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" 
30 Lawyers Share Stories About The Cases They Had And The Moment They Knew They Won Them
With so many people into legal drama shows, largely thanks to Netflix's recent crime and justice-oriented repertoire, it’s only fair to get fascinated by the world of lawyers. I mean, who are those smart-looking people snapping out arguments to virtually any statement thrown at them? They surely have some super powers, right?
Well, thanks to this viral thread on r/AskReddit, we may now find out. When Redditor Weseleyalpha asked lawyers of Reddit “what was the ah-ha moment where you knew you won your case?” the responses came rolling in. Below are some of the craziest, most film scenario-worthy stories the legal people have shared.
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
A law professor once told me about a case from decades ago when he was defending a young woman on drugs charges.
In court, his line of defence was basically to tell the truth: this woman had turned to drugs due to trauma and instability in her life, but she was now in a steady loving relationship with another woman. For the first time, she had some peace and security in her life, was genuinely working on overcoming her demons, and was unlikely to re-offend again.
It was a 50-50 proposition on how this would land with the judge....until the prosecutor stood up and started lambasting the two women (the accused and her lover) for lying because "lesbian relationships aren't real" and similar stuff.
According to the prof, "everyone in the courtroom except the prosecutor could see that the judge was a flaming fruit", so this did NOT go down well. The judge tore strips off the prosecutor, gave a furious lecture on gay rights, and ended up giving the woman a slap on the wrist and wishing her well with her partner.
LuckyL 3 years ago
Urban Dictionary Flaming Fruit. Definition 1: A very gay person. Definition 2: A fruit that is on fire
Chucky Cheezburger 3 years ago
OMG, I'm surprised "flaming fruit" made it past the censors. I busted out laughing and made Mousy Fuzz Butt run and hide.
Allison B 3 years ago
That's the most unique name I've ever heard. I love it. Made me laugh. Cat?
Load More Replies...
Priscilla Reshell 3 years ago
Taking down homophobia good for the judge hope the ladies are married
RELATED:
#2
As a young attorney, I had stated a claim that an insurance company was dragging out a case in bad faith, in hopes that my elderly client would die before they had to pay him. I was requesting that the trial date be given priority due to my client's advanced age. The judge was no spring chicken himself, and seemed skeptical when he asked exactly how old my client was, maybe thinking that he was in his 70s and must merely seem ancient to a baby lawyer like me. When I responded that my client was 92, and the case has already gone on for 5 years, the judge was visibly shocked, and immediately granted my motion for priority, shutting down the insurance company's attorney's attempt to respond. They wrote us a check for a million dollars the next week.
Thorfin Wolfsbane 3 years ago
or, as the insurance company likes to call it, 'standard procedure'
Load More Replies...
Anthony Martinez 3 years ago
Why is it that insurers will hound, call and knock down your door for ur payment? But as soon as its time 2buck up they make us jump through hoops? Insurance 4the people by the people
Nazda Pokmov 3 years ago
Insurance companies are notorious for doing this type of foot dragging...or just not paying diddly if they can get away with it. Worked in law offices and insurance agencies and know this is true.
HarriMissesScotland 3 years ago
7 years for my lawsuit. My attorney got married and had 3 kids. Had to go to court twice. The attorney for the insurance company got furious when he was caught in a lie, threw his whiteboard on the floor and jumped up and down on it. While screaming obscenities. Mistrial called, and had to wait 2 more years for the insurance company to get a new attorney up to speed. Too bad Court Cam wasn't there. I would watch it again just for the entertainment value.
Dave P 3 years ago
Yeah, I call 100% BS. I showed this to a 20+ year veteran attorney in the Life and Disability insurance industry (someone who has over the years gotten greedy insurance companies to pay out over $900 mil in claims to her clients) who said they would have to pay out even if he died to his legal heirs or estate. Further I was explained it couldnt drag out five years, first there is mediation, if that fails it goes to court and there are limits on how long it can be extended without new discovery approved by a judge. This is fake
Roxy Eastland 3 years ago
Wow, they deserve more than a court case on that one specific case if that's a company practice
#3
I was representing a woman with a severe neck injury. Opposing counsel presented a test result that showed her cervical exam was normal. I felt almost bad when I pointed out he had the wrong cervical area in mind...
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Poor woman with an neck injury who had to undergo a cervical exam just because opposing counsel failed anatomy.
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
Haha. Actually the dangers of prosecutors being allowed to subpoena whole medical files instead of just the bits relevant to the particular case.
Load More Replies...
Debra Robinson 3 years ago (edited)
I remember that from 7th grade science, in '82 before I switched from a jr. high to middle. Things like this just weren't taught in my elementary schools.
Load More Replies...
P. Mozzani 3 years ago
The lawyer's explanation is vague. If the cervical spine exam consisted of x-rays or an MRI of the cervical spine, then any injury would have shown up. It is unclear what the "wrong cervical area" means. The C-spine only consists of 7 vertebrae and 8 cervical nerves. Unless the "exam" was performed manually, it's difficult to understand how there could be a "wrong cervical area."
Pamela Blue 3 years ago (edited)
A female has a cervical spinal area (up in her neck region) and a cervical area in her "nether regions" that gets a pap smear every year. That was the cervical area that confused the lawyer. He was looking at the results of her pap smear - NOT her neck injury!
Load More Replies...
#4
When they said, 'I know the doctors tampered with my drug test! It should have been positive for a lot more than just meth!' I wish this was made up.
QibliOfTheSandWings 3 years ago
Guys brain was destroyed by the drugs, I don’t think he thought it through either
Load More Replies...
NsG 3 years ago
While highly amusing, I do wonder if this would give grounds for a further investigation. If the idiot in this case is telling (a version of) the truth and the doctors who should have tested for everything only tested and found meth, they aren't doing their due diligence, and potentially other cases where their lab has been used could be unsound.
Pangolin Pal 3 years ago
Oy vey, I love this one. Reminds me of one of my own cases, way back when -- my firm was defending a rental car company. Driver said, right on the stand, "XYZ Company shouldn't rent cars to people like me." And he was 100% right, but yecch, not good for the defense. . .
JE Cummings 3 years ago
First, doctors don't run your tests, lab techs do, and they don't give a s**t if you're guilty or not, we just do the test and report the results. The rest is your fault.
buttonpusher 3 years ago
You'd think they'd actually do it properly anyway and then tamper with the results.
#5
I was an attorney for an insurance company defending a lawsuit where the plaintiffs were two girls who claimed they were irreparably harmed and their lives would never be the same because severe back injuries kept them from being active. They forgot to set their Instagram accounts to private and the accounts were full of pictures of them riding jet skis, dancing, and pictures of them at the gym. The underage drinking pictures were just icing on the cake.
Buren 3 years ago
Ah. Social medias. Curse and blessing in disguise. They are assets in catching stupid narcissistic criminals.
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Social media are perfect for finding criminals on the run, social welfare fraudsters and other trash. Those people aren't very bright.
buttonpusher 3 years ago (edited)
Reminds me of that case a while back in the UK where the guy pretended to be in a coma but was caught going on holiday and shopping in Tesco.
Babsevs 3 years ago
This guy was in a town close to me..... Even felt the need to fight the case in court. You can't beat stupid!!
Load More Replies... 
Random Anon 3 years ago
Maybe the true injury is in their heads resulting in a catastrophic drop in IQ.
#6
Obligatory, not mine but my Moms story. She was fighting for custody on behalf of the father, trying to prove that the kids were living in subpar conditions with their drug addict mother in spite of the ample child support provided. It was a tough case because courts are so hesitant to pull kids away from their moms. Then the mom burst out that she had been feeding the kids cat food as proof that she wouldn’t let them starve. Needless to say, the judge didn’t take that as a good reason for the kids to stay with their Mom.
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
People without cats can buy cat food. You don't need to show some proof of ownership to buy it.
Load More Replies...
Priscilla Reshell 3 years ago
Mac and cheese ain't that expensive even going to the nearest McDonald's would've been fine
Elaine Elder 3 years ago
It should be like getting a driver's license. If you don't pass the class, you don't get one. Etc.
Marcellus II 3 years ago
Fancy catfood more expensive than regular human food --- but cheaper than fancy human food. And cheap cat food much cheaper than decent human food.
Load More Replies...
J&B FitzTubeKidz 3 years ago
Knew a kid that went through that crap. He’s in a mental hospital right now. He’s done terrible things because of the way he was treated.
Nazda Pokmov 3 years ago
Cat food is not fit for human consumption.....should have used canned dog food....
Debra Robinson 3 years ago (edited)
Cat food would be way too good for her to eat. Maybe she should be forced to, tho', having it infused with Carolina Reaper and gimpie gimpie extracts, washed down with toilet bowl cleaner.
Load More Replies... #7
IANAL but I was in traffic court one time and saw a lawyer straight-up murder a cop with words. The cop had previously testified that the weather on the night of the traffic stop was heavy rain and winds so strong that the defendant could only open his window 3", and that the car had stopped on an area with very little shoulder, forcing the cop to approach from the passenger side not the driver side. The cop had then testified that he smelled a strong smell of alcohol on the defendant's breath.
When the defense lawyer got up, he repeated what the cop had said almost verbatim and asked how he could have possibly smelled alcohol on the breath of someone on the other side of the car, through a 3" crack in the window, on a night with pouring rain and strong winds. The cop sort of opened and shut his mouth a few times, squirmed around in his seat, and said "that's just what I always write in my log, to remind me that it was a DUI stop."
The judge threw the case out. No motion to dismiss needed. Then he took a break and called the traffic prosecutor and the cop into his office. I'm guessing it wasn't for a nice spot of tea and some scones.
Deirdre Engstrom 3 years ago
Sounds like someone’s gonna be working the front desk and dispatch for a while….
Pelleh Din 3 years ago
if not for police unions, he would be out of a job.
Load More Replies... GlitterQueen541 3 years ago
Okay, yeah , I'm being an immature twit... but there has got to be a better abbreviation for "I Am Not A Lawyer" I cant' stop chuckling at this!
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
If someone has been drinking heavily, and has sat in the car for more than 5 minutes, the smell in the car would be noticeable even through a 3" crack in the window. Rain and wind won't change that and a roadside Breathalyzer test would have proven that the guy was DUI.
Timmy Pillinger 3 years ago
Ay, but if the police officer was lying he might not have a breathalyser to show. But as a lawyer why not have some fun embarrassing an arsehole and do society a service revealing a perjurer. Some jurisdictions might not require a breathalyser
Load More Replies...
