest and dismiss this case, your license was supposed to be valid and you shouldnt be here." I let out a huge sigh. The judge asked me if I was OK and I said I had been a bit worried, especially given the guy that was right before me in line. The judge said "Dont worry about him, he wont be seeing anything that isnt behind bars for about 90 days." and laughed.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago (edited)
Super professional judge, the last person had no (and never should have any) bearing on the next case.
Sander 3 years ago
It should, but I once read that sentences were milder after having lunch. So, we like to think we're highly rational, but something as simple as a meal can influence our judgment, even of highly respected judges.
Load More Replies...
FullmetalxDipshit 3 years ago
I dislike the kowtow judges get, like they're God. One bad mood can literally ruin someone's life, & it's almost impossible to accuse one of something. Ludicrously fantastical.
#20
Step-parent adoption I was handling in law school. I was appearing before the court on a motion--literally just submitting a written brief and summing up my argument so the judge could think about it in chambers for a few weeks--when the judge stopped me halfway through my explanation of the motion, said "I'm ready to sign the final order," and executed it right there at the bench. The client happened to come along for this one, and broke down (happy) crying before we left the courtroom. I felt ten feet tall.
Bobby 3 years ago
I'm going through this right now. 35 years old, but asked my step-dad to make it official. My birth dad died young and this man is my father.
Vetus Vespertilio 3 years ago
Mazel Tov! You’re never to old to need a dad!
Load More Replies...
Adrian Hare 3 years ago
Ah yes, we adopted, and the words "the motion is granted" were the sweetest I have heard
#21
Person I was representing was on trial for Assault in the Third Degree and DUI. In my state, A3 means you've assaulted an aid worker or police officer and is a felony. The allegations are that he was very verbally offensive to the officers and, at one point, kicked one in the face.
We're sitting at the defendant's table and the officer is testifying about the statements my guy made to him, including some pretty horrific name calling. Out of nowhere, my client screams "You're a f*cking liar! F*ck you, you son of a b*tch!!!"
We lost that trial.
Another time, the judge asked a client whether anyone had coerced him into pleading guilty, and he said "Yeah, my attorney." I about sh*t my pants, but he laughed and said, "I'm joking. No."
Chicken Nugget 3 years ago
Yes, because the perfect time to crack a lame joke is when your future is on the line!
El muerto 3 years ago
well...I mean, if you are already screwed. why not. go with a bang
Load More Replies...
Bobby 3 years ago
"Did you feel coerced into pleading guilty?" Is a stupid question in my opinion. US federal court has a crazy high conviction rate, odds of you winning are very low. You are presented with "we can fight this, but if you lose you are going to get about 4x more prison time than if you plead guilty" Of course you feel coerced by those facts
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
Yeah, he probably should have answered 'the system'.
Load More Replies... #22
A lawyer I used to know was in court on a work injury case. The judge asked his client "Just what is the nature of your injury?". His client replied "I can't raise my arm this high any more", while she raised her arm up to show just how high she couldn't raise it.
Monday 3 years ago
If we could, do you think they'd consent to it? Like if there was literally a pill that cured stupid, would they take it or would they decide it's poison and the governments way of controlling them?
Load More Replies...
#23
Opposing counsel was a nightmare. Everything late, his work was extremely subpar, and so forth. Accused me of lying multiple times when he had dropped the ball.
During another hearing in which he did another dumb move, judge says “I’m glad you are the last case on the call, and all of the other attorneys have left the room, so they aren’t here to hear me say that you are a terrible attorney.”
#24
Mine actually happened while I was sitting in the jury pool during vior dire. The case was a double homicide, and the jury pool filled the entire courtroom. If you're not familiar with vior dire it is when the lawyers ask the potential jurors questions to determine who they want to sit on the jury and who they want to exclude. It is a long and boring process for almost everyone involved, but 9/10 it's the most important stage in a case.
So the lawyers are asking us questions and if that question applied to you, you raised your hand and they handed you a microphone to answer the question.
The question asked was "Do you or anyone you know have prior knowledge of this case?"
So this older gentleman raised his hand, is handed the mic, and proceeds to say "Yeah I work at the police station as a janitor, and I heard two detectives talking about him points to defendant and they were saying he was about as guilty as sin."
We all kind of stared open-mouthed at this guy, and I started chuckling because I couldn't believe what I was seeing!!
Naturally, the defense attorney asked to approach the bench followed quickly the by the state prosecutor. After some quick and energetic whispering, the judge addressed the man.
"Do you realize what you just did. You potentially tainted this entire jury pool. I will be calling your boss and you will be hearing about this. You can count on that. You are dismissed sir, but this isn't over."
The man was escorted out and then the judge addressed the remaining jury pool which was still in a mostly packed room. "Now I want you all to disregard what that man just said. I'm sure if any of you were ever accused of a offense like this you would want a fair trial, and not be condemned based on the words of one old man."
I have been in court many times since, but never have I seen that level of downright jaw-dropping absurdity again.
Bender Bending Rodríguez 3 years ago (edited)
To bring old man's boss into this is super low of the judge. If anything judge should call on two chatty detective's boss. May be judge can advise detective's boss to have a talk with detectives about using a secure close-door room next time to discuss sensitive information about a case; However, that would mean holding police responsible and that's something we just don't do.
Ogre Juan Canolli 3 years ago
Lawyers Should Never Ask A Question They Don't Already Know The Answer To
Marcellus II 3 years ago
No it's not. Yes in Canadian legal system it is voir-dire, but in the rest of commonwealth and [here, I presume] USA it is voir dire, and more to the point the voir here means truth as it's from verum not videre so the french verb 'voir' has nothing to do with it --- it's a false etymology.
Load More Replies... Paul Davis 3 years ago
I agree the court needs a system that is less likely to lead to such incidents, and it wouldn't even be that hard to do.
#25
I was prosecuting a contempt action in family court (something that basically never works) and everyone in the room could tell I was winning. The other side was unprepared (out of arrogance) and I was basically ripping this guy to shreds on cross examination (which his lawyer didn't even think would happen, because he expected the case to be dismissed.)
At the end of the trial, the judge ruled for me and stated that she found the defendant's testimony to be untrustworthy. I was shocked at winning a contempt trial to begin with, but then this exchange happened:
Defendent's attorney: "Your honor, now that you have found my client's testimony to be untrustworthy, I am requesting a continuance in order to prepare further witnesses." (This concept is shocking in an of itself, because to even think you can bring more witnesses after you rest your case is laughable)
Judge: "You had your shot and you missed, counsel."
Defendant's attorney: "Your honor, there was no way I could have anticipated that you'd find my client's testimony untrustworthy and as such, I didn't have the opportunity to prepare other witnesses in support of his position".
Judge: "That may be an argument for your carrier, counsel, but it holds no water with me. See you this afternoon for sentencing."
For those who didn't pick up on it, the judge basically told the lawyer ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF HIS CLIENT that she expects him to get sued for malpractice because he f**ked up so royally.
That s**t was mindblowning on multiple levels.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
Indeed so. Arrogance will often buy you a swift boot to the testicules.
Load More Replies...
Joe Reaves 3 years ago
At least the defendant will have grounds for an appeal. Normally claiming ineffective assistance of counsel is not going to work because they have to f**k up really badly. I mean like literally falling asleep during the trial badly. The bar that they need to get over for that not to be grounds for an appeal is ridiculously low. And yet this guy apparently started digging.
#26
Not exactly in court. But I was defending a juvenile robbery case, where there was very little evidence. There was supposed to be two guys, but they only picked up this one kid, he had no stolen property on him, he was picked up like outside his own house, wearing different clothes than the victim had initially said. This kid was on the honor roll at school, his family seemed kind and were involved, he wrote poetry and played instruments. I actually believed it was a legit mistaken identity case. I went to meet with one of the kid's mentors for a character reference.... and he exactly matched the description of the other robber.
Vinita Talaulikar 3 years ago
Mentoring the kid for stealing? Mentor hiding the stolen property?
Groundcontroltomajortom 3 years ago
So the mentor led him astray? What country is this and what does a mentor do exactly? Was he an adult?
Per-Ole Sjuve 3 years ago
I'm gonna need to know more now. Stopping in the middle of a story is a sin unto Nuggan.
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Interesting that y'all think "mentor" is what was most important in this take. One word. Maybe not the right word. Not nearly as relevant as he was the other perp.
#27
I'm not a lawyer but a court case I was involved with went this way. My ex-MIL was a crazy b****. Me and my wife at the time had cut her off almost completely. Every one in a whole she would give in and let her mom visit, which always turned out badly. Eventually we got divorced and I got full custody. MIL went nuts and decided to sue me for custody. I looked over the law and for any form of visitation or custody you need to have had contact in the last 6 months and she hadn't seen them for over a year. So we go to court. I can't afford a lawyer but the law was pretty clear. She goes through three lawyers, each of them quit in turn. So she finally winds up representing herself. During the last hearing she was talking to the judge and said something to the effect of "I don't want to get custody of them, I just want to be able to visit". The judge then asked her point blank "this is a custody hearing. Are you telling me you no longer want to get custody?" She said yes and the judge dismissed the case immediately.
#28
I was the defendant, representing a nonprofit that I volunteered for. The plaintiff was a 60 something Grandma who was looking for a retirement settlement after falling out of her jacked up pick up truck in our parking lot. The premise of her case was that our parking lot was in bad shape (it was) and that she fell into a pothole and broke her leg, which resulted in her having to take Coumadin and diminished her enjoyment of salads at the Friday night fish fry (no, really).
It was going along fine, until my lawyer put up a photo of the pothole, taken the day of the incident, filled to the brim with water, after a recent rain. He asked the lady if she had gotten her foot wet, to which she replied that she couldn’t recall.
He talked a little more about how perhaps if her foot wasn’t wet, it might have been because she fell out of the truck and didn’t really fall into the pothole. He asked again if her foot was wet, and she affirmed that yes, her foot was wet.
The “oh s**t” moment came when he went back to his desk, flipped through her deposition and read the part where she was extremely adamant that her foot wasn’t wet. Then he did some fancy legal stuff, the case was thrown out and I went back to work.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
America, land of the free...to sue everyone for everything just because you're greedy...
John Dilligaf 3 years ago
you can sue everyone for everything, doesn't mean you're gonna win anything if your case is BS
Load More Replies...
Groundcontroltomajortom 3 years ago
I don't get this "Sue them!" mentality, especially if it's your own fault/idiocy. Own up and deal with the consequences!!
Candia Lee 3 years ago
A lady was pulling out of a parking lot in front of my mom, stopped short for no good reason, and my mom rear-ended her. Mom's sure she did it on purpose. Lady didn't sue, asked for settlement; mom couldn't figure out how to write the check because she was having a stroke. Lady and her lawyer helped her write the check then let her drive home. Fortunately, a friend called and recognized slurred speech symptom and got mom help.
