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 
58 Lawyers Share The Most Ridiculous Arguments They’ve Heard In Court
A court of law is a serious place. We think of courtrooms as places that serve justice, where people act with composure and focus on logical decision-making. Yet sometimes, judges face cases and arguments so ridiculous that it can feel like a hidden camera is watching.
Plenty of ridiculous lawsuits have plagued the U.S. court system. For example, PETA tried to prove, albeit unsuccessfully, that a monkey can own a copyright to its own selfie. Michael Jordan and the Nike CEO have been sued by a self-proclaimed look-alike, citing damages for emotional pain and suffering.
Absurd reasoning is a staple in court hearings too, it seems, as many lawyers have shared plenty of funny stories when one netizen asked, “Lawyers of Reddit, what’s the most ridiculous argument you've heard in court?” From trying to justify running a red light because the sun was in their eyes to claiming responsibility simply because they drive a Prius, these folks really should’ve used a better defense in court, because theirs was pretty laughable.
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
This never made it to court.
I asked my divorce lawyer what was the worst thing a client had asked him to argue. I was expecting a "I want the salad spinner!" sort of story.
He had a client, a professor in his 70s who was divorcing from his wife, also a professor in her 70s. They were both Jewish.
His wife had a tattoo on her arm. It was a number, put there by the N*zis when they put her in a c****entration camp in WW2 as a child. Husband was born in the US, was not German.
The German government was in the process of settling a case with the survivors. She had some amount of money, a six figure sum, due to her. The husband wanted his lawyer to argue that he should get half the settlement money.
Lawyer told him that there was a special circle in hell for lawyers who ask for stuff like that and that he was not planning on ending up there.
RELATED:
#2
I'm a lawyer. The most ridiculous argument I've seen was one I actually made!
One of my clients got busted cooking m**h. This was a *very* clear cut case, they actually caught him in the middle of a cook. No way he was getting out of this one. The DA loaded him up with felonies, there was no bail and he was being held in the county jail.
My client knew he was f****d. He had been planning to get married a few weeks after he got busted.
My client asks me if he can get released for 24 hours so he can still get married. I tell him that I'll ask, but that there's no way in f*****g hell they'll let him out.
First, I ask the DA if they will allow it. Nope. They laugh.
So I file a motion with the court. Now, I knew the judge was a crusty old conservative family values kind of guy. Who also has a raging e**ction for d**g crime. There was no law involved, but I put together an argument about the sanctity of marriage and how the state should encourage marriage at all times, and that sort of thing.
We have a hearing and I make the argument. The DA is totally opposed and calls it ridiculous.
And the judge grants it. The judge actually decided to allow my client out for 24 hours to get married. He had to surrender at the county jail at 8AM the next day and some other conditions, but, still, he was allowed out.
Everyone is stunned. Nobody can believe it.
The day of the wedding comes, my client gets out, gets married, then goes back to the jail. Everything went exactly like how it was supposed to, which is also pretty shocking.
Anne Jones 6 hours ago
Thats a clever solicitor. Using psychology he knew the Judge would respond to.
#3
Ha! I'm a lawyer. I should win right there.
Anyway, we were in trial, and opposing counsel was objecting to a document I was trying to enter into evidence through one of their witnesses. The witness had identified it as one of their business records, but opposing counsel objects.
Jury is in the courtroom, so the Judge has us approach. We do, and opposing counsel argues the authenticity of the document. I was a little surprised. So my response was "Your Honor this is their exhibit. Is Counsel stating they submitted in-authentic documents to this Court?" Judge turns to counsel, "Are you submitting non-authentic documents?" Opposing counsel stammers out a no and the document goes in.
I was a little surprised they wanted to argue their own document wasn't authentic just to keep me from getting it to the jury.
#4
Made a left turn on a green turn arrow, a city bus ran a red and T-Boned me. My car was a little VW rabbit so it just scooted me and I was perfectly fine. Driver pulls over, comes out and says "the sun was in my eyes." I say "I'm not hurt, thanks for asking".
Police arrive, and guess what? There was a literal bus load full of witnesses. Every one had the same story... She ran a red.
City paid for my car, etc. She denied wrongdoing and went to court, which I had to attend along with a witness or two and the officer. Her defense? She had a migraine.
Judge: so I should let you off the hook because you had a bad headache and was driving into the sun?
Driver: Yes, your honor I'm glad you understand.
She got her commercial vehicle license revoked. Should have just taken the points.
#5
Former assistant state attorney/prosecutor here.
This defendant is called up for arraignment and the judge is telling him that he's been charged with theft for stealing a roll of scratch off tickets from a gas station. The judge informs the defendant that since the value of the tickets was over $300 therefore it's a felony rather than a misdemeanor.
The defendant says to the judge "but your honor, to be fair the tickets were all losers" implying it's not theft at all.
I was amazed at the ingeniusness yet futility of the argument.
Becky Samuel 10 hours ago
Aaand another shining example of just how lazy Boredpanda editors are when choosing pictures.
#6
I am a lawyer. This was a petition, rather than an in-court appearance, when I was a *pro se* clerk. *Pro se* clerks handle petitions from prisoners.