Jyri Hakola 3 years ago
And that's why in the developed countries the DUI tests are always taken with breathanalyzer and verified with blood test taken with medical professionals. no flase claims and no drunkard could evade justice just due the weather
Mazer 3 years ago (edited)
Catching bad cops being bad especially in court is a wonderful feeling. Before the law was changed, one could hold a cell phone while driving, as long as the driver is not actively using the cell phone. I got pulled over by a very very young highway patrol officer who tried to claim I was using the phone because “your head was down” I offered him my phone and showed him my Bluetooth ear piece, he declined. I offered two more times, declined. When we got to court, he presented his side. Then it was my turn. I started off with “did I or did I not offer you my phone and show you my Bluetooth earpiece”. He agreed I had, so I repeated the question two more times for each time I had asked him while in the car. The judge started to smile and the ticket dismissed. The cop acted like a child, kicking back his chair and stomping to the back of the courtroom. Bro is not going to have a long career in law enforcement.
#8
Obligatory Not a Lawyer, but I was defending myself against a debt collector for a debt so old I could not even remember for sure that it was mine. Me to the debt collector: Can you provide the actual contract bearing my signature along with a chain of title to the debt? Debt collector's lawyer: Crickets... I look at the judge. Judge to lawyer: Well can you? Debt collector's lawyer while looking through paperwork: Um...Well... No, not at this time Your Honor. Judge: Case dismissed. (Note: To prove that a debt collector owns your debt, they must prove how it came to own it. Often, old debts are sold and resold over and over again to a number of subsequent debt buyers. When this happens, the debt collector must prove each and every assignment by showing a “chain of title” reaching all the way back in history to the original creditor. More often than not, for old debts, it is impossible for the collector to show this.)
Bobby 3 years ago
I got a garnishment dismissed representing myself. I didn't dispute it was mine, but I did dispute that they were trying to garnish me 10 years after the fact and for that particular debt the statute of limitations was 7 years. Also the law said all reasonable efforts must be made to collect the debt first. They never sent me to collections and could only prove they sent 1 letter to me(to an address I've never lived at)
Mazer 3 years ago (edited)
There is also a time factor here. There is usually about a two year time limit on debt collections
LOttawa 3 years ago
It's the statute of limitation. Depending on what type of debt and where you live it usually between 2 and 6 years (but it can be longer). Never assume it's 2 years, always research it.
Load More Replies...
Summer Mason 3 years ago
I got three dismissed from them not excepting a 5 dollar payment. That's illegal.
Leslie Crittenden 3 years ago
Accepting,not excepting. Different words, different meanings.
Load More Replies...
Anna Tribe 3 years ago
I'm still fighting with an electric company for a debt from 19 years ago. I moved to Sweden with my now ex husband and we moved into an apartment. He is Swedish so as far as I knew the bills were in his name as I'd seen the rent contract and it was in his name. I didn't speak or even understand Swedish at that time. I'd been in Sweden with him for 6 months when I found out he was having an affair with my best friend and I moved into my own place and got a job. I knew he had moved in with her. A few months later overdue bills started arriving at my door. He had put all the bills except the rent in my name, so I owed a LOT of money to different companies. I'm still disputing it.
Roxy Eastland 3 years ago
So unfair, how many people could end up in this sort of position that don't have the wherewithal to find this out for themselves?
#9
My mom is a lawyer and this was a black women who was a accused of stealing. My mother is also black (I'm mixed) and this is how it went. Plaintiff lawyer:please point out the accused/defendant. Officer: points at my mom Mom:I'm the lawyer, officer. Judge: dismisses case
Corey Smith 3 years ago
I know I am nitpicking, but can people finally realize the difference between "woman" and "women?" I can't tell you how many times I see "a women" written.
SlowTV Missouri 3 years ago
I hope there was a good 30 seconds of awkward silence just to let it sink in before the judge replied.
Felice Coles 3 years ago
To police, all minorities are either past criminals, current criminals or future criminals.
Douglas Tucker 3 years ago
Driving in the fast line with 7 maybe 8 other autos, I pulled out as my exit was approaching. Within minutes I was pulled over by the Highway Patrol and issued a ticket for speeding while in the fast lane. After seeing the citation filled in the space where it says race, she wrote White and I am a very dark Black male) I then decided to go to court to challenge my ticket on general principles as my right. I spoke to the judge about how I was with a line of cars maintaining X speed or the flow of traffic until I pulled out and then was pulled over. I then pointed out to the Judge that the officer may have had her mind of other things because I pointed out my description as a white driver. It took the Judge a few minutes and he indicated he would review the case and I would hear by mail. I lost but for some reason he cut the fine in half. My point is I was given the opportunity to challenge this citation by the officer's error. Why not go for the gold.
Debra Robinson 3 years ago (edited)
You should've won, obviously. Best wishes. :) Many "people" just really suck, and are astoundingly embarrassing to others of their race(s).
Load More Replies... 
#10
Personal injury case — woman said she slipped and fell outside of a nail salon because they hadn't swept up the wet leaves outside the door. In the mail one day, we got a disc — we put it in the computer, and right there is security cam footage of our client picking up the wet leaves, putting them on the sidewalk, and sitting down on them before calling for help.
IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet 3 years ago
And here, kids, is a classic example of a Karen. There are many characteristics of the Karen. Often found in the wild, they are irriversibley addicted to Starbucks, asking for the manager, and yelling at people for having their masks on.Deceptions like these are also common characteristics of the average wild Karen.
Marcellus II 3 years ago
What has that to do with a Karen?!? It's a grifter, not working from any personal view of entitlement or importance. Your entire story is a complete nonsequitur.
Load More Replies...
Imogene Cargeaux 3 years ago
Omg. This would be amazing to see. Especially her face as the video pkayed
#11
Not a lawyer, but I'm currently in a custody battle. Mother is saying I can't be trusted because I've been refusing to take our child to the therapist. The therapist testified I couldn't bring our child in because therapy must have both parents' consent, and mother has retracted consent.
QibliOfTheSandWings 3 years ago (edited)
Have a best wish my good man ( ._.)_ 💫 _(._.)
Load More Replies... 
Steve R 3 years ago
You need to read these before commenting. You're all over these posts and every take is bad. They're NOT spiting each other. Mother is denying the child therapy and telling lies to make it look like the dad is. The dad has done nothing wrong. Please, learn to read.
Load More Replies...
#12
Man I’m always too late but I’ve got a good one. When I was interning at the criminal court for a judge I observed a pre-trial hearing for a murder case. The defendant allegedly murdered his grandmother because she wouldn’t give him money, then stuffed her in a closet and called a hooker for sex in the bed right next to the closet. Horrifying stuff. During the hearing the defendant’s lawyer, prosecutor, and judge went through some typical procedures, then the judge asked the defendant if he had anything to add. The defendant smugly said yes, actually, I don’t think I’m mentally fit to stand trial according to article x under the criminal procedure. The judge let him finish, looked him dead in the eye, and said: “The fact that you just told me this shows you’re perfectly fit to stand trial.”
Ragnhild Nilsen 3 years ago
Classic Catch 22. If you are sane enough to claim insanity, you are sane enough to stand trial.
Nazda Pokmov 3 years ago
You gotta be careful when defending yourself in any kind of court case.
#13
Some guy was accused of something — I cannot remember what — but the judge spoke him free because there wasn’t enough evidence he had done it. Guy said, 'Thank you, judge; I’ll never do it again.'
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Reminds me of a judge Judy show where a guy who stole a purse denied the crime. When the owner said there was money, some bank cards and some headphones in it, he triumphantly said that that was a lie, there were no headphones in the bag at all.
Katie Lutesinger 3 years ago
"...never do WHAT again?" "Uh, the... uh... thing I didn't do, hahah..."
#14
Client was charged with aggravated assault (five years possible) for kicking the s**t out of a guy while wearing cowboy boots with those fancy steel ornamental tips on the boots. He wore the boots to his jury trial.
SlowTV Missouri 3 years ago
I know a comment is great when I read it and laugh out loud twice
Load More Replies...
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
This seems fitting for a tv show but unlikely in real life. If someone is bludgeoned with an object (for example, steel-tipped boots), that object becomes a weapon, and weapons are taken into evidence and presented at a trial. There's no way a defendant would be wearing known evidence at his trial -- unless it's fiction.
#15
My friend was defending a guy who was asleep in the backseat of his car while intoxicated and a NYS Trooper arrested him. On the stand, the trooper testified that he visually saw 'the key in the ignition.' My friend gave him like three chances to walk it back. 'Are you sure, trooper, that you actually saw the key in the ignition?' He said yes. And then my buddy dropped the hammer, 'You are aware that my client drives a Toyota Prius?
Katinka Min 3 years ago
Why on earth would you prosecute someone who is smart enoguh not to drive while intoxicated??
Charles Mabe 3 years ago
ACAB. Police (and many Americans in general) are just out to get people.
Load More Replies...
Zoe Vokes 3 years ago
I guess that you can’t put the key in the ignition if you’re drunk, even if it’s just to turn the heat on or listen to the radio? The fact that he went to sleep in the back seat was sensible, but ridiculous that it got all the way to court. There are lots of actual crimes happening out there.
Kelly Pickard 3 years ago
S**t like that should be grounds for immediate termination. How in the hell can you trust an officer to work for the law when they blatantly lie like that?
cybermerlin2000 3 years ago
I have a 2019 Citroën Space Tourer. After a bit of swearing, I found I could turn on the radio without the key
Load More Replies...
Lillian Swaim 3 years ago
They do have Prius where you have to use the key, I've been in one once, all prius come with the key hole and an actual key, you know, in case the battery dies. I know THAT because I've had my keyfob battery die and had to pull out the tiny, hidden key from inside the fob
#16
My sister got t-boned by a car, causing a concussion when I was younger. Long story short, we were in court with the judge, who asked the driver if he had ever sped before. "No, your honor, I never speed" was his reply. The judge asked him a couple more times if he was sure, if he never sped. Ever? The driver was adamant that he never sped and never had before. A few minutes later, my sister's lawyer gave the judge some paperwork. She read it, and said to the driver, "It seems that you have some past driving violations. Can you tell me what they are for?" "............ speeding" The driver had to pay medical bills for my sister.
TTorrest Author 3 years ago
There is no way to answer this question correctly LOL. No means yes on Opposite Day.
Load More Replies... Mazer 3 years ago
A t-bone accident is especially dangerous for the people being hit due to the force of the car hitting the side of another vehicle. This causes the side of the head to hit the window which is rock hard, this can result in some very serious long lasting physical issues. Thankfully the sister is ok. I know people who have come out of a t-bone accident with severe injuries.