Load More Replies... Gini Sarver 3 years ago
I had an attorney charge their mind about representing me because I did NOT want money, I simply wanted the 🧑⚕️ to acknowledge his mistake and a written apology, was never about the mighty dollar as most other cases are
Benjamin Martin 3 years ago
Aaaand the swiss parliament again, it's admitedly gorgeous and very funy to see it so randomly.
#29
Never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer. Prosecutor suggested to me client that the canned goods he had burgled were to be used to trade for drugs. Me thinking the idea ludicrous asked my client whether he has ever traded food for drugs. To which he replied that he once exchanged a frozen chicken for heroin. Needless to say, I didn’t win that one.
Insert Generic Username 3 years ago
Heroin greatly suppresses the appetite. That aside, an addict is more concerned about having/getting drugs so things like eating, hygiene, etc are NOT a priority.
Load More Replies...
#30
During jury selection. “I can’t be a juror due to the fact I’m kinda racist.”
Bender Bending Rodríguez 3 years ago
This is one of the many excuses used to get out of jury duty. Other popular excuses are "I no speak english" and "If they got arrested they must be guilty".
Insert Generic Username 3 years ago
A lot of people will say that solely to get out of jury duty.
#31
I was interning for a judge, we were in the middle of voir dire, for what was frankly not that exciting of a case--half day trial expected, not salacious details or harshness or anything. 75 potential jurors in the room, and when my judge didn't let a guy out of jury duty "because he'd have to pick up his kids" that guy proceeded to say in front of everyone that if he was made to show up next week he'd make it the shortest trial ever and find him guilty right out of the gate.
My judge was an incredibly even-keel guy. Nothing shook him or got a rise out of him, and he was an expert at figuring out what he wanted to say in the most neutral fashion possible before he said it (conversations with him took forever because there was a pause before every sentence).
But then. BUT THEN. This guy [sickens] an entire jury pool of 75 people. We had to individually question each person to see if that little outburst was going to affect their impartiality, etc. 75 in camera interviews later, judge pulls the guy back in in front of everybody and begins to SCREAM at him about disrespecting him, the courts, and every other juror's time. Me, the attorneys, and the court reporter go white faced because we didn't know this was coming.
The guy didn't have to sit for jury duty, but I still don't know if he got to pick his kids up, since he spent a couple days in jail for contempt.
Naesil 3 years ago
yeah censoring actual legal jargon making this even harder to understand.. thats going to the next level :D
Load More Replies...
cybermerlin2000 3 years ago
I take offence at the word sickens. Please use 'feelings of unease' instead, so I can complain about the use of the words 'feelings of unease'
Paul Davis 3 years ago
I think they're starting to over-automate their site so they can lay off all the remaining staff...so the censorship search-and-replace is bound to become more and more egregiously stupid.
HorrorEyeArcade 3 years ago
taints has been used multiple times in this article. why are you censoring it now, bp?
Betsy Novack 3 years ago
Void Dire was underway and got to my row. We were asked about whether we knew or had any relatives homeless or incarcerated. The first guy had a friend in jail for stealing a car. The next girl said she had a brother in person in Texas for murder, a couple friends in for theft. I was next and I just could not keep it together and was laughing as I said "Boy, you really hit the Motherlode with this row!" and giggled while I answered the question. I had a boyfriend 50 years ago who spent 2 nights in jail for stuffing some steaks down the front of his pant. I did not get selected.
Marco Hub-Dub 3 years ago
Noticed BP changing a word or two in appropriated Reddit posts or redacting in Reddit and Fb/Insta posts. Because they’re republishing other websites’ “intellectual property” it may be an attempt to avoid some sort of legal ramifications. Because they’re (BP) not quoting and only linking back, it could imply these are original here rather than appropriated from other sites.
#32
When I was in college, I was a bailiff. Guy is on trial for murder. First witness testified that she saw the defendant shoot the [target]. Second witness states the same. Police officer testimony is that he arrived at the scene and defendant was there holding the [piece]. Medical examiner testimony is that the first bullet hit the [target] in the arm, the second bullet hit the [target] in the torso and the third bullet hit the [target] in the heart which was the fatal [blow].
Defendant yells out " see that proves that I didn't [slay] him, I only [hit] the mother f**ker twice."
Ray Martin 3 years ago
So, let me get this straight, now the censorship dictates that victim becomes [target], gun becomes [piece], injury becomes [blow], kill becomes [slay], and shot becomes [hit]? This site is fücking ridiculous.
Kay blue 3 years ago
I think they are trolling us. The BP staff are probably reading all the comments about censorship and laughing their little socks off.
Load More Replies...
Aniko Hubatka 3 years ago (edited)
The funny thing is the picture used is the swiss national council and not a court room. It is one of the council in switzeland and a lot of Political decisions are made in there.
Lady Goldberry 3 years ago
Yeah, but it would be much more fun if we did speak like that. 'I shalt slay thee where you stand, thou blaggard!'
Load More Replies...
ThatOneWriter 3 years ago
The censorship is getting the point where reading some of these is like a damn word game, trying to figure out what the censors have deemed inappropriate now.
cybermerlin2000 3 years ago
Censorship is sponsored by Mrs Ethel McGiggins over 70's Bridge Club and performed also by Mrs Ethel McGiggins over 70's Bridge Club
Manon Roquette 3 years ago
Why this image ? This is not a courtroom, it's the Swiss Parliament ! It's in the Federal Palace in Bern.
Niall Mac Iomera 3 years ago
This censorship is so bizzare. I'm amazed they didn't change "mother f****r" to [no no word]
#33
Was in court for a directions hearing. The judge was already in a bad mood and asked why we were here for such a seemingly pointless litigation (without giving details, he was right.)
The barrister starts to make our case, and I am taking notes about areas we need to further explore when I hear
"EXCUSE ME, WHY WERE YOU SO RUUUUUUDE TO ME?"
The client, who had been told to NOT COME, had come to court that day and was evidently incensed by the judge questioning the merit of their case.
They berated the judge for about 3 minutes, with me and my cocounsel first stunned and then trying to shut them up, before he adjourned the hearing.
The case did not go very well, to my client's surprise and fury. Big sigh.
Samuel Pelatan 3 years ago
Dunno if it's a good thing but judges are god in their court, don't joke with them
Chich 3 years ago
True but I do wonder why they are not open to malpractice suits for poor/wrong decisions. Many other professions are.
Load More Replies... Bender Bending Rodríguez 3 years ago
Why would you have a hearing for directions? Just use Waze/google maps/gps.
#34
I was interning during law school prosecuting domestic violence cases. The Deputy DA asked me to talk for the first time during a guy's arraignment, for beating his wife. An arraignment is when the Defendant hears the charges against them and pleads guilty or not guilty basically. When the judge calls on me to speak, I got insanely nervous. And told the Defendant that his charge carried a maximum penalty of 30 YEARS, when it was actually 30 DAYS.
He freaks out, the crowd (some in the gallery were his family and friends) gasps. The judge basically stops me and says "I think you mean 30 days counselor..." After which everyone, including the defendant, laughed at me...
Desiree McKinnon 3 years ago
Any guy who is willing to beat a woman should get more than 30 days. 30 years seems reasonable to me
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
It's a travesty that 30 days is acceptable to anyone. There's no justice in that sentence.
Load More Replies...
Naesil 3 years ago
I agree that 30 days is not even sentence.. but if you have too high sentences then the crimes also escalate very easily, just see the US 3 strikes laws (in states that has them) if you are going to get massive sentence robbing a store for third time then better not leave any witnesses and suddenly robbery turns to murder. And before anyone even comments, I personally think that sentences in my country especially for rape and molesting cases are way too short... there is no perfect system, if there were then the whole world would be using it.
Load More Replies... Dorothy Parker 3 years ago
At the very least they should have asked the defendant if he was still beating his wife
Niall Mac Iomera 3 years ago
I'm amazed they allowed "bearing his wife" and didn't censor it to "[making unwanted physical contact with] his wife"
Marcellus II 3 years ago
We'll see if you have that forgiving attitude when it's your case being fumbled by your attorney...
Load More Replies... Melissa Hollowell 3 years ago
I wonder how many days you get for beating a stranger. I bet it is more than 30.
John Dilligaf 3 years ago
is that normal? To have interns who are still in law school (ie , are NOT lawyers) actively participate in court?
Vinita Talaulikar 3 years ago
Tit for Tat. Same treatment should be given to the husband, wife should be allowed to beat her husband. With whatever weapon she feels will hurt him..
Paul Davis 3 years ago (edited)
An Eye for An Eye and the World Goes Blind -- M.K. Ghandi (to be fair, probably hoping he wouldn't get prosecuted for some of the things he was doing)
Load More Replies... #35
Represented a woman charged with multiple very serious felonies. She insisted that in the months before the offense, she’d been seriously dating one of the detectives who ultimately wound up investigating and testifying in her case. For a variety of reasons, I trusted this client and believed her, even though the detective never disclosed the relationship in his report.
So, during his testimony, I ask “Detective Smith, you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Defendant, correct?” He goes “What? No!” and is visibly offended. The judge Iooks at me like I’ve lost my mind, the commonwealth attorney audibly says “what?”, I’m freaking out because a large part of my cross and argument was focused on the bias formed by the prior relationship, and now I’ve got nothing and I’ve lost all credibility.
I try again, “Detective Smith, have you had a sexual relationship with Ms. Defendant?”. As the Commonwealth rises to object and the Judge starts to scold me, the detective goes “Oh, yea. We’ve had [relations], it just wasn’t very...romantic.”
Edit/Update: State is Virginia. The jury acquitted my client of the relatively minor charge that the detective in my story was involved with, but convicted of the other, much more serious charges that detective had nothing to do with. There was a confession and video on the serious charges, so it was kind of a no-brainer. Sorry I'm being kind of intentionally vague, there are no confidentiality concerns (since this all happened in open court), but its distasteful to give out too much information about a client.
The detective was not "disqualified", his testimony was not thrown out. Impeachment, no matter how good, doesn't result in you getting to throw out a witness's testimony entirely. By the way, it wasn't really the [relations] that was the issue, it was that he didn't disclose it to anyone and his repeated insistence under questioning that he didn't disclose it because it was irrelevant. Like Watergate, its not the [incident], its the coverup that gets you. But I don't get to demand the judge throw out the testimony or that charge just because the cop failed to disclose a prior relationship with the defendant. I just get to point it out, argue it in closing, and then hope the jury also sees the relevance.
Mary Rose Kent 3 years ago
I love the Watergate analogy, but it definitely ages you. I spent my senior year of high school listening to the hearings on my transistor radio at lunch and while walking from class to class, and then would race home where the whole family would watch it quite avidly.
