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.
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.
This is getting just weird now, why was the word 'accident' from the original post redacted to 'collision'?
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.
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...
So, this so-called doctor didn't even try to fix the ancient town in the north of Sardinia? Useless!
A very big part of a lawyer's job is memorizing information. Another really big part is confirming information. If she didn't bother to at least double check the word she was going to be using repeatedly she's a pretty shite lawyer. Especially since she could, you know, write it down and read it from the paper if she was concerned about forgetting it. That and most elementary school children learn the names of the bones in their body so the tibia and fibula shouldn't be new words to her anyway.
Load More Replies... 
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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!
When God distributed brains, it obviously didn't leave a mark on you, pal.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
When the lawyer advises the client to keep their mouths shut, they usually have a good reason to advise that
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Watching a hearing when the defendant said "I mean I did stab her... But it was a gentle stabbing..."
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.
Can someone explain why it's a stupid question to ask? Is it because it's leading? Thanks.
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.
And men accused or guilty of crimes like that do very badly in prison.
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.
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.
Super professional judge, the last person had no (and never should have any) bearing on the next case.
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.
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."
Yes, because the perfect time to crack a lame joke is when your future is on the line!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Mentoring the kid for stealing? Mentor hiding the stolen property?
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.
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.
America, land of the free...to sue everyone for everything just because you're greedy...
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.
During jury selection. “I can’t be a juror due to the fact I’m kinda racist.”
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.
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."
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.
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.
Dunno if it's a good thing but judges are god in their court, don't joke with them
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...
Any guy who is willing to beat a woman should get more than 30 days. 30 years seems reasonable to me
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.
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.
Note: this post originally had 97 images. It’s been shortened to the top 35 images based on user votes.
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.
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...
(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.
(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... Stop censoring the posts! God dammit Bored Panda! It is just ridiculus and hard to read.
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.
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.
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... (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.
(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... Stop censoring the posts! God dammit Bored Panda! It is just ridiculus and hard to read.
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.