Mark Kelly 3 years ago
Why does it matter if they proved he speeds? I assume the accident was his fault.
guible 3 years ago (edited)
seems more like "establish that the other driver lies" thing. to discredit any statement from the "just lied then, now also lying party". Also the story doesn't say if there was an expert evaluation of the wreck that would be able to calculate both car's speeds and directions etc...
Load More Replies...
#17
Not a lawyer but got robbed at gun point in my home. Long story short, he would have gone to prison anyway but the kicker is that the shoes he wore to court were the same shoes he stole from my house. Judge asked if I wanted them back. I said yes. Judge made him take them off in court and walk back in socks. Donated the shoes, it was more about the principle.
#18
I helped the prosecution rest his case. LOL I got jammed up during spring break doing dumb spring break s**t. So there I was in court to face the music (misdemeanors). As I sat there waiting for my turn, I watched person after person go before the judge. The prosecutor read their charges and some information from the police report, stating what the potential max sentence was for each/all (I don't remember exactly). Then the judge asked what plea they wanted to enter. Almost everyone said 'Not Guilty' and I could see that both the judge and prosecutor were getting tired of their bulls**t. FINALLY, my turn came. I was probably 2nd to last after what seemed like hours, but may not have been. The prosecutor read off my charges and cited the police report. The judge looked at me with this "let's just get it out of the way. tell us you're not guilty" look and asked how I pled. "Guilty, your honor." The judge and the prosecutor both looked at each other and the judge said (kid you not) "say again?" or "beg your pardon?" "Guilty your honor. I did it. Just the way officer so-and-so's report reads." They exchanged looks again and the prosecutor held his papers at arms length as if to get a better look at them and did the unthinkable. "Your honor, this all reads to me like a case of college prank gone bad. The county moves to reduce charges to XYZ." I walked in there expecting some jail time and walked out paying like $110 plus costs. I didn't really know how to feel about the scariest day of my life turning into one of the happiest ones.
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Why wouldn't you admit your guilt if you're guilty? Most police officers just write down what actually happened and the courts believe a police officer over any random citizen, unless the citizen has proof that the officer lied or was mistaken.
Connie Hirsch 3 years ago
And depending on ethnic background, race, and factors like general appearance, justice may come down harder on some than others. Note a number of cases where "nice white boys" got wrist-slaps for outright rape.
Load More Replies...
Adam Belaire 3 years ago
Good on you for taking responsibility. If you know you messed up, take it as a lesson learned. I've had two speeding tickets in my life, both of which I paid same-day and since I was paying early (thus admitting guilt) the fine was halved.
John Baker 3 years ago
A defendant has the right to enter whatever plea he chooses, no matter whether the judge and prosecutor like it or not.
Glynn Reid 3 years ago
Sometimes people who are guilty of a crime plead not guilty due to the circumstances leading up to a crime being extreme provocation, demanding self defense (including deadly force) or simply an inaccurate way in which the facts leading to an incident are presented as being ambiguous and painting a false picture of why it happened. You plead guilty immediately, and none of that evidence gets considered. You just get sentenced. Sometimes providing context will show a different story. Sometimes not of course and you get a longer sentence for not pleading guilty.
Kainaath Khan 3 years ago
In my country, speeding tickets, seat belt, mask etc gets paid on the spot. No need to go it court house. Everything is online, we get notified about our challan, we pay and move on like nothing happened.
J. Normal 3 years ago
Unfortunately that opens up for a lot of theft. The cops keep the bribe, and don't report it.
Load More Replies...
Brendy Forest 3 years ago
`paying like $110 plus costs` Not only goods but fines don't include all costs in the US
#19
I was sitting in court waiting for my case and there is a basic traffic stop case going on. The prosecutor has the arresting officer walk through the incident. The Cop recalls all these details about how he pulled the driver over for running a red light, then noticed a busted tail light. How he stayed cool, calm, and collected, even as the driver became irate, cursing at the cop and telling the cop he can "shove the ticket where the sun don't shine." The cop then claimed that the driver ripped up the ticket, rolled up the bits, and threw it at the officer. The cop sells the story and you notice most of the court room has become invested.
The driver is not a lawyer, but chooses to represent himself and takes all of a minute to embarrass the officer and court with a simple. "Your honor, the officer testified, under oath, to the court that I acted illegally and belligerently, then aggressively tore up and threw away the ticket, which I find hard to believe seeing as this here is the ticket, in one piece, without even a crease on it." He pulls out the ticket from a folder he had in front of him. You could hear many in the court gasp, laugh, mumble.
The judge stops the driver, looks over to the prosecutor, addresses him "Mr. Smith, thoughts?" Without hesitation, the prosecutor replies "Yes your honor, in deference to the courts time, we would like to go ahead and drop the case." All the other defendants pending their case applaud. The judge bangs his gavel, calls order in the court room, admonishes the room, and then admonishes the officer and prosecutor before closing it out.
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
I hope that officer gets more than just an admonishment. Lying under oath is, itself, a crime. He definitely shouldn't be in a position of power over the public.
Maiun 3 years ago
Absolutely, this is why police don't give a s**t if they're caught wrongdoing, the never really face any consequences. Chauvin would have been still on the force if that brave young woman hadn't video it.
Load More Replies...
Francisco Manuel Teruel Gutiérrez 3 years ago
I feared the worst when I read "chooses to represent himself"... but I was wrong!
Eric G 3 years ago
The whole courtroom applauds line? Sounds exactly like a made-up story. I did traffic defense for a while. Cops will absolutely lie about remembering a traffic stop but they are great at being vague. (This is because how could they remember one single stop?) No way a cop claimed the guy ripped up the ticket and threw it at him because that was easily disprovable. The cop would've only lied for the charges being prosecuted.
Kai David 3 years ago
I was pulled over and ißued multiple violations. I went to court along with crimes section of the newspaper. I reported that due to the cop pulling me over, there were 5 911 calls reporting a number of crimes and emergencies all under 3 minutes prior to being pulled over. 15 911 calls were made while being pulled over. Demonstrated that the cop was more interested in handing out traffick violations than responding to emergency calls. Judge dismißed my case
#20
I witnessed this sitting in court. It was a drug case and there was some discussion between the prosecutor, defense attorney, and the judge about the quantity. Judge says something like, "right, but that's in ounces. How many grams is that?" Prosecutor and defense attorney say they don't know. Judge says, "I mean, we can figure it out, how many grams are in an ounce?" Prosecutor and defense attorney still shrug, like "dunno." All of a sudden the defendant pipes up, "28.3."
Demi Zwaan 3 years ago
So knowing how many grams are in an ounce now makes you guilty of selling drugs? This isn't case winning at all.
Kimi Tomminello 3 years ago
Reverse that and a collective 25+ years of higher education couldn't figure out a simple conversion that an "uneducated drug dealer" knew off the top of his head and you get a pretty hilarious story.
Load More Replies... jammer 3 years ago
Physicists and engineers guilty all alike. Sorry, but how is that evidence or proof?
Honu 3 years ago
It's not exactly obscure knowledge. I grew up in the US and learned this in elementary school. I use it more in cooking than I do in my job.
Load More Replies...
Seanette Blaylock 3 years ago
Not necessarily incriminating, being able to convert units of measure.
JE Cummings 3 years ago
I once heard of a case where the witness to the crime said "the defendant ran north after committing the crime" and the defendant, indignant, jumped up and said "You liar, I ran south towards blip street!" Short trial.
#21
Custody case. Attorney stands up in this case and goes to the judge: 'My client has only been found guilty of child endangerment in (county next to us) and (county next to that). I see no reason that this court should hold that against him when it comes to custody of his children.'
Nini 3 years ago
I bet his lawyer sabotaged him cause he knew the dude was a piece of s**t and would keep abusing them. It takes a smart person to act that dumb
#22
I had parked my motorcycle in my driveway. The officer ordered me to remove it, and tried to levy fines for the violation. He went after my landlord and tried to get me evicted. Eventually, I got a lawyer and filed a complaint. When asked to point to the bylaw I was breaking, he did and even read it out, which basically read:
No parking or storing anything in a driveway other than an automobile.
He seriously thought a motorcycle wasn't an automobile because an automobile is a car.
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Who has a simple enough life to actually get worked up over where someone parks their motorcycle at their own home? Dude, there are roughly 10,000 other issues that would be a better use of your time.
King Kashue 3 years ago
Far, far too many cops react this way toward any challenge to their status. The Cartman "Respect muh AUTHORITAH!" vibe is strong with many, many, many of them. I mean, look how much the whole "If you're polite to them, it'll go better" advice is so ingrained in people that we don't question it - I mean, being impolite isn't a crime, so being impolite is only a problem if the cop is actually a subjective wanker abusing his authority. A neutral and fair arbiter of the law wouldn't be affected by polite/impolite, now would they?
Load More Replies...
Guido Pisano 3 years ago
in italy "automobile" refers only to cars altought the word means "that move itself"
Marcellus II 3 years ago
Italian Wikipedia disagrees with you though, no mention of numbers of wheels in the definition (as it covers trucks as well as motorbikes), https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile . And I think it's Autovettura in legal terms? Not sure.
Load More Replies...
Madzdad the Bard 3 years ago
I was pulled over on the Sawmill Parkway north of NYC years ago in my pickup truck. The cop said there were signs that said "No Trucks". I politely explained that referred to large trucks (delivery, semi, etc), not passenger trucks. He admonished me not to get smart with him, but then only gave me a warning.
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
So 'he tried to levy fines against me' . He either did or he didn't. And if he did, the offence would have been on the fine and the op could have easily sorted the matter out with the officer or his superior. I don't think this is true.
DC 3 years ago
It is a self moving object, something bearing the ability to get itself elsewhere, which is the literal translation of automobil ... usually, a car is meant, but in this regard, any means of transportation, including the preindustrial horse - an actual horse - may qualify. As it seems it was on private property, the police have no say in what to park there or not anyway.
Mark Kelly 3 years ago
Not even a camper trailer? Here in Canada where I live I don't think we have that bylaw
Debra Robinson 3 years ago (edited)
Any mechanical form of transportation is an AUTOMOBILE or should be. Of course many would know; I just had to do this. Probably including scooters for people with limited mobility, but idk.