This was a state case and the petitioner claimed that because our state awards good-time credits (for every 30 days you serve without problems you get 10 days off of your sentence) for all sentences, even sentences of life, he had accumulated X years of credit against his sentence. Further, according to the actuarial tables, he would be d**d in X years, therefore he was eligible for release.
So far this is a clever argument, even if it is bound to failure. What made it ridiculous was that he was not serving one life sentence but two consecutive life sentences plus 20 years. Therefore, under his own analysis, he needed to serve more than his own lifespan before becoming eligible for release.
As an added bonus, I dismissed his petition as lacking standing until he actually d***d and we could properly calculate his sentence.
Fellfromthemoon 1 hour ago
One theoretical question: if one is sentenced for two consecutive life sentences plus twenty years, which part of the sentences will this person start? Another: when he serves his first life sentence, will he be released and start the second one from the age he was sentenced, or from birth? :D
#7
Hah I have a story for this one. I'm not a lawyer nor could I talk at the time. During a custody battle between my grandparents and my mom and dad who were a***cts. The judge asks why my parents should have custody:
"Well, we are his parents"
The judge says well you guys have substance a***e issues"
"No, we don't"
"So you're not using anything?"
"No, we're both clean"
"When is the last time you've used?"
"A few days ago and we're done now"
My grandparents won that day in court. This story has been told to me a few times by my grandfather.
#8
Laywer who is not practicing in court, but when I was in college doing my bachelor's degree, criminal law was part of the curriculum and this included spending a couple of days observing criminal trials. The things you witness.
Anyway; at the start of one of these trials a guy with the greasiest mullet enters the room. Thin, tall, disproportionately sized limbs, tattoos all over; I swear the way he sat before the judge, the only thing that was missing was a beer in his hand and a chicken under his arm. Now, this guy chose not to have a lawyer represent him, as he's a regular and spends short periods of time in jail or doing community service pretty much every month, anyway. Real problem case; d***s, alcoholism etc., but still he comes across as a really sympathetic dude and has a really entertaining way of telling a story while keeping a straight face and not realizing how funny he is.
He knows he's getting fined and a couple of hours of cutting weeds as community service to keep our Dutch streets nice and tidy, but tries to win the sympathies of the judge to decrease his sentence. This man's dog was sent to a dog shelter when they found it malnourished a couple of weeks before when they brought him in for dealing--real sad, but also the reason he's standing trial. The guy got high as a kite and drunk as an Irishman on St. Patrick's and while completely d*****d out of his mind decided to get his dog back from the shelter, because he really missed 'his girl'.
The judge asks him if it's correct that he broke the lock and some of the camera equipment on site of the dog shelter and he confirms. You could really tell from his passionate account of the progression of the evening that he did all this out of pure love as his dog according to him was the only thing that pulled him through all of his rough patches with his girlfriend and his d**g problem. So the judge orders camera footage to be shown to confirm that it is the suspect and he confirms. On it he is seen stumbling about and wrenching one of the dog enclosures open and hugging a German shepherd.
At this point everyone is touched by seeing this guy be so emotional on the camera footage with the dog, hugging it, petting it and playing with it and you can see the judge really get into it, as well. Anyway, so this guy continues with his story and tells about how he took the dog to his car and went home never feeling happier in his life and ends his account with the driest delivery of "needless to say I was f*****g surprised when I woke up the next day and there was a German Shepherd in my room instead of a Staffordshire terrier." Everyone just broke out in laughter. He didn't get what was funny. Turns out the dude stole the wrong dog. Judge sentenced him to 50 hours of community service and €3000 or so repairs for the broken doors and camera equipment.
TL:DR Guy tries to win sympathies of judge with passionate account of how he broke into a dog shelter and steal his dog back from animal services; steals the wrong dog.
#9
Dammit, this thread is five hours old and this comment will never see the light of day, but f**k it.
This wasn't so much a bad argument, but an example of terrible questioning.
This was a CERCLA case (clean up of polluted ground water and soil). A witness (a former manager of the polluted property) was asked the following at a deposition:
Q: Did you ever see anything strange?
[At that point, a number of objections to the question were made by the attorneys present]
A: What? Did I ever see anything strange is your question?
Q: Yes sir. Did you ever see anything strange?
A: Yes. I saw a man with b***s.
Q: You saw a man with b***s at the site?
A: No. I saw a man with b***s in New Orleans once.
#10
I have a brief encounter (personal injury prospect):
Old lady slipped & fell on an icy driveway which was not salted or maintained, so she wanted to sue for damages.
After hearing the story, turns out the lady fell on her own driveway which she did not salt / maintain. She was wanting to sue herself.
#11
Not a lawyer but was the child in a custody case between my parents. My mother's lawyer argued for and had put in the final agreement that I had to add my mother as a Facebook friend.
Edit: This was 7 years ago, we are still not friends on Facebook, and she's blocked on everything I have an account for.
#12
I'm a prosecutor now, but I used to have a private practice where I did a lot of evictions. My usual landlord clients wouldn't even come into my office until their tenants had been behind for months, and most of the time the tenants were defiant in their non-payment, so it wasn't difficult to not take pity on them.