Naesil 3 years ago
I should really check out watergate, Im definitely too young to have any direct knowledge (like not being born in next almost 20 years :D) but only thing I really know about the subject is that it caused Nixons resignation, I do like reading about important cases though.
Load More Replies...
Ian Webling 3 years ago
[Apologies] for a possibly spurious [brief thing I said] but it would have been [relatively] more [not trivial] if the [relationship] between the [two people] having [relations] was that they were [relatives].
#36
My client is the one that probably thought “Oh s**t!!” Before trial, I was trying to convince my client to give his ex wife 200$ in child support monthly while he was looking for a job ( he had a job but he was paid under the table for the exact reason of him not wanting to pay for child support), I tried to explain to him that if we go into the court room without an agreement between him and his ex the amount the judge will impose him would probably be a loootttttt higher, he kept saying he couldn’t pay that much that he was jobless and poor, after fighting with him about how the judge won’t care about this and how he should be a decent parent and take care of his kids he said to me “I should have gotten a male lawyer, woman just don’t get it” since I was doing this for free, I just told him to f**k himself and that he was trash and left him to look for another free lawyer 20 min before his hearing
Amery 3 years ago
"Women." (Hard to believe this would come from an 'actual' attorney.) << Just saying!
Bobby 3 years ago
Unless she is quoting his words and he used the wrong one
Load More Replies... #37
I was just interning in court during law school but I'm a lawyer now. Fight in a club, someone had broken someone else's jaw, and had 6 friends with him that insisted he had been identified wrongly because he never have a beard and the victim said he had a beard. They used a very specific phrasing to the tune of "my friend doesn't have facial hair because he is a professional in the food industry and it would go against the regulations". After three of the witnesses had repeated the same exact phrasing, the judge stopped one to ask if he knew what a couple of the terms in that line meant, and the witness couldn't explain it. Defense lawyer got busted for instructing the witnesses. She'd also gotten the defendant to reject a plea deal that exchanged prison time for a fine and community service.
#38
Not a lawyer, but was working at the jail when an inmate came back from court and immediately went on suicide watch. Apparently he was up for a plea deal and was only looking at six months, but started questioning some of the facts, which let in a ton of previously denied evidence. This new evidence linked him to six B&E’s and rapes. He walked out of court facing a 99 year sentence, which he was certain to get. All because he opened his mouth.
Mary Rose Kent 3 years ago
Good thing, too. I don’t give a poop about the B&Es, but rape can plague a victim for a lifetime.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
Rape should be a capital crime, with a mandatory death sentence. This is because, unlike many crimes (B&E for instance) the victim can never be made whole. The only thing we can offer is the assurance that the victim will be safe from the perpetrator forever. There have been multiple cases where a rapist got parole and repeated the attack on the same victim.
Load More Replies...
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Not part of the case in court. Perp admitted to additional crimes for some stupid reason.
Load More Replies... #39
Not a lawyer but shared an oh s**t moment with one. I hit something in the road and had a tire blow out while driving home from MEPS, hit a concrete divider and wound up rolling my car. No injuries and no other vehicles involved. Received a reckless driving ticket that the officer told me was just procedure and not to be concerned with. Fast forward a month and I'm in court with my lawyer who plans on pointing out this ticket could prevent my hardship enlistment. He's not expecting it to take more than a minute because the issuing officer and prosecutor are on board. Queue group oh s**t moment. I'm fourth on the docket and the judge has just handed out maximum sentences for all three prior defendants. People are getting 6 to 12 months, having licenses revoked, for little stuff. Prosecutor gets screamed at the instant he opens his mouth, police officer is told to shut up while answering a question the judge asked, my lawyer is told he's about to be held in contempt. I'm starting to think I'm gonna get 3 squares and a cot, just not where I planned on getting them. The judge told me to step forward while shuffling my case paperwork and my lawyer just gave me a look that said, I'm so sorry. Case dismissed in the interest of justice and if any more idiots waste his time with nonsense like this again every one is spending the night in county.
#40
Not a lawyer, but a defendant. As a teenager, I got busted with a couple of buddies throwing eggs at cars. We were only actually in the courtroom for our sentencing, there was no trial. The judge called each of us up individually to ask us if we had anything to say. One of my friends tells the judge that he is a good kid who doesn't normally do things like this (lie, we used to do it all the time), and that "I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time." I wish there was a video of my other friend and I sitting in the benches watching this happen. We simultaneously dropped our heads into our hands because we couldn't believe that idiot just said that. The judge was not pleased, and she took the opportunity to remind him that going to a store, buying eggs, going to another location across town, and then throwing those eggs at cars was not just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
#41
This will be buried, but it's a good story: IANAL, but I represented myself in small claims court against a former landlord in a case of illegal eviction. I was in University at the time, renting a top-floor room in a shared dwelling, with 2 house-mates on the same floor, and the landlord occupying the basement. We all shared the ground floor, which held the kitchen and living room. One day, landlord come up to my room and tells me I have until 2 pm to clear out my stuff because I was being evicted. I had paid rent (on time) for 4 months, had provided a security deposit, and had never been in conflict with either of the housemates. All told, I was confused. Landlord refused to provide a reason for eviction, so I called the police. The attending officer informed me that he couldn't compel landlord to let me stay, which I expected. I only wanted an official record of what happened on a police report. So I sued landlord for the cost of my security deposit, rent that had been paid for the month I was evicted, the cost of having to find new lodgings on zero notice, the cost of the motel I stayed in until those lodgings were secured (it was mid-terms so I had to be in the city to be at school) and "damages" - all totalling around $3K (essentially I doubled my reported costs in the claim. In court it's better to ask for more and let the judge decide what's fair - as long as you don't come off as greedy). Landlord counter-sued for damages to property, of which there was none. Come the trial, I had all documents, records and discovery provided by me and to me (from landlord) ready to go. Landlord came with idiot advisor who acted as counsel for landlord, no documents, and one witness. Landlord had tried to convince other housemates to testify against me in court, but they refused. Anyway, the first "oh s**t" moment was when the idiot advisor actually said to the judge that they could do whatever they wanted with tennants, and had been doing so for years, and the judge bench-slapped this moron for not understanding the basic tenets of the Landlord/Tennant act (it has a new name, can't remember it). The second was when the judge asked if landlord would take the stand to present their evidence, and idiot advisor informed the judge that landlord would not be taking the stand at all in order to plead their case, or refute mine. The judge actually said "well, I don't understand how you expect to win without presenting any evidence, but o.k..." The third moment was when their witness took the stand. He was the handyman landlord called to do little things around the house. He painted the room after I was evicted. In cross, I asked him the cost of painting (less than half of the counter-suit) and, as he was called as an "expert" on the repairs required by the landlord, I asked if in his expert opinion repairs (painting) were necessary. He said no, but he painted anyway because landlord paid him to. After their witness proved to be a better witness for me, the case was essentially over. The judge asked us to wait a moment as he pulled out a calculator. He looked up from the calculator and stated he found the case in my favour, and awarded me the actual costs I incurred, less the inflated damages (around $1800) which is exactly what I expected. I asked the judge for a ruling on their counter-suit, which brought my favourite "oh s**t" moment of the whole ordeal. He said: "the suit against you is entirely dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to provide any evidence, testimonial or (something) at all to justify this eviction. Landlord is ordered to pay (x amount) plus all court fees associated with filing this suit." And after the official ruling was passed he said to the landlord, "I recommend you find a better advisor, because this guy (referring to moron advisor) has no idea what he's talking about." It was beautiful.
#42
Staff attorney for a judge. Had a domestics hearing over some issue (final divorce hearing, custody mod., idk). The mother's attorney is a prolific a**hole in the community. Puts on a big dog and pony show because clients like to pay for billboard, legal eagle crap. Pretty bad reputation in our legal community. Father's attorney (young attorney, mom's attorney old guy) stands up and is attempting to examine his witness. Mom's attorney stands up and objects to literally every sentence the Father's attorney starts. Judge just kind of sits hoping it will calm down, tells mom's attorney to sit down. He continues, and just before the judge finds him in contempt, father's attorney turns and says, "You may think because you're older than me, you can treat me with disrespect. You can hoop and holler all you want but you won't do it at my expense. If you want to put on a show, go join the f**king circus, [attorney's name]."
memyselfandI 3 years ago
I’m guessing because the judge, jury, audience, etc. all seemed to agree with his position, and he was incredibly frustrated. I doubt the judge would rebuke him for profanity if it was just one sentence saying what everyone was thinking.
Load More Replies... #43
Not oh s**t bad, oh s**t I can't believe she said that. First jury trial, pretty serious charges. I'm cross examining the alleged victim, and in answering my question she says, "Oh yeah, I lie all the time!" Needless to say, I won that trial.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
But, if they lie all the time, is that statement itself just a lie and then really they tell the truth all the time... But then that statement would be true and they lie all the time, which means...I need to lie down
#44
NAL but I was on a jury once for a murder trial. Got selected and the trial started almost immediately. Man was on charged with murdering his neighbor. They made their opening statements, there was even a bloody note. It wasn't terribly long but they clearly put a lot of effort into their strategies and were ready for battle. First witness was called, it was the son of the man on trial. I forget the first question but it didn't matter, he immediately broke down crying and invoked his 5th amendment right. Everyone freaks out. Judge and lawyers were like wtf. Jury had no clue what was going on but we were quickly ushered out immediately after that. Few minutes later it was explained to us what happened. The judge declared a mistrial. The prosecutor must have suspected that the father was taking the fall for the son who actually murdered the neighbor. Rather than risk losing, there was a mistrial while they sorted out who to actually charge and try.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
I've understood this, if there was good, legal reason then the son would be set free, and if it was just unprovoked murder then why would you want them free to perhaps do it again??
Candia Lee 3 years ago
There are parents that love their child regardless of what they have done, willing to sacrifice self to give the kid freedom. I don't get it either, like rich folks paying beaucoup bucks to keep their kids from facing the repercussions of their actions, or the system that allows it.
Load More Replies... #45
Not a Lawyer. Wife is, but she was just watching. Making his statement before the sentencing, the defendant, who molested a step daughter, her friend and a niece, pulled a knife from god knows where, and stabbed himself twice before getting wrestled to the ground. How he got it through the metal detector, no one knows. He lived through that but died two months later in prison of natural causes.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago (edited)
Another crime, like rape, that I think should be a capital offence with a mandatory death sentence. Because the victim can never be made whole. All we can offer is the assurance that the victim is permanently safe from this attacker. The only way that's possible is if the attacker is in no position to accept parole/probation or release at the end of the sentence.
Load More Replies... Mary Rose Kent 3 years ago
As a sexually abused stepdaughter, I can’t even begin to tell how happy this made me! I only hope that the other dudes in the prison found out about this because they have a very unpleasant way of making their disapproval known!