#23
Dad alleged mom was doing all sorts of things and that he should have the kid. Dad's attorney grilled mom for about 20 minutes on texts she had sent claiming to sell her prescriptions. She wouldn't admit it. Dad's attorney moved on and eventually ended with, 'One more question. Where did you get the pills you were selling?' Mom responds without thinking, 'Oh, my doctor prescribed them.'
Klas Klättermus 3 years ago
I mean this still doesn't prove anything. She just answered him where she got the pills she was accused of selling from. If you bombard a person with words and clever formulations you can make them "admit" to whatever you want by adding like 9 truths and 1 lie and get them to agree.
#24
Not a ‘case winning’ moment, but a ‘motion winning’ one for sure (think of cases like a big conflict, with motion hearings as little conflicts).
Opposing attorney was insisting that ‘Rule A’ meant they could do X. I tried, multiple times, to point out ‘Rule A’ literally did not say that.
During the hearing, the judge reached behind them, grabbed their ‘Rules of Civil Procedure’ (basically a dictionary of rules), placed it in front of the other attorney, and said “Show me where Rule A says X”.
Other attorney did not take the hint, read rules out loud for a brutal 5 minutes, and gave the book back. I said “Judge I have nothing to add.” It was pretty fun.
Jacob Rosenberg (Swedemire) 3 years ago
think of cases like a big war, with motion hearings as little battles*
#25
Defendant in a bench trial for a speeding ticket said he couldn't possibly go as fast as the officer clocked him. He knew this because he video taped himself accelerating from a full stop to the location of where the officer sat. His experiment showed his vehicle could only get to 55mph and not the 67 mph he was clocked at. The ADA then moved to have another speeding ticket issued because the actual posted speed limit was 50mph.
Kathryn Baylis 3 years ago
There’s a substantial difference in the fines for going 5 mph over the limit and those for going 17 mph over. He should’ve had his attorney arrange the speed test under legally controlled conditions.
#26
I once had an appeal where the precedent, all from other circuit courts, was very bad for me. The circuit court I was arguing in front of had a decision that was very good for me, but it was "unpublished" (meaning that it was not precedential). My goal was to convince the court to follow its unpublished decision, not the decisions of the other circuits. During my argument I cited the unpublished decision. One of the judges interrupts me and asks, "but wasn't that decision unpublished?" I answered "yes, but it was well-reasoned." He replied with a self-effacing quip, "I was on the panel for that decision, so it couldn't have been that well-reasoned." The audience laughed a bit. I answered quickly, "In that case, your honor, it was at least well-written!" The audience (and all the judges) burst into laughter. I ended up winning in a published decision, which turned the old unpublished decision into binding precedent! A bit of humor can go a long way in the courtroom. Especially when you're flattering the judges.
Heather Evans 3 years ago
Shows how much I know about the law. I have never even heard of published and unpublished decisions
Nazda Pokmov 3 years ago
Judges can make some weird rulings....I've seen plenty of those weird rulings in my time.
Felice Coles 3 years ago
Yikes. So the law is variable, depending on how much flattery you use.
#27
We spent MONTHS trying to get a landlord to cough up $$$ to make necessary repairs at one of his properties. Then when he didn’t make the repairs and said he didn’t have any money, we filed a motion for contempt and got the judge to force him to turn over financial records. We got the records and saw he got a loan of several thousands of dollars (significantly more than what we asked for) just a few days before he was ordered to pay. Then the bank records showed (1) he transferred some $$$ to another account, which we never received the records for, and (2) he spent several thousands of dollars at a local casino.
During cross exam, we questioned him about the money at the casino and he admitted he went, but said he took his family there for dinner. But there were multiple cash ATM withdrawals in a day for several days. He was screwed.
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Sounds like he has a severe gambling problem. I hope you were able to do right by the tenants and, hopefully, the landlord got some help.
#28
Custody battle. Mother is questioned about the fact the kids told their own children’s lawyers that mom smoked marijuana with them at 12–13 years old. She argues that the children are lying.
Same cross-examination, mom admits to 'smoking medicinally' (prior to any legalization, medicinal legal). When probed, she did not have a card, and when asked where she got her medicinal pot, she said, 'The local drugstore down the street.' At the time, medicinal marijuana was only available via online/mail order via a small handful of government control companies. Liar, liar pants on fire.
Crease Almighty 3 years ago
Forgets that marijuana wasn’t medicinal back then… That’ll be short term memory loss. 🤣🤣 blame that on the medicinal weed too. Oh shoot…
Adam Belaire 3 years ago
Me thinks the local pharmacist at said drugstore may have a side business.
Brittany Toribio 3 years ago
Do you not have kids? My 6 year old told my husband i kiss the mailman everyday. Our postal worker is a woman and I have never kissed her 😂😂😂 Im not saying these kids are lying but it wouldnt be a big shock if they were.
Load More Replies... Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
I can't understand why there would be a custody battle over older teenagers. Usually at that age the court accepts that they can make their own mind up, and probably will whatever the orders say. Different if it's a child protection matter, of course.
Kimi Tomminello 3 years ago
Over 12 years old a good majority of the time the kid gets to choose, however the opposing parent can make allegations and accusations to attempt to prevent this from happening. Family court is messy.
Load More Replies... #29
I've told this story before but I might as well put it here. This guy wanted custody over his children after a divorce and his wife was accusing of abuse(physical) . He was asked if he had ever abused his wife and he straight up said 'Yes, but only when she annoyed me' or something along the lines of that. I was ready to straight up leave the court room and laugh my ass off.
[This was like 6 yrs ago and I've forgotten about it until now, thanks for the reminder.]-i forgot to remove this part when i copy pasted this from my other reply to a question, i apologise. I don't seem like a good lawyer right now, do I?
Katherine Boag 3 years ago
A lot of abusers genuinely think like this: that acting this way is ok. You never know who you're setting an example for.
Seanette Blaylock 3 years ago
Would a baseball bat be a reasonable training tool?
Load More Replies... Felice Coles 3 years ago
"And how often does she annoy you?" "All the effing time!" Classic abuser justification.
Id row 3 years ago
This isn't actually funny. This is a man who admittedly assaults women, why would you laugh? And what do you think he'd to to his kids if they annoyed him?
Imogene Cargeaux 3 years ago
Laughing at someone being a abused. No. You're just not a good person.
JE Cummings 3 years ago
I dunno whether to give that a*****e kudos for honesty or hate him for what he did.
#30
When the defendant stuck to his 'two beers' story, and the expert blood alcohol witness said his BAC for his height/weight would’ve been 7.8 drinks.
Madison Feehan 3 years ago
Just because you only remember two of 'em doesn't mean it was only two.
Pernille Dyre 3 years ago
Thats my ex. All though he did nothing wrong. He didn't remember, my friend caight him in a festival and it was a lot of fun 30 years ago and still is.... 😂😂
Load More Replies... Buren 3 years ago (edited)
Well to be fair, they didn't mention that it's two of...buckets? Gallons?
JE Cummings 3 years ago
What's really stupid is that the "just 2 drinks" is a damned meme, and b******t.
#31
I'm not an attorney, and it wasn't in front of a judge, But I got into a dispute with a contractor who f**ked up royally when installing anew heating system, resulting in an asbestos contamination of my house. Their insurance argued the contractor couldn't have caused the contamination, because the contamination was way worse than could have been possible from what the contractor did (which is bulls**t). They argued the contamination must have been caused by the contractor that installed the previous heating system. It was super satisfying to write our response: The previous heating system was placed 12 years earlier. The asbestos dust was visibly lying everywhere. Arguing we didn't vacuum for 12 years was beyond ridiculous. The asbestos dust was on a floor we installed 6 months earlier (included the receipt for the floor). And then the third point was the most fun to write: 3) I said they were welcome to believe the contamination was caused by the contractor who installed the previous system 12 years ago. I included the receipt of that installation: it was done by the same contractor. The next letter was very brief, stating they would pay us fir all damages we were claiming.
#32
Late to the party, but I'll chime in anyway. My firm had been chasing down this woman for years, trying to get her to pay out on a six figure judgment. She kept nothing in her personal bank accounts and used the money for her business accounts for a rather lavish lifestyle. She kept claiming she was broke and that she didn't use her company funds for her living expenses, including in affidavits filed with the court. During the citation deposition, at the beginning, she stated she was current on her mortgage for her huge house. We go through all her finances and companies and after a few hours I brought up the mortgage again and then asked "if you're broke, but current on your mortgage, how are you making mortgage payments?" Dead silence, then in a soft voice "I use company funds." Her attorney stopped the deposition and pulled her out of the conference room. My boss was observing and started laughing and told me it was a good question.
Random Anon 3 years ago
I hate to be the evil one here but if you want to remain "broke" and still "owned" your home. Sell it to your company for chump change. But do not lose control of said company though.
#33
My brother went to court to gain some custody rights of his daughter. Ex-wife says he shouldn't be allowed to be alone with the daughter cuz he looks at porn. The judge, who happened to be a woman, laughed and said, "honey, if every man who looked at porn wasn't allowed to see their children then there would be no child with a daddy in this world".
Kai David 3 years ago
I come from money. My family has money, but its their money. Not mine. I bought a house prior to my marriage, but it was a rental property, never ment to be my residence. I moved back to the states with 3 sons and my wife. LSS we moved into the house, 7 bed, 3 bath; we divorced when we found out I was gay. (arranged marriage back in the olde country). Ugly divorce. She wanted custody and my house AND she based child support on my family's money, not my income. She had no job, no family or support system, no place to live. She told the judge that women always gets to keep the house and custody of kids after divorce and the $65,000 a month of child support, she will be fine. At the time, I made $75,000 a year . Judge asked where she came up with that number, she told judge that it was based on my family's money, not my income. I kept the house and custody, no child support from her I did buy her a house. When she realized she was not getting the money, she left.
Raven DeathShade 3 years ago
I hope you're doing better now, Kai David. That was a bad move on the part of your ex-wife.