Anyway, one tenant was a particularly dumb guy. He usually came to court dressed in a wife-beater and cutoff jeans. We had a trial date set and my client and I showed up. Tenant did not. At the last second before the judge entered a default, some woman comes bursting into the courtroom and yells, "Darryl's on the phone!" The judge allows her to bring the phone up and we put Tenant on speaker. He proceeds to ask the judge to delay the trial for one week because, "My brother got his head knocked inside out and is prolly gon' d*e."
I didn't buy it, but my client knew Darryl well enough to sense the stress and fear in his voice. I told the judge that we would allow the continuance, but only until the next available court day. The judge set it for one week out. I still didn't believe Darryl until that night my grandfather was in an accident and we had to rush to the hospital. As we're walking up the hallway, I see Darryl in a room with a bunch of people who dressed like him enough to obviously be family. When we get to my grandpa's room (he ended up being not as seriously injured as we originally feared), the first thing he says is, "You'll never guess what happened to the guy down the hall. Nurse told me his idiot brother dropped a tractor bucket on his head and opened it like a cracked egg. He's in a coma now."
I relayed the news to my client and she felt sorry enough for Darryl that we signed an agreement stating that he would clear out within 15 days and we would forgive all back rent owed.
#13
As with everyone else in this thread, I am not a lawyer but did work in court.
Had multiple mothers in separate cases claim that they couldn't be sent to prison because it breached their "European Union right to a family life". I can only assume they got it from something like the Daily Mail because they all used that same phrasing.
Edit: Yes, this was at least in the UK.
#14
Had a pro se litigant argue that she didn't owe the credit card company because Jesus.
The basic argument was that debt is a sin (or maybe not paying the debt was a sin). And Jesus died for all of our sins. Therefore Jesus died to pay off her debt. Brilliant.
#15
Actual lawyer. What I dub the "Surprise Party Defense:"
In a hearing for an order of protection in which ex wife is trying to get an order of protection against ex husband who had been stalking her. They have a high-school aged child together. Ex husband tries to argue against the order of protection by saying they may need to be able to communicate about the child. The judge points out that they can communicate THROUGH the child, and also that other family members have been put in place by the juvenile court to be intermediaries re pickup, drop-off, etc.
Then ex husband has a brilliant light-bulb idea:
"Judge, what if I need to throw my son a surprise party, and I need to keep it secret from everyone, but his mom still needs to know so she doesn't throw a party the same day?"
In other-words, while I admit have been stalking my ex wife and that there are grounds to grant an order of protection, you should not grant that order just in case I need to throw a surprise party one day.
What made it was how clever he thought the argument was. Thus was born, the Surprise Party Defense.
EDIT: A lot of you are upset about the comment of communicating through the child. That was probably a poor way to phrase it. In this situation the father would be barred from passing messages to the mother through the child. He can't say, "Tell your mom X" But, of course, some indirect communication is going to occur, and that is what the judge was referring to. In other words, the father cannot argue that he needs to be able to have direct communication with the mother for purposes of coordinating child care, things like that (which is often the issue). Because the child in this case is old enough to tell both parents for example, about school, friends, trips, grades, etc. It is not as if the judge ordered the child to be the intermediary, that is ridiculous.
Also, I sort of simplified the complexities of it because these people's parental arrangement was not the point. The dumbness of the argument was the point. But this is a criminal judge determining an order of protection. There is a whole separate juvenile/family court judge that actually determines the custody arrangement and things of that nature.
The bottom line is, the guy was trying to use the kid as an excuse to avoid an order of protection so he could continue to stalk and harrass his ex wife.
#16
Longtime lurker but I couldn't resist this one. Not a lawyer, but I was called as a witness to testify for the State regarding an accident that I was involved in.
I was hit from behind by a large construction dump truck while sitting at a red light behind another vehicle. It was a four lane roadway that merged into two after the light and I was in the right lane heading north. The light turned green and I hadn't moved yet because I felt the vehicle tap mine. Next thing I know I'm moving forward and I begin to panic that something's wrong with my car.
Well, apparently the driver of the dump truck didn't realize he'd hit me and pushed me straight through the intersection and my car ended up doing a 180 and I was facing south heading towards a very deep ditch. I was blaring my horn and hitting my brakes and trying to avoid going in the ditch because my son was not even 1-month old at the time and in the backseat along with my dog. I manage to pull the parking brake and we slide to a stop just at the edge of the road before the ditch.
Husband turns and asks "Do I need to call 911?". I tell him no because I see the dump truck pull over to the side a bit north of me and I figure he'll come out to exchange insurance. Lo and behold, the driver took off after about 15 seconds of sitting there! I was stunned but immediately told hubby to then call 911, that we'd be in a hit a run.
Sheriff comes, people from the company that hit us come, witnesses who saw the whole thing tell the sheriff what happened and company apologizes, they start looking for the driver through the GPS on the vehicle. Company ended up paying 2 grand in damage to my car and paid for a brand new car seat. Pictures were taken by all parties as well of the damage present to my car.