Katie Lutesinger 3 years ago
Or getting the living snot kicked out of him by his cellmates while the guards were somehow all on an extended smoke break?
Load More Replies... #46
My client fell asleep during his custody trial. Between that and him testing positive for marijuana on the day of trial after he made a big deal accusing his ex of using drugs (she tested clean), I was so happy to be done with that case.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
Sounds like he needed to worry about getting his own priorities in order.
#47
NAL, but had a few lawsuits that my family was subjected to that purposefully killed our family business. We were being sued by my moms cousin, who was a lawyer, but not in our state (she couldn’t pass the bar in our home state and moved to a state where the testing was less rigorous), so she had a legal team of her own. In the suit, she was claiming that our side of the family had embezzled funds from the business. Her mother, who was elderly but not yet senile, was called to the stand as their witness. As she was being questioned about the heinous things that we had allegedly done, her responses were generally “No, they wouldn’t do that” and “R’s kids are nice kids. They’re the reason why the business is successful” and finally a “who keeps saying all of these awful things about them?” Pretty sure that caused cousins lawyers to have an “oh s**t” moment. She lost that (and every other) suit that she brought against us.
Vetus Vespertilio 3 years ago
Yes, there’s a few of us out here, but we must be a dying breed…
Load More Replies... #48
Lawyer here! I had a pre-trial conference at 9am at a court about 2 hours away. So I wake my ass up super early to drive in s**tty weather to the conference. I get there and we're waiting for the other (in town) attorney. All the while I'm grumbling to myself about how I'm from out of town and I can still make it on time. Finally the court calls the other attorney's office and gets a receptionist who tells us through tears that... Other attorney passed away the night before. Needless to say I was just happy to still be alive and we rescheduled for a few months later.
The Penguin Bandit 3 years ago
The immediate shift in perspective once he heard the other lawyer passed away...
#49
Not in court but a deposition. Plaintiff in a sexual harassment case (that was suspected to be paid role play with her boss) kept a very detailed sex diary on her work computer. At one point she was asked to read from the diary for the record and asked if she had written the accounts and if they were true. She was asked at several points if she wanted her new husband to leave the room while she did this, but declined. Let's just say it was extremely kinky, she confirmed it was true, and the only mention of her now-husband was that he was boring in bed but she was going to marry him because she couldn't get her first, second or third choice. He ended up leaving on his own after she read that part out and confirmed it was him she was writing about.
#50
“Do you see the defendant here in court?”
(Witness/victim looks at each jury member then everyone in the audience)
“nope.”
(Judge hides his face behind file folder)
“Are you sure, maybe over on this side”
(witness looks confused) “I’m not sure.”
(I point at defendant) “maybe over at this table by that lawyer”
. . . “Yeah, maybe.”
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Not buying it. Half the audience is behind the defendant. Lawyer wouldn't say "defendant"; "person who committed this crime against you".
#51
IANAL, but at my custody hearing my stupid ex insisted that our son, who's on the spectrum, didn't have autism at all, and only had behavioral issues. Also that she'd refused to call the office that made the diagnosis. And that his behavioral problems started going away in August of 2014. My lawyer in cross examination: Isn't August of 2014 the month in which he started spending most of his time at his father's house? And also when he started getting behavioral therapy for Asperger's? Stupid Ex: I don't know what you're getting at, but yes those are the same dates. Needless to say it was all downhill from there.
#52
I was at a hearing arguing that my client was wrongfully terminated because the employer failed to abide by the proper procedures. during the hearing a witness for the employer tried to offer documents that were fraudulently altered in order to make it look like the proper procedure was followed. i noticed the alteration. opposing counsel quickly got that witness out of the room, and after a quick adjournment, my client got a large settlement.
Candia Lee 3 years ago
Maybe his app doesn't automatically capitalize after period&space. Mine does.
Load More Replies... #53
Two moments in a DUI trial: 1. Passenger is testifying for driver’s sobriety when the DA asks her, “you keep saying he was sober, but are you even TIPS certified (a course for bartenders so they can recognize drunk patrons)?” She was. 2. The head of the county’s blood lab accidentally admitted he cranked the sensitivity of his machines way up because he “was experimenting”
The Penguin Bandit 3 years ago
I had no idea there was a certification for being able to tell if folks are drunk! I need to take that
Candia Lee 3 years ago
800 phone #, so USA. But you can do eTIPS in 2-3 hours for knowledge (and certificate).
Load More Replies... #54
IANAL but my buddy is going through a nasty divorce and I went with him to the initial hearing for support. Turns out his wife lied ALL OVER her deposition about everything from how much money he’s making, to being a violent drunk. She then tried to admit a secret recording she made of an argument that she baited him into having. His lawyer asks where the recording took place, which was in California; a two party consent state. Whoops.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
I think perjury punishment should be heavier. Those that file false criminal charges should be subject to the same penalty that the falsely accused was facing.
Insert Generic Username 3 years ago
Especially in false r a p e allegations. (Sorry, didn't want it censored)
Load More Replies... smugdruggler 3 years ago
Lol. Maybe "NAL" might be a better abbreviation? Unless you're confessing something..?😆
#55
I was the dumbass that almost screwed myself. I had 2 charges in 2 different courts. I accepted the first plea which almost always carries probation but my plea didnt have that condition. When it came time to accept the second plea, the prosecutor didnt include probation because she assumed my first charge put me on probation. She said as much to the judge and me being a big dummy almost corrected her. My lawyer grabbed my shoulder and, i s**t you not, told me to "shut the f**k up, she doesnt know."
Astrobloom (they/them) 3 months ago
The prosecutor didn't include the probation in the charges, and if the defendant had corrected her, she probably would have given probation. (Sorry I'm three years late, hope you are still confused by this if you ever read it)
Load More Replies... Candia Lee 3 years ago
What is better than probation? Other than sometimes it is way easier to do a shorter time in than a l.o.n.g probation that might have included some inhouse rehab program.
Lisa Evans 3 years ago
Probably Court costs and "Time served" meaning he wouldn't have to spend any more time in jail for the offense. (The only time he spent in jail being the time it took for him to bond out of the holding cell after getting arrested for the incident(s) in question.) Most of the time, in my area anyway, minor infractions get "11/29" which mean they get eleven months and 29 days of probation. It appears that the judge in this case may have said something along the lines of this and forgot to add the probation part or just left it off thinking the second charge would include it. If it was not included in the second plea, the judge can't add it as its not part of the deal already agreed to and would require the court to give the defendant time to reconsider the deal since it had effectively added punishment to the case that he'd not already agreed to.
Load More Replies... #56
Sitting in court, doing some plea paperwork for with a defense attorney for a go home plea agreement (where person is released from custody and doesn't have to do jail time), we hear this "Ksssssssstt- shhooooo" to our left and we look to see his guy sitting in the galley all by himself, sitting in the cloud of a biggest vape hit I have ever seen, then has the audacity to tell the judge it "went off in his hand" Do not pass go, do not go free that day.
Lady Goldberry 3 years ago
Sat in the galley? Was this a pirate Court? Didn't they try for parley?
#57
I am not a lawyer, but I work for a lawyer. Many years ago my home county went through an abrupt and involuntary change of judge when one of the sitting judges was suspended and disbarred for bad conduct. This process took months where our criminal docket was handled by a carousel of visiting judges from other counties who couldn't care less about our community and quickly came to resent having to fill in on the bench while our judge was prosecuted and the Governor went through the slow process of appointing a replacement. It was standard for cases to just get set off or delayed. Our docket swelled and the jail emptied because very few people were being sentenced to jail. The visiting judges would grant low bonds, or OR bonds in all but the most serious felonies. Petty criminals who didn't negotiate a plea with the prosecutor, just reported back to court month after month with no disposition. One afternoon an attorney presented for plea, a man accused of domestic violence for boxing his child's ears. This was to be a routine plea for probation and anger management. When the facts of the case were read before the latest judge, he looked up from the docket and pursed his lips. When the prosecutor announced the parties had reached a plea agreement and the conditions and asked the court to accept the plea agreement, the judge stated simply, "No." and directed the defendant to have a seat. The defendant looked anxiously to his attorney as the judge outright rejected the plea agreement and sentenced the defendant to 30 days in jail. Well, the defendant freaked out, as did his wife who loudly protested she needed the defendant at home working. The judge pointed at her from the bench and told her to shut it or she would spend 30 days down as well. Well, the defendant's wife collapses into a weeping mess of bleach blonde hair and KMart coutour. The bailiff, who frankly looked surprised at being asked to do anything aside from remind people to remove their hat, escorted the defendant downstairs to the jail. THe attorneys, prosecution and defense, looked very much like two children who were in trouble, but they weren't quite sure why. Once the shouts of the defendant faded into the belly of the courthouse and the sobs of the white trash in the back of the room slowed, the judge addressed the court. "Look," he said, "I know you all have a deal. And you know I don't have to accept it. I can leave him down there for thirty days." 30 days being a more than reasonable sentence for misdemeanor assault on a toddler. The judge continued, "I just want to teach him a lesson, and I will. You see, when I was a kid, my Dad boxed my ears. He did it often and one day he did it so hard, I'm now deaf in this ear. I know you all think it's no big deal," he addressed the defense attorney, "and you're pretty used to getting away with sweet deals for a while now because you haven't had a judge." He leaned back in his chair and surveyed the courtroom. "But this one hit a nerve with me. And you can file whatever complaint you want later, but I'm just going to let that guy sit down there for a couple of hours and think about what he's done, then I'll bring him back up." Well, we were stunned for sure. After months of just watching criminals come and go in a never ending circle of arrest, plea, probation, it was honestly a shock to see someone sentenced to jail at all, much less in such an abrupt fashion. Toward the end of the court day, they brought the ear boxer back upstairs. He got a lecture and tearfully promised never to box his kid's ear again. But seeing him go to jail like that, even just for a couple of hours, was a pretty big "oh s**t" moment.
Vetus Vespertilio 3 years ago
Why does bleached blonde hair and clothing from K-Mart, plus crying when your husband is going to jail, make someone white trash? Your personal judgements don’t say anything good about you.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
You're absolutely correct, this sounds like my SIL, while my BIL smokes weed with their 14 year old son and is going to court for the 16 year old son being kicked out of all the city schools and for selling weed at school,and the 16 year old son's gf tells his family that she wouldn't be surprised if his 8 year old sister is a sex worker (not as nicely worded) when she grows up... Some people seem to have a ugly heart and auto identify others based on the most inane, biased, or bigoted judgements towards others.
Load More Replies...
Marco Hub-Dub 3 years ago
So much confusion and so many questions. Also, the personal opinions/judgements of the storyteller is kinda gross and immature.
Kristin Ingersoll 3 years ago
Yeah. There was a lot of that. His shaming the people for buying clothes at Kmart spoke volumes about him. Gross.
Load More Replies...