Load More Replies... #34
I was a second year associate and handling my first trial. I represented the plaintiff. The defendant had an expert witness who had testified previously in about 40 similar cases. This expert came out to my client's property and did a completely bulls**t examination of the issue and his expert report was equally as bulls**t. For those of you that don't know, expert testimony needs to meet a certain standard (the Daubert standard, at least in my state) in order to be admissible. This guy basically took some photos and put a ruler on the ground a few times to make his "report" seem legit. The partners at my firm told me it wasn't worth trying to file a Daubert motion to strike his report/testimony because the case was low value (under $100k) and those types of motions can be very complex, and didnt want to bill the client for it. I was so angry about this guy being deemed an "expert" that i came in on a weekend, on my own time, and drafted a 20 page motion to strike his testimony. I didn't bill the client a dime. The defendant didn't file a response to my Daubert motion to strike. Instead, they waited until right before the expert was set to testify (he had been sitting in court racking up fees for two full days beforehand). The judge had the jury leave the room, put the expert on the stand, and allowed the defendant to do a direct examination of their expert. The defendant's attorney, not taking my motion seriously, had their inexperienced associate (just like me) do the examination. It was incredibly basic and didn't respond to any of the points in my motion. I was in charge of doing his cross exam (it was my first cross exam of a witness, ever). I tore the guy, a seasoned expert witness, apart on the stand. I got his entire testimony and report struck. They also had a second expert witness, who was pretty terrible but not quite as terrible. I also did his cross exam. Realizing that they were in serious trouble without their primary expert, and their second expert at risk of getting struck, the lead counsel for the defendant (a named partner at a well known firm) did the direct exam for the second expert. I again did the cross. I got the second expert's testimony struck except for one very, very tiny area. So essentially he was forced to testify with both hands tied behind his back. It was the most gratifying moment of my legal career so far.
RedMarbles 3 years ago
Odds are decent they settled not long after the expert testimony.
Load More Replies... 
NAS 3 years ago
I'm curious to know what happened to that case, if they won. I'm calling bull on this story here, but I may be wrong. I just wonder why the the other legal team would respond by sending out their own "inexperienced associate" also. Can anyone with legal experience clarify this for me?
SoozeeQ 3 years ago
I'm thinking they thought they could b******t their way through. Not realising how great a lawyer the plantiff's "inexperienced attorney" was.
Load More Replies... #35
Not a lawyer, but this is my favorite story in traffic court. I got a ticket for going 75 mph on I-88 (Near Chicago) The Officer wrote on the ticket I was going 88 mph on I-75. (Detroit south to Miami, not near Chicago) I show up wearing a suit, because I have one suit, and I may as well wear it. Judge calls on me asking me if I'm a lawyer. I say I am not, but I get to go first because I'm the only one in a suit. Judge looks at the ticket, says 'You were going 88 on I-75? Officer X, what does this ticket say? Isn't I-75 out of our jurisdiction?' At this point I open my mouth, and shut it, because I have the right to remain silent, may as well show the ability to be silent as well. Officer says 'Your honor, at my age I have no idea what I wrote'. Judge gives him a look, and throws my license back at me, in the plastic bag, says 'you are free to go'. Always wear a suit to traffic court.
Anna Snorrepot 3 years ago
And always shut up when you're the client. Especially when you represent yourself.
Two_rolling_black_eyes 3 years ago
People identify with those that look/act like them. Dress like the person making the call and they're more likely to make it in your favor. If you want to get hired as a day laborer, show up wearing your steel toed boots and if you want the bartender to give you generous pours, sit down wearing your Applebee's shirt from work. If you want to get a good vibe from someone whose entire existence is based on strict rules, dress like you're going to a wedding instead of a kegger.
Ernesto Guevara 3 years ago
So if you appear before a judge in court, should you wear a black robe and carry a gavel?
Load More Replies... #36
Opposing counsel decided that I had coached my witness and gave him lines to repeat, that he was lying. Short version is that he asked the witness if he spoke to me before he testified. Witness said he had. Attorney looked like he thought he had me. Attorney asked the witness what I told him, what instructions I gave him. Witness looked him dead in the eye and said, “First thing he told me was to tell the truth no matter what. He said the lawyer is never the one who goes to jail, that he isn’t going to jail for me, and if I lie, I’m on my own.” Attorney looked like someone took the air out of him. Everyone in the courtroom simultaneously looked at me. Only time I’ve smirked or laughed in court. I wanted to put my feet up on the table like I was Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, hands behind my head, and say, “I’m done with this guy.”
#37
So, picture it: mother and father are in a custody dispute. Mother's not making a lot of money but she's hustling as best as she can to take care of her kids. Father's a deadbeat. He actually was supposed to originally have primary custody, but skipped out, so she's been taking care of them for a couple years, and now she wants primary custody officially transferred to her and he's fighting it because he's a narcissist... Anyways. In many jurisdictions, in addition to the lawyer for each side (assuming that the person isn't arguing pro se, like the father in this case, because not everyone can afford a lawyer, or thinks that they need one) when there's a child involved the court appoints a guardian ad litem, who represents the child. The guardian ad litem interviews the parents, interviews the child, does some basic investigating, and reports to the judge about their assessment. In this case, the guardian ad litem said outright that the mother was probably the better bet, but he thinks that both parents should take a drug test just in case. (Both parents had previous substance abuse problems, and both claimed to be clean.) Well, the judge has no problem with any of that that, and sends the parents off to be tested right then (social services sent someone to administer the tests, I believe). That's done, everybody comes back to the courtroom. Judge reads the results out loud. Mother tested negative for everything. Father...tested positive for cocaine. Now, as the mother's attorney (and the guardian ad litem) made sure to emphasize, cocaine doesn't stay detectable for very long. Either the father used it very recently (he admitted in court that he'd gone to a party and done a line of coke), or he was such a habitual user that it remained detectable for longer (the party that he'd been at was the previous weekend, which was outside of the approx. 3 day range that cocaine remains in your system, so if that was indeed the only time he'd used coke then he must have been doing lines nonstop the week before for it to linger so long). Things really did not go well for him after that. Mother ended up with primary custody of the kids, father ended up looking like a real tool in front of the judge.
IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet 3 years ago
Some helpful advice- Poppy seeds can make a false positive, don't eat them before any appointment. You never know when drug tests will be administered.
#38
Not a lawyer, recent law school grad studying for the bar. This happened summer after my first year of law school, I was making a court appearance as a student attorney (basically, a rule in my state that lets students practice under attorney supervision).
I was working with the public defender’s office, representing a client at a first appearance on a probation violation/bail hearing. On a probation violation, the judge is allowed to hold a defendant without bail (keep them in jail until the case is over).
Client says he has some money, but not much. Could get together about $500 for bail. Ok, I’ll ask the judge to keep it low or just release him. Prosecutor asks for $300 bail. Great, my work here is done. Whatever I say, judge will order $300 or less and my guy is out.
I say my piece, and then my client interrupts the judge, saying some incoherent stuff about how he needs to get out and he’s got this that and the other thing going on. Won’t let the judge speak.
Judge holds him without bail even though the prosecutor didn’t ask for it. All he had to do was shut up and he’d have gone home that afternoon.
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
NEVER talk over a judge. You may think the judge is the biggest idiot in the world -- and they may be -- but they have an incredible about of discretionary power over you. Suck up. Be humble. Be kind. And if there are issues, talk to your lawyer outside the courtroom to push for a retrial or appeal.
Lauren Caswell 3 years ago (edited)
I had the utter joy of watching my ex try to argue with a judge while his lawyer hung his head in embarrassment. Apparently ending your arguing with "we will have to agree to disagree" doesn't work. But by god it was good to watch. He was abusive as heck to me and used to getting his way, but it didn't really work on a judge. I just kept my mouth buttoned (except when he insulted my dad I gasped accidentally, but the judge just held up a finger like: let him keep digging this hole)
Load More Replies... #39
The defendant tried to b**** slap one of the jury.
Autumn 3 years ago
Depending on why they're in court, they were probably not handcuffed and in a smaller court room the jury's not exactly far away.
Load More Replies...
ZephyrOfTheSkywings 3 years ago
In reply to Christine Jemison: I have really had it with people who just go 'oh come on, no way this could possibly be real' with no evidence. There is enough people making dinguses of themselves on a daily basis to fill several encyclopedia volumes, I don't see any reason they would need to make something up.
#40
My dear, departed bf was a criminal defense attorney who told me this one: Attorney (cross-examination): "You were dating my client, Eddie X, and your then-boyfriend, Mr Z, and became pregnant. How did you know that the baby was not my client's child" Witness: "Because Eddie always f***** me up the ass!" Order! Order!
#41
I once had an idiot client who put out a public statement announcing that a subordinate had resigned.
Then the subordinate announced that he had not resigned, and furthermore, had no intention of resigning.
Then my idiot client put out an email announcing that he had fired the subordinate.
Then I had to advise my idiot client that he didn't have the right to fire the subordinate.
Then I had to explain to my idiot client that he couldn't fire the man because he is not my idiot client's subordinate at all; in fact, he was hired by, and worked for, a completely different subsidiary - over which my client had no authority.
So I got my idiot client to put out a public statement saying that his boss, the Chief Executive, had fired the subordinate.
Then my idiot client's boss blabbed to everybody that he had not fired the subordinate, and that he had thrown the whole matter back into my idiot client's hands.
And now, dammit, I have to spend the next four months boning up on all the statues and case law pertaining to obstruction of justice.
Sincerely, William Barr's lawyer.
Two_rolling_black_eyes 3 years ago (edited)
That took an extremely sharp turn in the last 4 words. I've followed the case and didn't recognize it because of the vagueness until the end. William Barr is the former US Attorney General accused of all of the above. The chief executive was Trump.
Kai David 3 years ago
I dated an attorney for a few months. He broke up with me because he said I was republican, and he is a democrat. I told him dude, you are john boehners house attorney. You personally wrote and approved some of the most anti-gay legislation bills ment to become law; and you're breaking up with me because I'm republican??
Thomas Biorogue 3 years ago
So much for client confidentiality. I'm going to say this is fake.
Two_rolling_black_eyes 3 years ago
William Barr is the former US Attorney General. His boss was Donald Trump. Everything in this post is public record. The obstruction of justice charges have been given an extension and not put back on the docket yet because the court that has jurisdiction is backlogged. Last summer "the idiot client" publicly stated in a recorded interview he was trying to delay the trial until after his book comes out.