So imagine my surprise when I got subpoenaed to appear in court to testify against this guy. I can't believe the nerve of this a*****e that hit me, ran, and had the balls to testify not guilty to the charge.
The day comes and I show up in court. Give my testimony, witness gives hers, sheriff gives his. A bit of banter back and forth about a surveillance video from a gas station that the driver obtained but his d*****t lawyer didn't bother to enter into evidence before the trial. Judge won't allow her to show video because State hasn't had time to review it. We finally get to hear the drivers testimony and he gave the best excuse that could be summed up like this: "I didn't see her car as I was pulling up to the light. I was giving enough distance to stop to the car in front of her but I didn't see her. I didn't hear the horn blaring because I was in a diesel vehicle and didn't realize that I'd hit her or that I was even involved in an accident and that's why I didn't stop. I'd been having break issues and thought it was just my brakes acting up."
He apparently thought he could win his case by testifying that because he didn't see me and didn't realize he was in an accident, he shouldn't be charged with the accident and failure to remain at the scene of the accident. Sorry, a*****e, ignorance of events doesn't make you any less liable in the eyes of the law. Judge pronounced him guilty and the guy rolled his eyes like he couldn't believe it. I'm still waiting to find out if he tries to appeal it.
#17
I was a juror, but this was a hell of a defense.
Defendant ran through a red light and crossed against traffic in front of an officer. She was over twice the limit.
It wasn't her fault. She had a cut on her arm that her dog licked. The yeast from the dogs saliva entered her blood stream and converted her blood sugar into alcohol.
#18
Not in court but a conversation in my office:
It doesn't matter if you were sober or not. You jumped out of a third story window with a beer bottle and threw it at a cop. The jury is going to think you were drunk. Also, I think you were drunk.
#19
I am a lawyer. Colleague argued that it wasn't animal cruelty to sh**t a dog because the dog didn't suffer. This wasn't like a euthanasia situation, rather a robbery gone bad. The judge entertained it for a second and then came to her senses.
#20
As a corporate lawyer, the most ridiculous argument I come across almost monthly is as follows: fortune 500 company signs a garbage contract and is going to lose a lot of money due to the plain language of that contract; fortune 500 company argues unconscionability -- specifically that said company was not sophisticated enough to read the contract and no reasonable person would ever agree to the term or terms in dispute.
In sum, multi-billion dollar firms claiming they're incapable of reading contracts.
David Paterson 6 hours ago
Some employees... Negligence or corruption, sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference.
#21
This came in a deposition, but it's still one of my funniest stories from this old job.
I worked part-time as a paralegal when I was in college. We had this massive case with a lot of people involved that had spun out into a bunch of little side cases. In one of those side cases, this guy was claiming our client had left him threatening voicemails related to the main case, and him and his wife sued for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium, and I swear to you this is a real thing, basically means something happened that is stopping a married couple from having s*x, and they want to sue you over it. The guy was claiming that he was so scared from these voicemails that he couldn't sleep with his wife anymore.
Deposition time rolls around, and I'm sitting in the other room, but it's a small office and I can hear everything. My boss starts asking the wife how we're supposed to know that it was our client's fault they stopped having s*x. Maybe she's just not as attracted to him anymore. Maybe he's not attracted to her. Maybe they didn't have that much of a s*x life to begin with, etc. So this woman starts yelling "I love s*x!" and banging her fists on the table. Her lawyers try to calm her down and tell her to stop talking, but she keeps on shouting "I love s*x! We used to have s*x 2, 3 times a day! We'd be thrown out of hotels because of the noise we'd make!" And to the protestation of everyone in the room, her counsel and ours, she proceeded to describe their s****l history in graphic detail, all of which was recorded in the deposition and filed with the court.
#22
My parents are both lawyers.
Was in court with my dad when I was younger. Dad is throwing out objection after objection at the opposing counsel during cross examination. Judge is sustaining all of them. Several hours into this, the judge is getting restless and asks the opposing counsel to hurry it up.
Opposing counsel responds: "Well if Mr. Surname would stop objecting perhaps I could get through my examination."
Judge did not like this. She lays into the guy: "If you would stop asking objectable questions Mr. Surname wouldn't have to object! Hurry this I am not going to sit here all day."
Was pretty cool to watch as a kid. Dude got roasted. Dad won that trial.
#23
An opposing attorney the other day said I should not cross-examine his witness at a preliminary hearing because it would only hone the witness's testifying skills to be cross-examined at trial. I laughed out loud.
#24
Not a lawyer, did work experience with one back in highschool.
He had to go speak to someone in the court cells, where I wasn't allowed, so I went and sat in one of the courtrooms while he did that. There were a few cases, but the one that stood out were the 2 guys who both had some injuries and claimed the other one had attacked them unprovoked. Neither wanted any representation, there was no evidence apart from them blaming each other, and when the lawyer I was with came to find me, they were literally just stood in front on the judge screaming "He did it"/"No he did it" over and over again.