#58
I posted this story before, but it's really good and many of you may like it. My wife is a court clerk. She told me a story a court clerk friend of hers told her. DA has a shaky case at best against a defendant. Police were trying to pin a drug charge on a guy with literally zero evidence. The report read that a certain amount of weed and meth were found and recovered in the defendant's car, but the evidence was "lost". Guy maintains his innocence and has no priors. The defense attorney is destroying the officers on the stand for inconsistencies between their accounts and poor documentation on the official police report. The prosecution's ace in the hole was a part of the police report that read something to the effect that the police K-9 said there was marijuana and meth in the car. Rather than saying something like the police K-9 alerted the officers to the presence of drugs, it left the defense attorney no choice but to call the police K-9 to the stand to confirm its testimony. DA drops the case.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
Bad cops should be heavily penalized as well. Otherwise the testimony of any cop is tainted.
#59
I was in court for some restraining order hearings. I was sitting on the front row. Right before the judge comes in, the deputies bring in a lady in cuffs who had been causing a commotion in small claims court. They sat her down about 5 feet down the bench from me. She is not at all happy to be there. Well about that time the judge came in, and the lady immediately told him to “suck a f**king d**k.” She continued, “You look like you just popped a d**k out of your f**king mouth.” I was pretty sure I was about to get pepper sprayed or something. Judge immediately gave her 30 days for contempt. She kept on like that and eventually got 120 days total. As the deputies took her to jail, she slipped out of her cuffs and tried to run. Then she apparently destroyed the bed in her cell. Got charged for escape and destruction of property as well. It was not her best day.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
She may have had the right to remain silent but I don't think she had the ability.
#60
Represented a pro bono client that had just turned 18 and was charged with serious property damage. I walk in to his bail hearing and the judge looks at him and goes “I knew you’d be back as an adult.” The judge then turns to me and says “Counselor, you may want to learn about your client’s history.” No bail.
Lisa Shaw 3 years ago
I don't believe this one, the first premise of law for the judge is to be impartial and have no bias, if it is true, then that was not the case and the judge should be sanctioned.
Vee Dub 3 years ago
Remembering that the judge knows the client from earlier trials is bias? And if this trial is not the first which makes the client a repeat offender if he is found guilty is grounds enough for refusing bail in my opinion ...
Load More Replies...
#61
Medical malpractice defense lawyer here representing hospitals/doctors. This was not my oh s**t moment but plaintiff's oh s**t moment. For context, usually at trial, both plaintiff and defendant will have an expert physician testify as to their opinion to whether the doctor/hospital performed everything correctly. I thoroughly researched plaintiff's expert, who was an ob/gyn (baby delivery) and found out he had been suspended a number of times for his own botched deliveries and giving incorrect medical testimony to help plaintiff's cases. During the actual day of trial, turns out he was not licensed to practice medicine independently without supervision from another physician and he was one year into his three year suspension. Plaintiff's lawyers had no idea about their own experts background and they just sat there with a blank look on their face. Needless to say, during cross examination, we destroyed his credibility and won at trial.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
"suspended a number of times", but still allowed back each time... wonderful.
Dave P 3 years ago
depends on what the suspension was for. It could be for something like not disclosing financial connections to pharma company whose meds they were prescribing, to killing someone, and everything in between.
Load More Replies... smugdruggler 3 years ago
Fun fact; before we all had the right to see our medical records, doctors often used less than flattering abbreviations for all kinds of things. One of my favourites was referring to obstetrics and gynecology as "C&R". C*nts and Runts. Another favourite was "grolies" Guardian Reader Of Limited Intelligence (in) Ethnic Skirt. 😆😂
#62
Not a lawyer, but I took my landlord to small claims court for refusing to return my security deposit without cause. I did my due diligence. I wrote a demand letter, looked up the law that he was breaking, and prepared evidence to show the judge. After I presented my case and requested the full amount I was owed plus damages to the full extent I was entitled to, the judge looked at me and asked me if I was a lawyer. I'm pretty sure my former landlord had an oh s**t moment, and I felt pretty good about my chances of getting my money back. I won the suit, but did not get full damages.
Amery 3 years ago
In many states, you can get 2x the wrongfully held deposit money. Should've done that!
Bobby 3 years ago
In Michigan you just have to prove they held it illegally to get 2x back. Any money that the landlord would actually have been entitled to could still be claimed, but the landlord has to sue you at that point and it isn't going to look good
Load More Replies... #63
When I was a trainee solicitor, I watched one of my colleague’s trials. Couple of ne’erdowells accused of racially abusing their neighbour. First Crown witness comes in, gives her name and starts answering questions about the incident in question. From the public gallery, I can see both accused whispering to each other in the dock, then gesturing urgently to their respective lawyer. My colleague asks for the witness to be taken out of court and back to the witness room, because “something unusual has come up and we need to address you on it”, to which the Sheriff agrees. As soon as the door closes behind the witness, this (relative) bombshell is dropped: “That witness is not who she says she is.” I was like 😱👀 After some investigation by the court police officer, it turns out that the actual witness didn’t want to attend court, so got her friend to go and pretend to be her. She had a “script”in her pocket that she’d clearly been revising in the witness room beforehand. No prizes for guessing which particular racial stereotype was in play here. Unbelievably, no action was ever taken against either the witness or her understudy! Plenty of good moments as a defence lawyer, but that one stands out as a “had no idea that was coming” moment.
#64
This was told to me by a legendary trial lawyer in my area. I probably have some of the details wrong, but here is gist: It was a personal injury case against the manufacturer of an industrial fan. It was supposed to be child safe, but a kid got their fingers chopped off. The manufacturer was claiming that the plaintiff was only injured because the fan had been modified from its original condition. The defense lawyers had an exemplar fan that was straight from the manufacturer. They brought in an expert and, on direct, had him explain how it would be impossible for this kid or anyone else to hurt themselves. The idea was that the guard mechanism would have prevented people's fingers from getting too close to the blades.He was a well-qualified witness and gave very compelling testimony on direct exam. Unbeknownst to the defense lawyers or judge, the plaintiff lawyer had brought a very long extension cord and plugged in the "perfectly safe" fan. On cross exam he went over the expert's theories and had him say unequivocally that it is impossible for someone to injure their fingers on this fan if it is unmodified. The plaintiff lawyer then walked all the way across the courtroom, turned on the fan as high as it would go and began walking it towards the expert. It was loud, so he had to kind of shout over it. He definitely had the jury's full attention! He gets right up to the witness and starts in on him, still half yelling due to the noise. "Show us, stick your fingers in!" "No!" "Come on, stick your fingers in!" "I don't want to do that!" The other side is jumping up to object, but the plaintiff lawyer is two inches from the expert yelling for him to stick his fingers in. The expert is looking terrified and shrinking away from the fan. The jury came back in favor of the plaintiff. It's my favorite example of "show don't tell"!
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
Serves them right. Their expert had to put up or shut up, and he wasn't willing to take one for the team.
#65
Probably the funniest one I ever came across happened to a colleague. We were prosecutors then. 18 year old defendant applying for bail. He needed a residential address and got his dad to show up at court to confirm that the family home was available to him. Defence lawyer gets old dad to confirm that son can stay at family home. Dad says yes. My fellow prosecutor gets up and asks dad - do you really want him home? Dad goes off the deep end. ‘Jesus. The grief he’s brought me and his mother. Out all hours. Taking drugs. Hiding stolen property in the garage. All night parties. I’m on anti-depressants and the wife’s had a nervous breakdown.’ Dad goes off on one for five solid minutes. As the defendant gets taken back to the cells, he calls out ‘Thanks Dad. I owe you one.’
#66
Corporate lawyer but took on a pro bono immigration matter helping a victim of domestic abuse get her immigration status sorted out. She had been in the country for 20 years, originally legally, but not anymore. It took us multiple months to get a hearing scheduled. We've spent hours in US Customs and Immigration Services' offices by this point. Her situation is somewhat precarious and we need to resolve this. She told me a few weeks before the hearing that she needed to reschedule because she was going to be out of the country. She said her daughter was going through a high-risk pregnancy and would be giving birth during that time, and my client was the only caregiver / available family for her daughter. That's fine - we put together a letter, get a note from the daughter's doctor about the medical necessity, etc. US CIS gives us a hard time about it, but ultimately hearing is rescheduled. My client and her (other) daughter come to the rescheduled hearing. Client gets asked about recent trips out of the country. "Well, I went on vacation to my home country last month." Instant cringe. She's in the US illegally, and it's unclear whether or not she should have been traveling on the passport she was. I jumped in and tried to clean it up for her, and thankfully this USCIS official was more interested in moving us through the system than getting hung up on past issues. However, she within an inch of this all collapsing around her / getting kicked out of the country.
Brandy Grote 3 years ago
Immigration is a hefty, tangled bureaucracy of laws that prevents decent people from coming here legally. People that improve our country as they improve themselves.
Memere 3 years ago
Yet it allows "special" people in on "chain immigration", the way Melania Trump's parents were able to come to the U.S.
Load More Replies... Candia Lee 3 years ago
The New Mexico state grad school I went to asked why you would be off campus for the 6-week winter break. So many lost their in-state tuition discount by saying "home"; I was "going to visit my parents".
Jace 3 years ago
This is exactly why illegal immigrants are disliked. Get your business sorted out, keep your papers and legal status up to date. It sounds as if she could perfectly have been a legal migrant but neglected her immigration status and therefore got in trouble. In Europe we have a lot of asylum seekers who, after getting a residence permit as a refugee, go on holiday to their home countries. That’s just fraud, and an insult to the citizens of the new country. There’s no way to justify that.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
Wow, big win keeping an illegal immigrant in the country when she keeps popping back home when she feels like it...
Cadena Norton 3 years ago
Dude u don't know the details. She was in an abusive relationship. She came legally and the partner may have let her legal status slide as a way to control her. She didn't pop home cause she felt like it. She had a legally documented family emergency
Load More Replies... #67
Actually a lawyer: "oh s**t" moments shouldn't happen in court. Any surprises should be ironed out in discovery. If you're in court and have an oh s**t moment, more than likely it's because you didn't do your job. My "oh s**t" moment was going in for a status conference and then finding out I had a second status conference on another case I was completely unprepared for because my assistant didn't put it on my calendar by mistake. I told my opposing counsel my situation, and him being a generally nice guy who I got along with regularly, he told me what was going on in the case and we went in and got an amicable result from the judge. Sorry, but that's how legal practice actually goes most of the time.
#68
My ex forgot why she was in court. Not a lawyer, but fully two years after we dated, a crazy ex got a restraining order on me as revenge for saying her tattoos sucked. She said I'd sexually assaulted her and threatened to rape her. We go to court, she tells her side, judge picks at a couple holes in her story, then asks her (per the law on restraining orders) how she feels I am a threat to her safety, security, and privacy: "Nobody should be able to say that about my [tattoos]." The f**king idiot just finished saying I was a crazed sexual predator, and then completely forgot.