Load More Replies... #42
This was in a custody dispute, jury trial. We represented the father of young twins, and the mother wanted child support. The issue was that, for the past three years, they had been sharing the kids EXACTLY 50-50, as in he got a weekend, she got a weekend, one of them got Monday Tuesday, the other got Thursday Friday, and they split Wednesday. There was no reason not to have a shared custody order with each parent paying their own expenses, but she thought she could get more, so there we were. The thing was, she did not have a case. She kept taking the kids to CPS and child psychologists before the trial to make a reason why she should have primary custody, but we managed to get all of that excluded. So on the day of the trial, her big argument is that these kids have asthma. Severe asthma. The kind of asthma that requires special equipment, and the father is ignoring these issues. He's negligent. He's endangering them. She should have custody. The trial is generally going our way. She's not a great witness, she doesn't have any medical records to back up these allegations, and we have the children's daycare teacher testifying that she doesn't know anything about any special equipment or severe asthma. But the moment that sealed the deal came when the mother called her last witness. The last witness to testify was the children's grandmother, the mother's mother. The jury already knew that she frequently babysat the two kids, and that her apartment was often a drop-off location for the kids. The mother swore that the grandmother never smoked in front of the kids, and that her apartment was not a dangerous environment for asthmatic children. The grandmother was called last minute by the mother as a rebuttal witness. As she took the stand, the grandmother leaned over into the microphone and cleared her throat. "Ahecchhhmm." It was a two or three second long expression of smoky phlegm. I don't recall exactly what the grandmother said in her testimony, but I remember she sounded like decades of three-pack-a-day smoking when she said it. After a half-hour of deliberations, the jury awarded primary custody to the father. He immediately started crying, while the mother sat motionless. It was a good result.
Zoe's Mom 3 years ago
I feel this one for some reason. Fathers, in many cases, are seen as the bad guy. Obviously, this man loves his children immensely. I'm happy it went his way.
Ines Olabarria-Smith 3 years ago
A divorce attorney friend of mine always says that women are worse. Also that it is because of years that f being considered the weaker genre. Misogyny is bad for everybody.
Load More Replies... Felice Coles 3 years ago
Heavy smokers shouldn't be caregivers to children. Or pets. Or the elderly. Or anyone, really.
#43
When I was in law school, I had to argue a case for an exam. I was the last in my class to go so there wasn't anyone arguing against me. I opened with a motion to dismiss since opposing had failed to show. The judge grading me chuckled and said "touche counsel." I still had to go forward but we got off on the right foot and I ended up with an A.
RedMarbles 3 years ago
Most lawyers I know aren't happy they went to law school. I know there are many that are, but they seem to be the minority. I beg you to think twice, gellert!
Load More Replies... #44
Back in the days when you needed to bring posterboard blow ups of photos with you to court as exhibits, and you didn't have a computer screen to enlarge them, in a fire case the defendant said he and his family were in Mexico buying tiles and went straight to their home in Beverly Hills. They claimed they didn't stop in Malibu at their beach house to drop off the tiles, have a smoke, and then leave. (Our theory was their cigarettes started the fire. LA County Arson thought so too.) Up until the day of trial we didn't have the blow ups. I got them. They were huge, I took them to court. I asked the defendant husband to repeat the story he had given in deposition. Then I uncovered the blow up which showed his garage with the door left open by LA County firefighters. The garage was untouched by the fire that burned down his house and the neighborhood. I showed him the photo and asked him to identify the tiles neatly stacked in the middle of the garage. When he failed to answer the question I knew the jury knew he was lying. (He was, as we say in the profession, a "LSOS.")
#45
Was waiting with now exwife in divorce court. Ours was mostly mutual so it was somewhat painless. The couple before us was an older divorced couple arguing over back child support. HER: "He has not paid me in 3 months. I gave him an extension but still nothing" HIM: "I don't have any money right now, times are tough. Im trying the best I can" HER: "You honor ask him where he was 2 weeks ago?" JUDGE: "Where were you 2 weeks ago" HIM: "I went to Florida and got remarried on the beach" Bailiff: "CLICK. CLICK". {The guy was hauled away in cuffs}.
#46
Very abbreviated - I was prosecuting a convenience store owner for luring a young girl, who regularly came into the store, back to a part of the store to grope/fondle and kiss her (child enticement). It was the only section of the store without surveillance camera coverage. They were in the back room for about two minutes and seventeen seconds, per the timestamp on the videos. Of the many arguments the defense put on, one was there was no way there was enough time for anything to happen. In my rebuttal on closing, I asked the jury to imagine what could happen in the room in that amount of time, and I asked them to all close their eyes while I timed out 2 minutes and 17 seconds on my watch, in silence. After about 60 seconds two of the jurors started crying. Knew it was going to be guilty right then.
Jo Johannsen 3 years ago
I have seen this before. At random moments, it comes to mind, and I tear up all over again.
Bobby 3 years ago
I wept like a baby listening to the victim and family of victim statements from the Larry Nasser trial
Load More Replies... jammer 3 years ago
I don’t mind the guy being guilty, but he should only be guilty for the things he did, not because of what a jury could imagine.
SoozeeQ 3 years ago
The defense had said nothing could happen in that amount of time. Prosecutor wanted to show how long that really was. It's easier not to get distracted if your eyes are closed and the room is silent. There was plenty of time for the child to be really distressed, and this is what made the jury cry.
Load More Replies... #47
Unfortunately my best story for this is from my own client. We had a client who was on the board of directors for a company, and was being sued for allegedly not telling the board something. His part of the case was really only a smaller part of a larger and more complicated case, so while there were a lot of other issues in the case overall, the entire case against him specifically essentially boiled down to whether or not he told the board about X. I and few other attorneys spent an entire week — 9 AM to 5 PM or later, Monday through Friday — prepping this client for his deposition by going over every document in the case with him and explaining why it was important. On several occasions we reiterated that no matter what else happened in the case, as long as we can show that he told the board about X, he was fine. The day of the deposition arrives. Opposing counsel sits down and starts questioning our client. In the first 5-10 minutes of the dep, opposing counsel straight-up asks our client what he told the board. Client responds, “I told them about Y, I told them about Z, I told them about A, B, and C” — and says NOTHING about X, literally the only issue in the case against him. In 20+ years of practice it was the closest I’ve ever come to rage-quitting on a client.
#48
My father as a young lawyer was trying to get a case to take place in one state and not another because the insurance laws were more favorable in state A. The company he was in litigation with wanted it in state B for that reason, and claimed they only distributed in state A but had no locations in it and should not have to go to court in state A. Well this company was a soda company and my dad has a major diet soda addiction, he goes through at least a 12 pack a day. So they were in a meeting with the soda company lawyers and took a break and he went downstairs to get a diet soda. When it came out he noticed on the can that it said "Distrubted by the XYZ soda company of State A". So he got another diet soda and brought that one up stairs to the meeting. The XYZ soda co decided to settle after that. This was in the late 70s or early 80s I believe.
J.L. Martin 3 years ago
This is a thing. My FIL drank Diet Coke like it was his oxygen. Even after a gastric bypass surgery (after which you're told to avoid all carbonated beverages) he couldn't quit it.
Load More Replies... #49
I represented a company that was sued for breach of contract by a former independent contractor. Dude basically alleged that my client wasn’t paying him correctly in accordance with the contract.
During his deposition, dude admits that he never reviewed any documents to make sure his allegations were true, never reviewed his complaint before filing it to make sure the allegations in it were true, and had no idea whether or not my client actually failed to pay him in accordance with the contract. Basically, he tells me that he was suing my client because he didn’t think their agreement was fair (even though he agreed to the terms when he signed the contract). The kicker is that he admitted that he OWED my client money.
At arbitration, he tries to flip his story and starts giving testimony that is the exact opposite of his dep, so I whip out his transcript and undermine his testimony bit by bit. Needless to say, I won that case.
Kai David 3 years ago
Owned rental properties. I advertised for a contractor bid to repair a brick wall. A black contractor called, set up a meeting and gave us a verbal quote. We accepted, but we need his quote in writing. After 5 weeks, he ignores our phone calls, letters and never submitted a written quote to us. He never got back to us, nor did he start any work.We went with someone else. 3 years later, the original contractor, the one who ghosted us, sued us for discrimination. It was an ugly trial, painting us as racist. After we presented our paperwork and evidence that we gave him due diligence for several weeks. Judge ruled in our favor, lecturing the contractor that his behavior and lack of action was the reason why we chose another contractor. Race was not the reason.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
That's very sad that he would take you to court for something he knew wasn't true. I could be way off base, but I almost wonder if for some reason, he told his wife, family, or other, that there were racial issues with your job and that's why he didn't take it?.?. And after quite some time of being pressured by them over his comments, he brought a suit against you? Believe me, I know how far fetched this sounds but I've actually seen things this crazy and worse. He may not have had any family involved at all. My step-dad would tell my mother some doozies when he was working as a subcontractor doing construction, but laying out of work and playing/gambling on poker machines illegally. Spending all the money for a job and then spending the money she was making at work too. When some people get themselves in a spot, they'll do and say lots of things to get out of it.
Load More Replies...
#50
I represented a man in a slip and fall case in a national chain that grills chicken. The restaurant is not supposed to clean the grills until after they close because it is a huge sloppy mess that involves using a garden hose after applying chemicals to remove all of the grease. The close down process can take up to two to three hours that involve packing up the food for the next day, scrubbing the grills, mopping, etc. Even though the corporation knew this, they refused to pay more than one hour worth of wages after closing time. Thus, the shift managers and cooks decided that they would start the closing process two hours before closing while there were still customers in the restaurant. This is really dangerous as employees delivering food can track the greasy water into the lobby where the customers were. On one fateful day, two hours before closing, one of the cooks was cleaning the grills and using the hose to wash them down. This slurry is so slick that the cook has to wear a plastic smock and slip resistant shoes for the process. While he was waiting for the chemicals to remove the grease which takes about 15 minutes, the cook goes into the lobby tracking this stuff into a hallway to wipe down some tables. My client walks out of the restroom and slips in the greasy water. He hits his head so hard that it causes a subdural hematoma which requires surgery to relieve the swelling and blood from the brain. Go figure, the video system wasn't working that day. In any case, right after that the cook was fired and the corporation claimed that they could not locate him during litigation. I did some research and found a relative of the cook which eventually led to me finding him. He admitted that he was cleaning the grill, but denied that he was the one that tracked the greasy water into the lobby as did all of the other employees. The corporation during the entire three week trial testified that cleaning before closing was against their policy and it NEVER happens. Thus, it had to be anything else that caused my client to fall. I was talking to the cook before trial because we were going to call him as a witness. He was pissed that they fired him. I asked, "Do you think they are still cleaning before closing because they are denying that they do." He told me, "Absolutely." On the first day of trial, I sent my investigator to the restaurant at the time my client was injured which was two hours before closing to record video on his cell phone whether they were cleaning or not. Guess what, they had the hose out and everything. I couldn't believe that they would continue to do this at the restaurant at issue in the case. I told my investigator to go back up there when there is a different shift manager and cook to see if they are doing the same thing. They were. At the end of the trial, the defense put on their general manager for the region. He swore up and down that this never happens. He was their last witness. We get up and say, Judge we need a side bar. In the Judge's chambers we revealed the videos to the other side. The attorney for the corporation was freaking out. The Judge let it in for rebuttal. The last thing the jury saw before going into deliberations was five minutes of video with audio of the hose as they were cleaning the grills two hours before closing. We completely wiped out their entire defense in a three week trial with that video. Needless to say, we prevailed. I should add, using sub rosa video against a defendant like this is very rare. They usually stop doing what they are not supposed to be doing during the trial. I guess the restaurant didn't get the memo.