Edit: Just thought of another story from a close friend who's a defence barrister:
Her client was a building firm that had done shoddy work on an OAP's roof that had lead to it collapsing, causing the OAP a head injury and fractured hip, so were being sued. She said the damages were wildly inflated in value by the prosecution, but her client was even more ridiculous with their offer. Her research had shown her that the minimum they should have been offering for the collapse of the roof alone, without the additional injuries, should have been ~£4000. They refused to offer more than £1600 on the grounds that they expected her to d*e before anything happened as a result of their work. She said she'd never felt more embarrassed than when she had to tell the judge this in front of the prosecution and their client.
#25
My dad told me a story in which his opponent claimed that the surgeon general's 1964 warning was never released in the New York Times. He did this through use of a book and he claimed the headline was not in there and did not exist. My father spent the entirety of the next night looking for the book, found it, bought it, found the headline for which he was looking, and absolutely demolished the argument the next day by showing the headline to everyone.
D Bearman 7 hours ago
For those who don’t remember: The report highlighted the deleterious health consequences of tobacco use. Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General held cigarette smoking responsible for a 70 percent increase in the mortality rate of smokers over non-smokers. The report estimated that average smokers had a nine- to ten-fold risk of developing lung cancer compared to non-smokers: heavy smokers had at least a twenty-fold risk.
#26
Not an attorney, but my grandfather told me a story about how he was in to court in the early 1950s to defend himself for a traffic violation. The police officer used evidence against him that he had been "rampaging all around town for the past few months," but the cop was such a nice guy he had been letting him go. My grandfather's response was, "Judge, I'm not sure about how much rampaging I've been doing, but it wasn't in your city. I've been helping to rebuild Germany for the past 18 months. I just got back in town on Friday.".
#27
In family court hearing a motion for entry of a restraining order for an a*****e husband. Husband's lawyer argues that in a marriage, there is implied consent for a certain amount of a***e/violence.
David Paterson 5 hours ago
There are now agreed to be five different types of ab-use. Only one of them is physical.
#28
Not a lawyer, but I was a part of a court case with an odd defense. I was an assistant manager at a record and tape store. I busted a girl for shop lifting. She filled out part of a form saying she wouldn't come back to the store and then made a run for it. I saw her driver's license as filled out the paperwork, so the info on the paper was hers.
I followed her out and stood behind her car to try to stall her until the police arrived. Not a smart move as she floored it, clipping me and running over the side of my foot. She drives away but the police have her info from the paper so they go get her. Store prosecutes all shop lifters and I am pretty pissed that she was willing to run me over to get away.
Anyway, her lawyer's defense in court was that I had framed an innocent teenager for shoplifting in hopes that I would get a monetary reward from my store. When she realized what I was trying to do, she ran from the scene to escape my nefarious plot. Needless to say, this defense did not fly and she got like 25 hours community service. The court didn't seem to care that she was willing to run me over.
Kristiina Männiste 5 hours ago
Me after reading "busted a girl for shop lifting", ok I heard that american buildings are flimsy, but this is next level...
#29
Longtime lurker, and maybe I'm only posting bc this happened like a week ago, but whatever. First time for everything :)
The criminal defense attorney representing a guy who st**bed his wife several times and then beat her with a frying pan and then st**bed her again tried to argue that it is an affirmative defense to attempted m****r if you take your victim to the hospital after. He claimed its impossible to attempt to m****r somebody if you "save her life" after.
He got benchslapped pretty hard (1) for the horrible legal argument and (2) for continuously saying this guy saved her life after he tried to k**l her.
#30
There is famous case before the Danish High Court where a woman was r***d by 8 bikers on a beach.
The defense argued that she had wanted it because she willingly put her self into a situation where she was alone with 8 men.
The female prosecutor then casually looked around, counted there was 11 men and she was the only female and asked "So you are saying I am asking for it now?"
The story says that was the only time all the judges have burst into laughter in any case.
Safe to say the defense argument didnt go over very well with the judges.
#31
I am a lawyer. The state tried to argue that probable cause exists simply because there is a police report alleging the crime. "From the fact that a police officer filed this report it is a reasonable inference that the crime took place as described."
Good, allegations are self-proving now. Well, wrap up court then, I guess no need to hear any more motions to dismiss ever. I wonder why no other prosecutor in 240 years of jurisprudence ever thought of that before, 25 year old assistant district attorney who went to the worst law school in this state.
#32
Traffic court, speeding ticket. "Your honor, I didn't speed, and I can prove it with logic."
Judge: "Okayyy..."
Lady: "I drive a Prius."
Judge: "....?"
Lady: "That proves I'm responsible. Specifically in the realm of cars. So I obviously wouldn't speed."
She had to pay the ticket.
Kristiina Männiste 5 hours ago
Having diven a Prius uphill, I think the speed camera may have been faulty.
#33
Also a lawyer. Had opposing counsel try to argue that because a landlady had written on her eviction notice "it has been a pleasure getting to know you but...[please leave]" but had testified they were awful tenants that she hated, that she was dishonest and nothing she said could be trusted
Opened the question of dishonesty wide open. Although landlady wasn't an angel, tenants had an enormous string of fraud priors we could tell the court about as a result.
Edit because of confusion around impeachability doors: this is UK law and relates to gateways for admissibility of bad character evidence.