Jefferson Selvy 3 years ago
Those who file false criminal charges should be subject to the same penalty that that falsely accused was facing. I also believe rape should be a capital crime with a mandatory death sentence. Because the victim can never be made whole, unlike other crimes like burglary. The only thing we can offer is the assurance the the victim is safe from this attacker and will never have to worry about early parole/probation/release and having the same attacker repeat the assault.
Bobby 3 years ago
I do not support capital punishment, but rape and other violent sex crimes makes it hard to maintain that stance
Load More Replies... #69
I’ve had a couple. Best one was when I was a youth prosecutor/defense attorney in Teen Court. The youth defendant was on “trial” for assault. I asked him what happened and he said, “my friends told me I wouldn’t beat up the Easter Bunny at the mall so I did.” Only time I truly could not control my laughter in court. Another, I was watching a detention hearing in federal court (only issue is whether the defendant will get to go home until trial). This was an appeal of the court’s previous decision that the defendant be held until trial. The third witness was an FBI agent which, needless to say, is not normal at a detention hearing. The FBI agent testified that some other attorney (not the one representing the defendant at the hearing) had been taking letters from the defendant and sending them to different people for the defendant. Those letters were contracts to have the prosecuting attorney killed. The representing attorney withdrew and the defendant was not released pending trial. One more, I was in traffic court one time and a sovereign citizen who was acting fairly hostile began approaching the judge’s bench. He was arrested at gunpoint which was pretty wild considering there were 150 or so people in the court room. Last one, my first ever civil trial I was representing the plaintiff who wanted to evict the defendant from her property for non-payment of rent. After presenting my case, the judge asked the defendant to present his evidence. The defendant replied, “huh.” The Judge said, “now is your turn to present your case.” The defendant said, “I don’t understand.” The Judge leans over the bench and asks, “why are you here.” The defendant said, “oh yeah... yeah, right.” The defendant then went on a thirty minute tangent about all sorts of things like how he only parks his car so he can see where he is going when he pulls out because that was taught when he was in the military. I could have objected but the more he talked, the more the judge disliked him. After thirty minutes the judge finally asked, “about the rent...?” The defendant says, “oh yeah. I’m not trying to debate that I didn’t pay it.” That’s how I won my first civil trial.
Devil's Advocate 3 years ago
This post was like that defendant's meandering and too-long story.
#70
The best "oh s**t" moments are when your opposing counsel or opposing client says or does something that wins the case for you. True, in civil cases you usually know what will happen ahead of time, but in my state discovery in smaller civil cases is more limited, and clients don't always want to spend $30K when we can get the same result for $10K. In an adverse possession case the witness only needed to say "I used that area as my backyard," and I fully expected him to say this. It would harm my case, but I knew I could get around it. When asked about his use of the area, he said, "No, I never really went back there, didn't use it at all." Lost the case for the other side, and I could barely keep a straight face. It was completely opposite of what the witness had told opposing counsel off the record; apparently the "under penalty of perjury" made him change his story. I had another case about losing multi-unit dwelling insurance because a guy's place was a fire hazard. I asked him if his personal insurer knew about the fire hazard. "Yeah, and the jerks canceled my policy!" I also love it when I have a difficult party on the other side and the judge rips them a new one. I had a convoluted case with a lot of parties about nothing at all. The plaintiff was heinous. The six or seven attorneys were working out calendars with the judge when the plaintiff starts yelling at her attorney from across the courtroom because she didn't like that he had conceded some little non-issue. Judge told her to sit down and shut up. I was sad that the case settled because she would've been amazing on the stand.
#71
Obligatory INAL, but in a pre-mediation meeting once for an uninsured motorist claim an insured had alleged that she couldnt walk without the aid of a cane and had a pronounced limp after an accident due to a low back injury and a shooting pain in her right leg. The doctor notes didnt support anything but a subjective injury after a few weeks, but she was still treating 2 years later and going to new physicians. So, we had her followed covertly to see if she was really using the cane and had a limp, etc. We got footage of her carrying like 4 grocery bags in each arm to her car in a walmart parking lot, walking perfectly fine. When she got to her car she even opened the trunk of her SUV without putting any bags down and lifted the gate with her knee part way. Her elderly mother was with her using a particularly decorative purple cane with a flower pattern on it. They followed her to a doctor appointment an hour later and shes on video using her mother's cane and walking with a limp that would give Forrest Gump a run for his money. Never did follow up on how that played in
memyselfandI 3 years ago
Because the original question was asking specifically lawyers, and it’s generally accepted as polite to put a disclaimer if you’re not actually the person asked.
Load More Replies... #72
Im only in Law School at the moment, but i saw this happen when i was watching a summary (non-jury) trial in my home town about 3 years ago. It was a domestic abuse case, with the partner of the accused being examined. The prosecutor asked her to identify the person who she accused of attacking her and she refused, or said something along the lines of she didn't remember. She was clearly scared of the guy, but it seemed like she was trying to protect him on the stand for whatever reason. Well, that was ruined after the second time she tried to protect him and refuse to identify, as the accused shouted out 'Im right here you stupid b****'.
cybermerlin2000 3 years ago
I bet she planned that and grinned inside, thinking, 'The only thing better than identification is admission'
#73
Prosecuting a DV case a few years back, real lack of physical evidence so it was pretty much a she said/he said. Victim was to be my first witness during trial. I prepped her the Friday before trial. One of my standard prep lines is 'dress like you're going to a job interview.' I wasn't going to be able to see her the morning of trial before going on the record because she had a civil case in another branch during my jury selection. Anyways, case begins, finish voir dire and openings. Call her to the stand. She walks in with incredibly done up braided hair, huge hoop earrings, shiny black pleather high heeled knee high boots, and a skin tight shiny black pleather dress that cut off a bit too far above mid-thigh. The moment she walked in the door, all three of my female jurors started covering their mouths and suppressing laughs. Lost the case that moment. I've since changed my line to "dress like you're going to church with your judgmental grandmother."
#74
It's hard to call stuff in court "oh s**t" moments most of the time because generally you know what's coming. Even in criminal defense. I had some flubs early in my solo practice that more boiled down to lack of experience. But going for things that actually happened in court, I will go a little lighter than some of my fellow practitioners here. Closing argument in an assault case. I've learned to grow comfortable with my speaking style, and part of that is to cut loose a bit when it is appropriate. So I make light of some of the states' allegations given the testimony by the prosecuting witness. There is one guy on the jury panel that thinks I'm just hilarious. I had to wait for him to stop laughing. The oh s**t moment? When the jurors came back to return a verdict, the same ROTFLWTFBBQ guy was elected foreman by the other jurors. Verdict was not guilty.
Becky Yandrasitz 3 years ago (edited)
It refers to an old meme where three characters are reacting ("omg" and "wtf") but the third is unfamiliar with internet acronyms, so they pick a 3 letter acronym they do know, which is the one for barbeque.
Load More Replies... #75
Was in court going against a pro se plaintiff. He asked if I could argue his side of the case to the judge too. It's tough being a pro se plaintiff unfamiliar with the legal system, and I legitimately felt bad for him, so I just politely explained that it would be a conflict of interest.
#76
Unfortunately I’m not allowed to say too much but basically, on charges of growing marijuana, stated he was growing “herbs for medicine” (and gestured air quotes with his hands) and then whispered, I kid you not, “marijuana.” Bro...
#77
Not a lawyer but this happened when I was at a pre-college "law school" thing. We were going to the Court of Appeals near our law school, and right before we left the English teacher (who I'm sure was just there to make sure no one in the group of 30+ teenagers wasn't vaping in the back row) said to bring a pencil and pad of paper to the trials because, and I quote, "They're just so interesting, you know?". Fast forward to sitting in on a murder trial and there are signs everywhere saying that writing anything down was expressly prohibited. Then, the officer in the court room chewed someone not in our group out for writing stuff down (even though the stuff that person wrote wasn't related to the case) and then we all just turned our heads and stared at the teacher who told us to do just that, and the look on his face as he slowly slid the pencil and paper into his jacket pocket (so as to avoid getting caught) will be something I will never forget
#78
So, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm a forensic case manager for an alternative-to-incarceration program. Basically our program accepts clients who have severe mental illness and instead of going to jail, they're mandated to mental health/substance abuse treatment instead, and my job is to follow them throughout the mandate, and be the point person for the court and their therapists. We go to court with them and talk with their lawyers and judge and provide a psychological evaluation. I have many, many stories and only been here about a year. This one guy we had to stop working with even though we initially accepted him into our program. He was eligible for inpatient residential treatment because he was very sick and a violence risk. We referred him to places, and got a call from one saying they interviewed him, but they were rejecting him. Why? When asked to describe himself, he laughed and said, "I'm the murderin' type." Yeah, residential facilities don't like hearing that, bud. Ok, one more. Our judge in our treatment court is really great. He's understanding that clients have relapses and instead of going straight to jail for violating their plea, he'll give them a warning or give them more time on their mandate. Usually, when clients are respectful and don't say dumb things. This guy, an old guy, at least 60, charge for selling his meds, comes up positive for cocaine after a couple months of his mandate. Ok, that's fine, we'll work with that. Unfortunately for him, when the judge asked about his urine positive and what happened, he said, "I was out partying, there was drugs, I wanted drugs." No remorse. He was made to go to more intense substance abuse treatment and added time to his mandate.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
You have to want help before others can help you. It sounds like this may not have been the right program for him. He may have been taking the spot of someone who needed it worse than he did.
#79
Was getting an expungement for a guy who had really turned his life around. This was gonna help him get a job as a coach at a small university. I'm in a very conservative jurisdiction. Client openly and voluntarily - without even the slightest prompting - admits to smoking pot. Expungement was granted but there was a long lecture that made it seem like it was not going to be granted.
#80
A famous high profile case in my community had an incredible moment. A high profile guys house was raided, and they found a few shreds of evidence in the ash tray, and other scraps in the toilet. In court, he was asked if he ever burned evidence, he said no. When asked if he ever flushed evidence, this older man without the best memory of 2 minutes ago responded "no, if I wanted to get rid of evidence, I would burn it in my ash tray". Guess who won the case
#81
Two high-profile men on trial for killing another guy. Both ex cops from the 80s, a notorious time in our country for police corruption. The first trial had been aborted after one barrister had made a casual comment that the other accused had already killed “two or three people”, second attempt was six weeks into an expected ten week retrial. All of the networks and papers were covering this trial, the gallery was always packed with law students because of the many uniquely horrific aspects of the trial. So, we’re six weeks into the retrial. Defence 1 gets up to cross examine a witness. “Did you know of (accused murderer 1)?” “Yes, he was a cop and a drug dealer in the 80s.” The court basically exploded, the judge immediately issued a non-publication order (meaning there was an embargo on all information from that day). It was early afternoon but the judge excused the jury for the day then spent the next day and a half deliberating over whether to abandon the trial - over half way through, and for the second time.