Anna Snorrepot 3 years ago
weird to no pay for hours that need to be worked (after closing time).
John Smith 3 years ago
No not weird at all, I would be willing to bet that several people could join in with me saying.. been there, done that. I was constantly on the late shift at a burger flipping chain (no not that one, the crown one) we were scheduled to finish at midnight so that is when they stopped paying you, due to the work load it was rare that we were out before 2 am.
Load More Replies... Cold Contagious 3 years ago
I guess the employees that actually work in this restaurant feel like they have nothing to lose except more time and money to the company. So without a higher up holding their hands, they were going to continue with things the way that saves them the most time and money 💰. I feel horrible for the patron who was injured but the company needs to do better by their employees also.
#51
There was one juror who just had been clearly thoroughly annoyed with the other lawyer throughout the trial. When the verdict came back, that juror was holding the verdict, indicating he had been the foreman. At that moment I knew I had won.
Michael Largey 3 years ago
The juror may have been annoyed because the lawyer's arguments were so phony that that they were an insult to the intelligence.
Elin Noller 3 years ago
The juror could have been annoyed because of the lawyers behaviour, rather than personality.
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Proof that juries won't always decide on the evidence but rather on irrelevant factors as the appearance or demeanor of all parties involved.
RedMarbles 3 years ago
Yep. A colleague overheard two jurors in the elevator post-verdict discussing how much they hated one lawyer's shoulder pads for some reason. They didn't say this, but the colleague got the impression that their dislike of the lawyer's clothes played a factor in their verdict. The judge is there to direct a verdict if the jurors really get it wrong (at least in the US), but it's rarely done out of deference to the jurors as the "finders of fact."
Load More Replies... Anna Snorrepot 3 years ago
emotions should not come into the fact finding no the application of the law. What a stupid criminal system the US has.
Jacob Rosenberg (Swedemire) 3 years ago
I'd take it anyday over the Swedish judicial system. It's like a jury, except they're selected through their affiliation with a political party.
Load More Replies... #52
Defendant on trial for arson of an occupied dwelling. I cross-examined him about statements he made to witnesses saying he was going to burn down the house. He claimed he was just, 'Singing the song, you know — burning down the house, burning down the house.'
I said, 'You mean the song by the Talking Heads?' He said, 'Yeah, that song; I remember because it had just come out!' He set the fire in 2015. I actually had to look up the proper citation for a recorded song for the appellate brief, which went as well for the defendant as the trial did. The Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House" (Sire Records, 1983!).
He was lying about why he was saying he was going to 'burn down the house' is evidence of intent to conceal."
Andy Acceber 3 years ago
Eh, this is a pretty weak connection to me. I hope there was a lot more evidence. I'm old enough that "just came out" to me is anywhere from 1 day to roughly 25 years. Plus, I'm pretty ignorant. Sometimes I'll hear a "classic" song that I somehow missed the first time around and just assume it's new.
Kira Okah 3 years ago (edited)
Tbf, there have been LOTS of covers of this song, even one in late 2014. I didn't know what the original group who sung it was called, I know it from a 1999 cover and it was "just come out" to my early teenage self who had no idea that it was a cover. I assume that there is some missing additional information here.
Autumn 3 years ago
The dude asked if it was the one by talking heads and the guy said yes. Meaning the version he was singing wasn't a recent cover but the original.
Load More Replies...
Izzy Curer 3 years ago
This is unfair. The guy was clearly a vampire. 32 years is nothing to him
#53
I was on the losing end. Represented a guy who had bought a company and the company failed spectacularly within months due to a number of reasons I could attribute to the seller, and they had clearly lied about the company’s finances to induce him to buy. I was suing to rescind the deal, have your s**tty company back and give my guy his money back. I laid out my huge case and thought I had it in the bag, and then opposing counsel asked my guy: “Isnt it true that you listed this business for sale a month ago” “Yes” “And you did sell it correct? You signed a purchase and sale?” “Yes but he never finished paying me, he has more payments to make. I’ll just give his money back when you guys give me my money back” My idiot client had me suing over a company that he had legally sold. F**ker never told me. Game over on the spot.
#54
My "Eight Word Trial" would be up there. Basically my lowest ever effort court hearing win. I was required to say a grand total of eight words during the whole thing. The Defendant's lawyer has f**ked up, spectacularly; and has tried, ineptly, to get his client and himself out of the s**t. He spends about an hour ranting and raving about the injustice of it all; screaming at the judge that he's got it wrong, while I sit, half listening, casually browsing Reddit using the court Wi-Fi. Eventually, he gives up and the Judge says something like "For [reasons] I'm going to dismiss this application. Anything to add, u/CountZapolai?" "No." (word 1) "OK, application dismissed for [reasons]. How much are your costs?" "Twelve thousand pounds plus VAT" [a UK sales tax] (words 2-6) "Granted. Good morning" "Thank you" (words 7 and 8).
#55
So I typically do Plaintiffs work for corporations but one of my clients was getting sued by a former contractor for work allegedly performed right before he was fired in the amount of $150k. I had never dealt with opposing counsel, she was about my age (32) and seemed nice heading up to trial. The day of our pretrial just 5 days before trial she tells me in the elevator "I hope you know I'm going to kick your ass in trial" I laughed and she said "no really, you are screwed". Trial comes and she drags out her case over 5 days and I start to get the impression her client made up the invoices with her help. She finally rests her case and I called her client as my only witness. He immediately testified his attorney showed him how to make the invoices. The judge wouldnt allow them into evidence, she lost her case and was sanctioned $5k for falsifying evidence. She appealed and the court of appeals ripped into her. Needless to say, I didnt get my ass kicked.
#56
I'm not a lawyer, but I took my old landlord to court when I was in college. They stole my security deposit over bulls**t: They claimed I "trashed" the place, not knowing that I took pictures and video when I moved in and out. Their "evidence" was a VHS quality recording of going through a perfectly clean apartment in better condition than it was when I moved in, but then they opened up the top of the stove and found a single piece of elbow macaroni under it, holding it up triumphantly. That was the crux of their "defense", the judge was not amused and I got all my money back plus my lawyer fees and the filing fee. She then fought against her own lawyer to avoid paying him. As**ole. Edit: Any time you move into a place, take pictures, take video, make notes about any damage. When you move out, do the same thing along with noting any repairs you made. Pretty hard to argue against solid evidence. Protect yourself.
Brenda 3 years ago
When we moved into a rental house, I went through it over 2 days before we actually moved in. I borrowed a digital camera with a date & time stamp. I gave the leasing agent 7 detailed double spaced pages addressing the tiniest things and a few really big ones. We borrowed the almost $4k to rent this place, so I wanted to cover all the bases. Agent said it was the most detailed move in list she'd ever seen. I included copies of the pictures. She said that helped her. Come move out (after 7 years) we got $1500 back (dogs did some damage and $1k was nonrefundable pet deposit). We were both happy
#57
A doctor testifying under oath that he deliberately chose not to inform a pregnant woman of a positive test result for a really severe genetic disorder, because he figured because she was a member of his church she wouldn't have considered aborting the pregnancy under any circumstances. A primary care doctor who received a complex and technical test report from a genetics lab, and simply forwarded it to the patient (who didn't really speak English and wasn't medically educated). She testified that she "performed the minimum required diligence" which is not what you should say and expect a good outcome.
Ellie Rosser 3 years ago
Even if she wouldn't abort the pregnancy there is a huge benefit to learning what to expect before the baby just turns up with a major issue! What a twat.
J. Normal 3 years ago
This is how they are handling test results lately, results read over the phone, or sent on a web link. No information, no support - waiting for a link "google for more information".
KittyMommy 3 years ago
Depends on the doctor. Mine's good about adding a note and explaining the results and if I need to do further testing
Load More Replies...
#58
I was involved in a civil suit against an organization that allegedly allowed and attempted to cover up the sexual assault of an at-risk population. During a deposition of a victim the opposing counsel began asking an aggressive line of questions accusing the deposed of having been convicted of making false reports in the past, and convictions for forgery, and identity theft. After our client answered with a simple “no” to about a dozen of these questions opposing counsel became belligerent, eventually basically signaling that at trial he would be producing mugshots, as well as conviction records, as well as charges for perjury and right about at that point he becomes ghost white, pulls very close to his face what is clearly a photo he had in a folder, looks at it closely then shoves it back in and asks to conclude the deposition. He had pulled records on the wrong person, i later found this other person and while their names were the same, the ages were more than 15 years apart.
#59
(Im the victim of the case.) There was a guy being charged with 3 counts of sexual misconduct (2 from when i was a minor and one from when i was 18). There wasn't much for evidence for the case at all. No undeniable proof that he did any of it. All the state had going for them was me and my testimony. He was already in prison for unrelated charges (went to prison right after the time i was 18). Because he was in prison, they had access to all of his calls and letters. One day, he decided to confess to being completely alone with me all night, where no one else could hear us, and that was enough to make even the state attorney facepalm and call him an idiot. Prior to the call, they would have had a much better chance at fighting, because he and all of his family are willing to do anything to keep him out of trouble, including lying under oath. Had he not talked to the person on the phone about that night, we could have very easily lost. However, because of it, it sounds like his lawyer told him that his only chance at all is a plea bargain, which he eventually took.
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
It is astounding how many people don't realise their prison calls are recorded and reviewed.
Zoe's Mom 3 years ago
Yup. I saw on a You-Tube channel where there was a young man in jail for reasons I can't remember. He was crying and being apologetic when the judge looked at him and said, "Did you say that you would get off because you are blond and blue-eyed on a phone call"? Crying stopped immediately. He knew then and there he was f*cked and he should be.
Load More Replies... Bobby 3 years ago
From everything I've ever read on the topic it seems a lot of sexual misconduct and rape cases rely heavily on victim testimony, with little to no other evidence. I'd be curious to know how many cases were judged wrong because of this, both innocent people being locked up, and guilty people walking free.