#34
Not a lawyer but when my mom was k****d by a drunk driver, we were filing a wrongful d***h suit. And the lawyer for the defense used my mom's cancer to say that she was going to d*e anyways so a wrongful d***h dispensation was not owed.
#35
Several years ago I was doing a civil trial (personal injury), defending a woman who (allegedly) hit a bus matron with her car.
We had offered to concede liability and just try damages (in other words, the jury wouldn't hear the circumstances of how the injury happened, just that we agreed my client caused the injury, and they would only decide the amount of damages - we had evidence that the plaintiff was significantly exaggerating her injuries). The plaintiff's attorney refused to agree to our concession, thinking that if they jury heard the circumstances they'd want to give even more money to punish my client.
So we went to trial on liability. The plaintiff called one witness, her client, who testified that an older woman in a green car hit her. They rested and I moved for a dismissal for failure to prove a case. There was literally no evidence connecting my client to this incident, just an older woman in a green car. The plaintiff never bothered to call my client to the stand.
The attorney told the judge that the bus driver had written down my client's license plate and gave it to the police. They never bothered trying to find the bus driver. The attorney asked if she could just put the police report in and I objected that it was hearsay.
The attorney then actually said "please just let me put this in, I haven't had work in a while and I got retained by a firm to try this case, I really need to win this." Of course I didn't agree, and the judge dismissed the case. I felt a little bad for her but that was maybe the worse presentation of a case I ever saw.
I spoke with the jury afterwards and they all said they hated the plaintiff, didn't believe a word she said, and likely would have found in my favor anyway.
Moral of the story, BE PREPARED IN COURT.
#36
Not a lawyer, but I was in traffic court and a cab driver had got a ticket for running a red. He argued that it was really difficult to see because the sun was rising (morning) right where the light was. He was traveling west.
#37
Not a lawyer cause they don't exist. I got a ticket for expired parking meter. Went in and contested it. The guy says "the parking authority took some pictures for evidence, how do you explain these?" The pictures included my car, my license plate, and the parking meter which clearly showed 13 minutes left on it.
#38
Wasn't the other lawyer, but his client. Took the stand in a retail theft trial. Claimed he didn't steal a couple salmon filets on purpose, he was just so flustered by a phone conversation with his girlfriend that he accidentally slipped them into the pockets of his jacket (in a part of the store the loss prevention officer called "shoplifter alley" because it's a blind spot for the cameras) and walked out without realizing it.
It's not like it was a candy bar or something small, it was two salmon filets! I asked him, "have you ever done that before?" Him: "No." Me: "Have you ever seen anyone, anywhere, ever put fish like that in their pocket in your entire life?" Him: ".....No."
Mercifully, the jury did not buy his ludicrous story and found him guilty.
#39
My uncle did malpractice defense. Well one year he had to defend a surgeon, the patient said after his elbow surgery he couldn't play tennis anymore.
They went through weeks of work trying to figure out what went wrong and why all the sudden this guy couldn't play tennis, because according to all the evidence the surgery went fine and he should be good.
Then, right before a recess, my uncle stopped and asked "sir...have you ever played tennis before?" The guy said "well...no but I've always wanted to"
The case got dismissed.
#40
Oh geez where do I start. I mean I could tell plenty of these about my own clients but I like this one:
A lady has an injury/Comp case. It's for her upper back and of course complex regional pain syndrome.
She decides she needs the insurance company to pay for a special mattress for her. Like a $6000 memory foam, with heat and massage and a thousand other features. And not just a twin, she needs a California King because of course her layabout unemployed boyfriend needs to sleep there too.
We spend months litigating this d**n thing. Finally, she buys it herself and my client agrees to give her $1500 just to be done with it. The judge takes myself and opposing counsel aside and says he's gonna m********k us if we ever say the word mattress in his court again after wasting all this time. It was that ridiculous.
Not three months go by and the case comes on for another hearing. After exhausting all the chiropractic care allowed under the law, her doctor was seeking a variance to get some additional chiropractic.
We get to court and I'm arguing it should be denied, etc. Judge turns to her and says, "ma'am, why do you feel you need more chiropractic care?"
She pauses for a minute then says, "I'm having a lot of trouble sleeping on my mattress."
I think I saw smoke coming out of his ears.
#41
I wasn't a lawyer, but a law clerk working with the prosecutor's office. This guy was caught on the highest quality security cam video I've ever seen st**bing a store clerk like 15 times (she survived), and then was tackled a block away from the scene not 5 minutes later by a man who had see him flee and followed him, 25 feet from the knife and the jacket he'd been wearing that was covered in blood with a receipt with his name on it in the pocket.
It was the literal definition of a slam dunk case. The guy chose to proceed to trial without his lawyer instead of having the case postponed after his attorneys house was broken into and all his files were stolen.
This guys's main argument was that it wasn't him because in the statement of probable cause written by the officers after the incident they misspelled his highly unique lastname by adding a T in the middle (e.g. Johnson became Johnston). He spelled his name out at every opportunity with much emphasis. He also argued it couldn't be him because the man on the video tied a t-shirt around his head so that the distinctive tattoos there would be hidden, but he would never cover over his tattoos like that because he was proud of them and they represented his heritage as a Korean man.