Brandy Grote 3 years ago
Why abandon it? You can investigate those allegations while the guy is in custody!
#82
I was representing my client during a sentencing for some petty burglary. The judge asked him if he had anything to say before he imposed sentence. My client started “Your honor I just want to apologize...” I’m thinking he’s going to apologize for the burglary like they always do l, but he continued “...this morning I tried to bring a knife into the courtroom.” And it was f**king out on record before I could stop him. There was no way for me to strike it from the record and my client is a f**king idiot. I still kick myself for that.
#83
Not my story, but while getting on the elevator banks at the courthouse, another lawyer tried to hold the door with his foot and his shoe popped off and went up with the elevator (In this court house there are probably 20 elevators, so there was no way he was going to find that shoe in time for his court call). He freaked out for about 10 seconds and then said "I guess I am going to court with one shoe on." and got on a different elevator. Hilarious.
Becky Yandrasitz 3 years ago
20 elevators, but he is standing in front of the one that took his shoe.... Elevators don't share shafts O_o
Vee Dub 3 years ago
but maybe this courthouse was ahead of it's time and had turbolifts ...
Load More Replies... #84
I clerked in family court as a law student. My judge was off so I had a slow day finishing some orders. Other clerk IM’d me to come to her court room ASAP. I got in just in time to hear a VP tell the judge she didn’t understand why it was such a big deal she got a DUI with her kids in the car. Queue the judge yelling at this lady and the lawyer shrinking as small as possible in his chair. VP lady was petitioning the court for early release from ignition interlock because it was embarrassing for her kids... Number 2. Same court, same scenario in being pinged by other clerk. This time a dude and his wife were in court because he was 3 months behind on spousal support. I thought it was weird that he had like 8 lawyers with him for a simple hearing. One lawyer asked for a total, the answer? 4.5 MILLION dollars, no joke. Other lawyer for dude said they needed time to work out tax implications. Judge said he’d save him the legal fees and told him there was no write off for spousal support. Dude WROTE A CHECK for 4.5 million dollars. Hearing over.
Brandy Grote 3 years ago (edited)
What bank would take a personal check for that amount....? FDIC insurance in the US only guarantees up to $500k. And how is it that support is $1.5 mil per month? What sort of lifestyle does she have? 😬
Dave P 3 years ago
Clearing Houses insure beyond 500k. That 500k is only for basic deposite and saving accounts from the feds. Do you understand how our financial system works?
Load More Replies... #85
Bench trial of complicated commercial litigation case. We have up on the courtroom monitor a spreadsheet setting forth how much the Defendant owes us and our expert is going through it line by line. Defense attorney objects, stating that he was never provided with this spreadsheet in discovery, it wasn't on our exhibit list, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, leaning against the wall at DEFENSE table is a posterboard blow-up of said spreadsheet. Judge looks at the spreadsheet on the screen, looks at the blow-up, looks back at the screen, looks back at the blow-up and says pointing to the posterboard: Counsel, is that your exhibit there sitting at counsel table? Attorney: Yes, your honor. Judge: Isn't it exactly the same as the spreadsheet up on the screen? Counsel: Well, they've got an electronic version on the screen, the one on the posterboard is from a PDF. Judge, shaking his head in annoyance: Overruled. This idiot attorney objected to lots of exhibits in a similar way, some of which we pointed out were on his own exhibit list. We won, btw. ok
#86
We were just sitting around because of delay of some sort. Over the course of about 5 minutes, about 8 heavily armored sheriffs deputies quietly shuffled into the room and everyone was told they need to sit real f**kin still until told other wise. Another three big boys lead in the defendant. Small Italian American gentleman in shackles. He was up on a few pretty boring fraud charges. I'm guessing he had friends on the outside who wanted to speak to him. Also, there was the guy who called the male judge ma'am. He was funny.
#87
I have another one that I’ve just remembered! Representing a guy accused of housebreaking. Managed to persuade the prosecutor that they couldn’t prove it, so they dropped the case at the intermediate diet (procedural hearing) before the case called in court. Headed downstairs to the cells to break the good news to my client, who was remanded in custody. Have an idle glance at the details of the charge while I’m waiting for the cells staff to bring him out. The house that was broken into was my (then) next door neighbour. 😬😬😬 Client was delighted that he was getting out. Him - “Aw cheers pal you’re the man - cannae wait tae get out” Me - “No bother...right - see that place you definitely didn’t break into? I live next door, so gonna leave my house and car alone please?” Him - “Aye sure pal - me an’ the boys go up there stealin’ all the time. What car d’you drive?” I told him what kind of car it was. Needless to say, my car was broken into about three weeks later.
#88
I was a family law paralegal and we had one case that was a total s**t storm. It was clear from a week in that the mother's only goal was to utterly destroy the father in any way she could. We wound up getting temporary custody for the father and actually went to trial because the mother refused to cooperate. The mother was representing herself so my boss said I could stop by and watch for a bit for the experience and to satisfy my own curiosity. The mother called co workers of the father. I'm not sure why but she asked a female co-worker, "Isn't it true that you told (father) that you think I'm a b****?" My boss tried to object for relevance but it was too late. The witness looked the mother right in the eye and said, "Absolutely." Needless to say, we won that one for the father. It's ten years later and the mother is still trying to get custody back. She hasn't seen the kid since he was in diapers, she just won't let her revenge plot go.
#89
Not exactly Court, I am Mexican and we have a conciliatory figure that tries to fix problems between consumers and providers. I was making practices so I actually never signed the confidentiality contract that every worker signs, but still gonna try to keep details at the minimum. So there was a consumer whose phone broke and he sent it to warranty. I had no details, but knowing this phone manufacturer in particular I knew they wouldn't validate the warranty. But still, I didn't expected what they said. "Warranty is voided because of misuse of the device. Our warranty policies dictates that any uncommon use of the device is qualified as misuse, this includes STORING IT ON YOUR POCKET, BAG, BACKPACK, OR ANY CLOSED NON-NATURAL ENVIRONMENT " . Needless to say, everyone in the room was shocked, at least. I really wanted the authority to punish them for so bulls**t policies. Before anyone worries, this is only on Mexico and this company in particular is known for a good customer service un the U.S.
#90
I did jury service back in the 90’s in the U.K., a four day trial where an estate manager (dude in charge of the farms on a big landowners estate) was on trial for growing and distributing cannabis. The police had raided the greenhouses and surrounding land and found tonnes of weed in all stages of production. Dude claims that he is addicted to cannabis and because his tolerance is so high after smoking so much for so long that he can only get a buzz from the very tips of the plant, where the THC content is most intense. Asks the court to believe that he just discards the rest of the plant, doesn’t sell it, doesn’t even give it away, just destroys the rest of the crop. So it’s the last day of evidence, where both sides sum up their case and remind the jury of the salient points of what’s been said. Dude himself has been quiet and respectful throughout, smart suit, softly spoken, stuck to his answers. I’d say the jury is not buying his claim and as the judge reminds us, it’s not about whether we think it should be legalised, it’s not about whether we think he has even sold the remaining bits of his plants, all we need to find him guilty is to think that beyond reasonable doubt, he had at some point shared a single joint with a friend, and that that was enough to convict him for supply on the counts against him. So the jury isn’t buying his story but we are also looking at him thinking he’s quite old, isn’t doing anyone any real harm etc, is unlikely to be running a massive dealing empire. Then on that last day, the public gallery (which has been empty all week) is suddenly full of the most blatantly stonery stoners you’ve seen in your life. One of them is even wearing an Adidas “adihash” t-shirt. The jury files in, we sit down, we look at the public gallery and I think it’s safe to say we STARE at them. Defence barrister turns to see what we are looking at and visibly slumps, then glowers at the solicitor and hisses “REALLY???” Such an own goal. TL:DR marijuana farmer f**ks up by letting his customers come to court
#91
An attorney in my firm just had a trial with a good one. Our client blew a stop sign and t-boned Plaintiff. Among other things, Plaintiff had a hairline cervical fracture. He was prescribed a C-collar which he supposedly wore for 3-4 months, including to his daughters wedding. At trial Plaintiff's attorney had Plaintiff put on his cervical collar to show the jury. He had it on while his attorney did the direct. Unfortunately Plaintiff and his attorney didn't realize he put it on upside down. There is a part that is supposed to go down on your chest for stability. Well it was on upside down so it was sticking up in front of his mouth. His attorney asked him about that being annoying and in the way of his eating. He gets done with his examination and the first thing the attorney from my firm asks is, "can you please explain to the jury why you put the cervical collar on upside down?" Plaintiff denied it was on upside down and two jurors blurted out, "uhhh, yea you did!" (Jury is not supposed to comment or ask questions). Needless to say, the jury did not like his testimony and he was awarded nothing. TL;DR - Plaintiff put C-collar on upside down at trial, jury called him out on BS and gave him nothing, despite relatively serious injury.
#92
New Judge with a chip on his shoulder. Plaintiff called me to get an adjournment on a Summary Judgment Motion I had made- they wanted more time to submit opposition. I don't have a problem with this, but the Court refuses to accept the adjournment request over the phone and says we have to appear in Court the next day. So I go and Plaintiff doesn't show up. When our case gets called, I request the adjournment and the Judge explodes on me- demands to know why, insists he doesn't grant adjournments, just yells for no reason in front of a courtroom full of attorneys. I tell him it's Plaintiff's request, and they are not there, they want more time... but he doesn't want to hear it and just says "request denied, call Plaintiff and tell them to get here by second call." So my "oh s**t" moment is that I just won my case because the Judge decided to be a butt hole. I call Plaintiff and let them know what happened and they panic. They are about to lose their case. The Judge has to grant my motion, it's unopposed. There is no way they can get an attorney to Court in time. So the case is called again, and again I'm the only attorney on the case. I go up to the defendant's table with the biggest s**t eating grin on my face and say "Your honor, I'm here on behalf of defendants with an unopposed summary judgment motion." Everyone that saw me get yelled at suddenly realizes what I was doing (getting yelled at for trying to be helpful), and what Judge's outburst meant (I win, suck it). The Judge has no choice but to soften and re-hear my request for an adjournment, and grant it. Follow-up: Plaintiff's client died and the motion was never opposed or heard. When they tried to reactivate the case with an administrator, I reminded them that my motion was the first thing to get heard once the case was restarted. They actually read it, knew they had no chance of beating it, and discontinued against my client without ever having to argue the motion.
#93
Late to the party here, but as a law student we were allowed to make court appearances under the supervision of an assistant district attorney. I was doing arraignments and my ADA said "Don't talk to the judge unless he asks you a specific question." So the judge and the defense attorney were going back and forth about when the next court date would be. The judge wanted a specific date, let's say 4/20. The defense attorney was adamant that she couldn't do that date. In my file, I had a calendar with a big X over 4/20 saying "Do Not Schedule". The judge and defense attorney go back and forth for several minutes, the judge wanted 4/20 and the defense attorney saying no. I was keeping my mouth shut because the judge hadn't asked me directly. Finally, the defense attorney relents and agrees to 4/20. The judge turns to me and says "Do the People agree with 4/20?" At which point I say "Sorry your honor, but we cannot schedule for 4/20." The judge looked at me for a second and then just ripped into me "Mr. Jones1, you just heard me and the defense go back and forth for several minutes about a date you knew the People couldn't do? Do you like wasting the court's time?" It went on like that for a few minutes, him just berating me in front of about 200 people in a court in Brooklyn. Finally after me apologizing profusely and him giving me a withering glare, we moved on and went to the next case. At the next break, the judge said "Mr. Jones1, please approach the bench." I thought I was really in for it then. I walked up beside the bench, the judge came down to talk to me and said with a big smile "Don't worry about it, I was just giving you a hard time. Welcome to Brooklyn Criminal Court."
#94
Many years ago I was a puppy lawyer working in the Public Defender's office. We were in juvenile court defending a kid who had been busted by the cops in the very act of doing about $30k in vandalism damage to a public school. No doubt at all that he did it, and he was charged with varied and sundry crimes which all required proof that the damaged public school building was "property of another." You can see where I'm going with this. Everybody knows that a kid doesn't own the school, right? It's plain as can be, isn't it? It went down like this: Prosecutor: The state rests. Defense: We move to dismiss on the ground that the statutes defining the charged offenses all require proof that the damaged building was the property of another and there has been no evidence introduced to that effect. Judge: You're right. Case dismissed. Prosecutor: [Turning slightly pale as it sinks in.] But, but, but... Judge: [Visibly angry that this a**hole kid is going to walk.] No, I can not and will not allow you to reopen your case. There has been no surprise evidence or trickery here - they haven't done anything but sit there all morning. No, I cannot take "judicial notice" to supply a needed element that's missing from your proof. We are done here. Case dismissed. The prosecutor damned near broke the lectern when he slammed his notebook shut before stomping out of the courtroom.
Vee Dub 3 years ago (edited)
It's completely the fault of state to not know the rule and laws. Everyone is screaming about judges playing god in there courtroom and now they should be voted out because they don't? Of course the judge could have chewed state to make sure that he doesn't make this fault ever again AND sentence the youth to whatever social work or other BUT it's not the judge's job to tell state especially how to do his.
Load More Replies... #95
Opposing party (tenant) accused my client (landlord) of putting cameras on the roof of the driveway to spy on the tenant’s family. Tenant specifically said she saw my client putting up the cameras. Except the roof is pretty high and my client is 5’0”. Got the opposing party to admit she lied under oath. Judge wasn’t too happy and scolded her. Edit: Tenant who is about 5’5” said she (tenant) stepped on a chair on her tiptoes to remove the cameras. If that was the case, it was simply physically impossible for my client to mount any cameras according to the tenant’s testimony. Edit2: On Cross-examination, tenant testified that landlord did not use a ladder or chair to mount the cameras. And then later also testified that she removed the cameras when I asked if she brought any pictures of the cameras. It was complete bulls**t so no, there was never any cameras.
#96
Prosecuting a drive-by shooting. Had a big map printed out and asked the main eyewitness to point out where he was standing at the time of the shooting, so that we could show he was in a good position/distance to see the shooter. The map was maybe 3 feet away from the witness stand...witness said, “Can you bring that thing closer? I can’t see all that good.” Verdict: not guilty Ninja edit: another great story about a totally different case. Fight between neighbors got physical. Neighbor 1 (Black) beat the s**t out of neighbor 2 (Asian), so neighbor 1 got charged. At trial, neighbor 2 was testifying about the argument. Actual quote: “I didn’t CALL him a nr, I said he was ACTING like a nr!” Prosecutor was a black man and was less than pleased that his “victim” in the case was such a dickwad. Not guilty verdict and both neighbors ended up getting no-contact orders.
#97
Two of my favorites (am a lawyer- do criminal defense) First trial- I had called the Prosecutor numerous times trying to settle- witness was uncooperative and begging not to go to court but no dice. Had never spoken to my client (not ideal, can explain later if need be). Client was accused of domestic battery for grabbing someone’s arms and leaving bruises. Witness says nothing happened. Put my client up to say the same. I guess the prosecutor wasnt paying attention because as soon as he looks at the guy- he turns around and mouths- “he doesn’t have hands.” My client had Stubbs where as should have been and maybe a “finger” or two.... can’t grab anything. Not guilty verdict. Second was my stupid mistake. Port-a-potty tipping case. I invoked the rule and sent all witnesses outside including the co-defendant in my case. I spaced and asked the kid witness if he recognized anyone else in the courtroom as being there when toilets were tipped. Luckily it wasn’t on the record but I felt like a giant idiot. Found guilty but beat the offer. Case was dropped on appeal because my client was arrested for felony assault on law enforcement and the state didn’t care about toilets anymore.
What do you think ?
Random Panda 3 years ago
I made it about 10 posts in, but the censorship is f*****g ridiculous, what kind of an idiot came up with this crap? Don't post articles dealing with such subjects, if you're gonna censor them to the point they become illegible.
Benita Valdez 3 years ago
It's really annoying. More annoying than a game I play that x's out the last 4 letters of grape in chat section. (G****) so stupid
Load More Replies...
Kate Jones 3 years ago (edited)
(1) NAL but I was on a jury for a family who was trying to sue a dentist for malpractice because their mother died of cancer. She had been to see him 2 months prior for a routine visit when he mentioned that there was an unusual small lump on her tongue, which the dentist did note and told her she needed to have a biopsy. She couldn't stay but they made an appt for 2 days later, but she never showed. They were trying to claim that the doctor should have basically hunted her down to get to her come in again and he should have known how serious it was, even though SHE didn't show up. It was so ridiculous how hard the lawyer was trying to keep that out of evidence. Then they had another dentist go up to talk about how there was no way to diagnose this in one visit and even if they had the biospy that day, results would have not come back that day. There was no time wasted. It was her own fault for not coming in. She went back like 3 months later and at that point it had spread. The family's lawyer just just kept trying to discount him because he'd been paid to be there that day. Which is standard practice for any expert witness.
Kate Jones 3 years ago
(2) So the dentist himself got up to testify and the lawyer kept trying to get him to admit that he didn't do the biopsy that day. The dentist was like, 'yeah I've said that 3 times now. I made an appt for her because SHE couldn't stay and do the biospy that day. And she didnt show up for the follow up.' And the lawyer kept saying 'so you admit you were negligent!' and it just kept going in a circle to the point the judge told him to move on. Then he was making noises at his chair and trying to distract us, which at one point the defense attorneys asked to speak to the judge about and the judge was pissed about it. He reprimanded him. We couldn't hear what they were saying but he was clearly getting spoken to. It was so ridiculous that most of us really disliked that lawyer and the decision came back in about 15 minutes. They were so shocked. He was just the worst lawyer and really did a diservice to his clients.
Load More Replies... Marcus Karlsson 3 years ago
Stop censoring the posts! God dammit Bored Panda! It is just ridiculus and hard to read.
HarriMissesScotland 3 years ago
Anyone remember the Casey Anthony case with Belvin Perry as the judge? Well, before that case, I was on a jury in his courtroom. All female. He looked directly at me and said, " Well, this is going to take forever. All female juries can never agree on anything." He made us stay until 11 pm, when we did reach a verdict. I approached him after the fact, and said, I guess we just proved you wrong. And, btw, my boss is your best friend, and he is going to hear about this. I saw him recently talking about Casey Anthony, and he said the only reason she got off was because ONE juror wanted to know why Caylee was killed. He didn't put that in the jury rules.
Random Panda 3 years ago
I made it about 10 posts in, but the censorship is f*****g ridiculous, what kind of an idiot came up with this crap? Don't post articles dealing with such subjects, if you're gonna censor them to the point they become illegible.
Benita Valdez 3 years ago
It's really annoying. More annoying than a game I play that x's out the last 4 letters of grape in chat section. (G****) so stupid
Load More Replies... Kate Jones 3 years ago (edited)
(1) NAL but I was on a jury for a family who was trying to sue a dentist for malpractice because their mother died of cancer. She had been to see him 2 months prior for a routine visit when he mentioned that there was an unusual small lump on her tongue, which the dentist did note and told her she needed to have a biopsy. She couldn't stay but they made an appt for 2 days later, but she never showed. They were trying to claim that the doctor should have basically hunted her down to get to her come in again and he should have known how serious it was, even though SHE didn't show up. It was so ridiculous how hard the lawyer was trying to keep that out of evidence. Then they had another dentist go up to talk about how there was no way to diagnose this in one visit and even if they had the biospy that day, results would have not come back that day. There was no time wasted. It was her own fault for not coming in. She went back like 3 months later and at that point it had spread. The family's lawyer just just kept trying to discount him because he'd been paid to be there that day. Which is standard practice for any expert witness.
Kate Jones 3 years ago
(2) So the dentist himself got up to testify and the lawyer kept trying to get him to admit that he didn't do the biopsy that day. The dentist was like, 'yeah I've said that 3 times now. I made an appt for her because SHE couldn't stay and do the biospy that day. And she didnt show up for the follow up.' And the lawyer kept saying 'so you admit you were negligent!' and it just kept going in a circle to the point the judge told him to move on. Then he was making noises at his chair and trying to distract us, which at one point the defense attorneys asked to speak to the judge about and the judge was pissed about it. He reprimanded him. We couldn't hear what they were saying but he was clearly getting spoken to. It was so ridiculous that most of us really disliked that lawyer and the decision came back in about 15 minutes. They were so shocked. He was just the worst lawyer and really did a diservice to his clients.
Load More Replies... Marcus Karlsson 3 years ago
Stop censoring the posts! God dammit Bored Panda! It is just ridiculus and hard to read.
HarriMissesScotland 3 years ago
Anyone remember the Casey Anthony case with Belvin Perry as the judge? Well, before that case, I was on a jury in his courtroom. All female. He looked directly at me and said, " Well, this is going to take forever. All female juries can never agree on anything." He made us stay until 11 pm, when we did reach a verdict. I approached him after the fact, and said, I guess we just proved you wrong. And, btw, my boss is your best friend, and he is going to hear about this. I saw him recently talking about Casey Anthony, and he said the only reason she got off was because ONE juror wanted to know why Caylee was killed. He didn't put that in the jury rules.
Related on Bored Panda