The jury took less than a half hour to return a guilty verdict.
#42
Hands down the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard was a Constitutionalist, *pro se* defendant trying to explain why the Court lacked jurisdiction over him.
I was prepared for the standard arguments about "freeman on the land," non-corporate natural person, admiralty court, etc... But this one was different. This particular defendant was part of a Jehovah's Witness compound and happened to be Marshallese-American (i.e. he was black).
After the Court patiently explained to him that it has jurisdiction over all persons in the county, the defendant promptly piped up that, under the *Dred Scott* decision, he wasn't a person and the Court had no jurisdiction.
#43
Of course I'm not a lawyer ~ was doing my journalism degree and was just watching cases all day for an assignment.
One guy was up on d**g charges for distribution. He was selling w**d. His lawyer tried to argue to the judge that w**d never hurt anyone, and it even made it easier for police during domestic disturbance calls, and that, in fact, the police should be using his client to get w**d to calm people down.
His client got something like 3 years in jail, and 5 years probation.
#44
Lawyer here. During an order of protection hearing the 6'3" muscular tattooed idiot told the judge that my 5'1" female client deserved the black eye he gave her because she wouldn't stop running her mouth. He actually expected the judge to be sympathetic or something. The second he admitted to hitting her the judge cut him off and said "Order of Protection granted. Next case.".
David Paterson 6 hours ago
Just a side note. Verbal ab-use is still ab-use. So is emotional ab-use.
#45
Car accident case where the Plaintiff was clearly trying to ham it up. Brought friends and family for back up and the stories were all inconsistent. Cried on the stand. It was a small accident and the Plaintiff wanted a lot of money for sprains. The attorney said "Yeah there are inconsistencies and crazy stories. But you don't believe the person who tells you the same thing every time. That is the person pulling the wool over your eyes." Um, no. Honest people are consistent. The attorney also had his client testify that no interpreters were used when they were and that there was confusion about a question regarding a prior accident when that question was never asked.
Edit: Am a lawyer.
#46
Not a lawyer but my uncle is. He had to defend a man accused of b*********y with a horse.
Defence was that his d**k was too small to actually achieve climax in the horse's a**s, ergo he didn't actually have s*x with it. But I mean he was giving it enemas with washing-up liquid and even had a little stool to stand on when he was ready to go at it, so the defence didn't really work in his favour. Neither did the CCTV footage.
#47
Recovering Small Business/BK Attorney here.
Was in Bankruptcy court on a motion of my own, when a very young attorney gets up to argue his position (his request was denied in pre-hearing disposition).
Young Attorney ("YA") - Your Honor, I believe your reading of the three cases you have cited is incorrect.
Bankruptcy Court Judge ("BKJ") - You think that, do you?
YA - Yes, your honor. I don't think the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel believed these cases would be used in this fashion, and I think you are misreading the author's scope.
BKJ - Ok. Tell me, as those are BAP opinions - who wrote those opinions?
YA - I'm not sure, your honor. I didn't check.
BKJ - In the future you may want to check those sorts of things - all three cases were authored by the judge you just told didn't understand his own writing.
Court Audience (mostly attorneys) - *Collective gasp*
YA - *Blank stare*
BKJ - *facepalm* Jesus, son. I WROTE THOSE OPINIONS.
YA - Oh. Well I still think they're wrong.
BKJ - Request denied. Get the hell out of my courtroom.
It was, quite possibly, the most awkward type of walk of shame I've ever seen as he gathered his things and left.
#48
Waiting for my case to be called I heard a wild argument. It was a Domestic Violence case and the Petitioner (person seeking protection) was accusing Respondent (ex-boyfriend) of a***e, specifically he head butted her. Respondent argued back by saying "seriously, honestly judge, I couldn't have because look at my head, it's huge. A head this big would leave a mark. Honestly judge look at my head." To which the judge responded, "Son, I have a big head. Look at my head." This went on for a minute.
Now the story doesn't stop here. It just gets better. The Respondent then argues that Petitioner "is keeping him from seeing their daughter, and that she went as far as putting her uncle as the baby's father on the birth certificate."
At this point I look around with shock, the clerk's mind is slowly grasping what he said, and the judge nods his head with a "typical Tuesday" smirk.
#49
There was this defendant that was running a Ponzi scheme with a story about going into depleted mines in South America with new technology to recover previously unrecoverable gold. He was actually using half of the money to buy gold bullion to dazzle investors, and pocketing the other half. When they arrested him, they found a s**t-ton of gold under his bed.
At his sentencing hearing a few years later (around 2011), it was argued that his sentence should be significantly reduced because, in the intervening time, the gold that had been seized had greatly appreciated in market value such that the investor victims would be mostly paid back in full, showing that his "investment" was actually prudent.
#50
A taxi driver was charged with a*****t for pelting stone at a bus driver after a minor accident between both vehicles.
Defense lawyer: Your lordship the bus driver was injured on right side of his neck, it is not possible for my client to cause that injury. The bus is right hand drive and the door on left side of the bus was open and driver was in driver's seat...
State: Your lordship, is counsel unaware that buses have windows?
Defense: The window was closed.
Judge: Really? How many times in this ~very hot and humid Indian city~ have you seen a bus drive around with windows closed unless it was raining?
Defense: I request adjournment your lordship.
#51
Not a lawyer but I testify in criminal court regularly due to my job.
Anyway, one morning I was sitting in a misdemeanor courtroom and watched a well-dressed mid-30's Polish lady step up when her name was called. She was charged with the crime of...failure to pay bus fare (about $2). Instead of just paying the minimal fine, she went full r****d and decided to defend herself pro se against this clearly heinous charge. She then proceeeded to give a 45 minute oral argument that stretched my understanding of reality. At various points in this impassioned speech she dropped to her knees and prayed, invoked the Archangel Michael, and began flapping her arms like wings.
The judge was not amused and sat there listening with his head in his hands, but he couldn't stop her of course. Eventually she finished, and he immediately found her guilty and ordered her to pay something like $40 to the clerk. This only made her angrier, and she began the whole flapping of the arms thing again and arguing with the judge. At this point, the judge explicitly stated: "I want you to leave the court room now. If you make ONE SINGLE NOISE on your way out, the deputies will take arrest you for contempt." Two deputies started inching closer to her (they never get much action working courthouse duty, so they were excited). She looked defeated and began to exit, but just at the door she turned around and opened her stupid mouth once more to call the judge a "cursed demon." Everyone applauded as she was dragged out in cuffs.
#52
Not a lawyer but I once heard the worst argument of all time being made by this kid and his father to their attorney. It goes something like this:
*I only drive this car while I'm at home and I have a different one at school. When you drive this car it accelerates much faster than you realize and you easily lose track of your speed.*
No s**t Sherlock, some cars are fast and we have this magical gauge that tells you your exact speed! Jesus Christ.
#53
A guy on probation was arrested because he was late at night in a Park and seemed drunk. The judge asked him what he was doing there in the middle of the night and he answered "I was doing Yoga". He was obviously lying, the judge asked him to name a Yoga position and some lawyers behind him whispered a Position to him which caused the whole Court room to laugh. The judge then let him go.
#54
Not mine, but my old Mock Trial instructor:
"And how do we know that [witness]'s testimony is reliable? *(to [witness])* You wear need to wear glasses, correct?"
"Yes."
"So doesn't that mean that you are legally considered to have impaired vision?"
"Yes"
(Prosecution proceeds to build most of their cross examination on this leg, painting the witness as unreliable because of poor vision. Finally, defense gets a chance to question again)
"You wear glasses Mr. [witness], is that correct?"
"Yes"
"So whenever you're wearing glasses, you have 20/20 vision, correct?"
"Yes"
"Thank you. No further questions.".
#55
I was involved in a trespass case where the defense argued the security supervisor of casino didn't have the legal authority to make somebody leave. They didn't argue the facts of the case, just questioned the supervisor on his own understanding of the trespass law and his powers as a member of the security department.
#56
Girlfriend is a reddit lurker. Posting on her behalf:
This is a story that my grandpa always tells, so some of the details are fuzzy but this is the gist of it. My grandpa was a public defender, and this was a defense he used for one of his clients, who was being accused of attempting to break into a car.
How it happened: Man #1 is sitting in his house, and he looks out the window and sees Man #2 next to a car parked in the street. Man #2 is out there fiddling with the car door for like 10 minutes, and so Man #1 realizes he's trying to break into the car and calls the cops. Man #2 runs, and eventually Man #3, my grandpa's client, is picked up nearby because he matched the description of Man #2.
So my grandpa is meeting with his client and telling him what he's accused of. Client asks, "Wait, what kind of car was it?" Grandpa tells him. Client says, "I can prove that it wasn't me." Grandpa: "How?" Client: "You said the guy was out there for 10 minutes – I can break into that car in less than 20 seconds." Grandpa: "Prove it."
So he finds one of whatever kind of car it was, and the client proceeds to pick the lock in 12 seconds. Grandpa gets the judge out there, and the client does it again for the judge, who makes him do it one more time and then dismisses the case.
#57
Not a lawyer, but I thought this was a very strange defence. Gary Heidnik had a history of mental illness, but none the less made a fortune in the stock market and had enough to retire indefinitely. In the late 80s, he decided to kidnap five women and chain them to the wall in the basement where he r***d them every day, as well as t****red them (he was fond of electrocuting them) for not getting pregnant. When one of the women starved to d***h, he forced the other women to eat her body mixed with dogfood.
Another women, when getting her routine electrocution t*****e, was accidentally electrocuted to d***h. One of the remaining three victims asked if she could visit family if she promised to come back. He agreed and she called the police. In court, he claimed that he had committed no crime because the women were already chained in the basement when he moved in.
#58
Currently studying law. One of my tutors told me about a case he had while working for the state, where the defendant tried to claim that being an orphan had given him severe PTSD and mental illness and he was unfit to stand trial.
Unfortunately, he was on trial for m***ering his parents, so it didn't really fly.
Janissary35680 4 hours ago
Retelling of the ancient joke about a parricide who throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's an orphan.
Related on Bored Panda