#60
My client and his wife were woken up one night because people were trying to break into his house. He fired two warning shots as his wife called 911. The neighbor also called 911. When the police got the neighbor's call that there were shots fired, the Police Sergeant radioed the other officers and said "He's going to jail tonight" referring to my client. So obviously even with signs of someone trying to break in and his wife calling 911 for help....the officers arrest my client for endangering his wife by shooting inside the house (nowhere near her). It gets to a jury trial and I start to go off on the Police Sergeant about why she would say that before an investigation and before she even had any idea what happened. The Sergeant had no idea how to respond and literally just sat there staring at me for a solid 2 minutes before saying anything. Even the bailiffs were audibly laughing.
Hayhaypaula 3 years ago
In the USA, it is legal to defend yourself by firing a gun inside your home, if you believe your life is in danger. So an investigation really should have been done before deciding to arrest the homeowner!
Anna Snorrepot 3 years ago
I asked Breonna Taylor how this law is working out but she's not answering.
Load More Replies...
Magoomba 3 years ago (edited)
I knew a guy who got arrested for the same thing. His issue wasn’t shooting at the intruder but rather possessing a gun as a convicted felon. At trial, when asked why he thought he should have a gun despite the risk he was taking he said “It comes down to the fact that I’d rather face the judge down here”, and, pointing to the sky “than face the judge up there”. The judge noticeably smiled.
#61
Pro bono case. Representing woman who was trying to get a permanent protective order against her boyfriend. I ask her if he has contacted her since the temporary order was issued (which is a crime). She says yes, he called her three times. Defendant: Objection your honor. Judge: State the grounds for your objection please. D: The facts! I only called her once! Me: closes file and sits down
#62
Not as a lawyer, but a defendant. I was a concierge and named in a lawsuit against the building by an unlicensed realtor who was barred from entry after headbutting me while he was wearing a bike helmet. He was representing himself in court. He cross examines me over how I had barred him from entry and had some preamble about the vendetta I had against him. Then asked me to repeat what I said when I asked him to leave the building. I responded, "I'm sorry, was that before or after you hit me?" He immediately answered, "After I hit you." Took him a minute but his face fell pretty far after he caught on to what he just admitted. Case dismissed.
#63
Re-upping an old comment: We all forget to turn off our phones in court, but I once faced off against a lawyer whose phone rang right while he was in the middle of making his final submission to the Judge. Even that might have been forgivable if he hadn't interrupted his submissions to take the call.
#64
Posted this one a little while ago, but it does fit here. Not a lawyer, but I have a similar type of experience to share. Where I live, municipal zoning rights are controlled by a board that has a nickname of "The Green Taliban" - so named because they are drop-dead-heart-attack serious about anything to do with environmental regulations (I live in one of the most left-wing, environmentally-conscious areas of the country). Their answer to anything that isn't 100% in compliance with the most stringent environmental codes is almost always "No." Anyways, this millionaire decides to move out to the area and buys an acreage. His plans for developing the land include creating an artificial cave (for wine-tasting parties) by blasting one into a cliff using mining explosives and creating a new stream by draining a water-body located on the property. Needless to say, these actions were rather controversial amongst the community and he had to have a public hearing (which I attended) in front of the zoning board to explain himself. After a couple of pointed questions from the board, he loudly groused, "You know, where I come from [a very conservative part of the country, as it turns out], if we want to build a road and there's a lake in the way, we move the lake." That was about the point where I thought to myself, Yeah, you definitely just lost your case. Congratulations on passing into local legend, though.
Lulu Lemons 3 years ago
Isn't that name a bit offensive? Being green is a good thing and shouldn't be compared to what is widely considered a terrorist organisation
Veronica Connelly 3 years ago
My thoughts exactly. Hoping it isn't an official nickname and just one given rudely on purpose by the people living in the area
Load More Replies... WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Where I come from if they want to build a road and there's a lake in the way, they let the road split the lake in two, so they have 2 lakes. They do same with nature reserves. We have one nature reserve, we build a highway right through the nature reserve and now we have a highway and 2 nature reserves.
#65
Co counsel on a case where guys being accused of sex witha minor. Idiot client goes off topic and testifies that the woman "smelled like a French whore". Judge asks him what a French whore smells like. Client admits he doesn't really know, but assumes just like an American one. I'm like 2 weeks out of law school. This was all in open court, so I'm not violating any privileges here.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago (edited)
Hmm, no that one smells Russian 🤔... * no offense meant towards anyone's nationality or ancestry.
Load More Replies... #66
Terrible people had stolen all of this little old lady’s money. They said it was a gift, but their only evidence was a document in the bad person’s handwriting that was allegedly dictated. It said September 2012. No day, just the month. Clearly the rogue had forged that when she found out about the lawsuit and, not remembering when she had stolen it, she hoped if she could guess within the month no one could challenge her. So I’m questioning her about it. Exhibit B is the little old lady’s bank record. Now that withdrawal at the bottom, is that the alleged gift? Yes. Can you read the date of that transaction for me? August 25, 2012. Thank you.
#67
I was trying a Criminal Sexual Conduct Case . My client was a stepfather of a 13 year old girl and an 8 year old boy . Allegedly my client " fingered " her on the living room couch while the 8 year old boy was in the room with them watching TV .Mom was in a rehab facility for drug and alcohol abuse. My theory of the case was that the girl made the case up because my client refused to pay for modeling classes for the girl . The boy testified and said he saw the criminal act from where he was sitting on a recliner . On cross examination I asked how he could see what happened since the lights were low ( nighttime ) and my client ( who is 6 foot tall and weighs 200 lbs. ) was in between them . He said that his story was what he was told to say by the sister and the prosecutor's victim coordinator .The prosecutor rested her case. I shut up and sat down . I presented no defense and it took the jury 3 minutes to find him not guilty.
Flops 3 years ago
Whilst I assume that the outcome was correct, what legal/justice system requires an 8 yo to testify and be cross examined? Surely any "testimony" of a child this age should only be gained via qualified specialists, in a non court situation? That any family, legal professional (prosecutor's victim coordinator), could put a child in this psychologically traumatic position, is horrific.
NsG 3 years ago
Not sure about in the US, but I was on a jury for a child sex abuse case. The child was about 8. Testimony and cross examination was done via video link, with a social worker in the room with the child. Because of the fancy clothes and whatnot that UK judges and council wear, the jury had to break for a few minutes while they removed their robes and wigs and made it as comfortable as possible for the child. They were treated very well by both councils and the judge. It was not a fun case to be on, but the treatment of the child was exemplary.
Load More Replies... #68
An ex of mine read a reddit comment of mine making fun of her tattoos (that ironically enough, she braggingly posted to bad tattoo threads, so I don't see what the big deal was). In retaliation, she filed for a restraining order alleging sexual assault and rape threats. In her written allegations, she straight up admitted that I don't have contact with her, that I'd spent most of the last year living 2000 miles away from her, and that the only time she'd seen me in the last 2 years, I'd deliberately avoided her. If that weren't enough, on our day in court, when the judge asked her what threat I represented to her safety, security, and privacy, she said "nobody should be able to say that about [her tattoos]." She literally forgot about all the made up sex offender stuff while talking to the judge.
#69
Not me, but a lawyer that worked for us. Opposing counsel held up an opinion document to support their position. Our counsel calmly said the document did not say what they were contending. Opposing counsel said; “you are obviously unfamiliar with this document. “ our counsel responds “I wrote it.” No further questions.
#70
In one where I was a jury member, almost all the evidence was on camera. One lawyer was trying to make his case on the fact a mandated sweeping security check wasn’t done on time and if it had it would have potentially prevented what happened to his client. After him drilling in this point endlessly, the opposing counsel asked to see footage of around the time of the missed sweeping check. The video showed a specific visit to the client. A personal visit is far better than a sweeping check. First lawyer was not such a smug guy anymore.
#71
I was prosecuting some kid. He had an 'anti-social behaviour order', which meant that he was not supposed to go to a certain street. He had pleaded not guilty on the basis that he had not been there. I opened my cross examination by holding up a map and pointing at the street. I said to him "you went here, didn't you?". He said "yes". In England, we don't say "I rest my case". Instead I looked up at the bench, said "no further questions", and sat down. It might not seem bad-ass, but I got the defendant to admit the offence with one question. That never happens!
#72
I do mostly solicitor work so if I'm doing my job right I don't get a whole lot of these type of moments. That being said, I had a long-time client who was being sued and I got to shut down the guy suing him in a very satisfying way.
So my client had hired a guy, we will call Kevin, as basically a right-hand man for his company. The employment contract wasn't done yet but they had an agreement that Kevin would work six weeks at a lower wage and then sign the contract and get the agreed upon wage. So the guy works decently for 5 weeks and then is given the contract to sign. He comes back to the owner (my client) and says that he has some small changes he would like to make.
When the owner gets the contract back he finds that the "small changes" involve removing the "Duties and Responsibilities" section (basically the job description) and the non-compete/confidentiality clause. Not only that but he has written in a higher salary than agreed and added a bunch of new benefits for himself.
Obviously, my client tells him that he can either sign the contract as it was originally laid out or he can find himself another job. He takes the latter option. But he starts a lawsuit against the owner wanting to be paid for the six weeks he was supposed to work (which had already been paid), two weeks in lieu of notice and FIVE weeks vacation pay.
I got the enjoyable job of telling Kevin, in front of a judge that he was not entitled to anything under the employment legislation and the only way he could get any of that would be if he had signed the contract. Judge dismissed the case and awarded costs to the defendant but not before giving Kevin a lecture on wasting the court's time.
#73
It wasn't at trial, though we had one of those and I won it easily. Just always stuck with me because of how clearly the law supported my position to the point that it was inarguable otherwise (and also because of how ridiculous the claim of monetary damages was). Guy moved out of his apartment, turned in his keys, then came back fifteen days later demanding access so that he could retrieve belongings that he had left behind which at that point had been trashed. It was just some minor furniture-type items (lamp shade is the only thing I clearly remember) and a box of his college notebooks (i.e. notes he took during class). He is furious and sues the landlord in small claims for $5,000 (state maximum) because his notebooks have such huge value apparently. They hire me and I respond which moves the case out of small claims (it's just the way it works here after time in r/legaladvice I know this is not the case for every state but our rule is better than yours, but enough aside). This puts him at a huge disadvantage because now he can't rely on the lax rules of small claims so he goes out and hires a lawyer. The lawyer calls me to try to talk settlement, I know her pretty well so I wasn't rude or anything, but I kind of scoffed and was like no that won't be happening and direct her attention to a particular state statute then read it out loud to her. This statute unlike everything else in the law isn't overly long or wordy or hard to follow, it just says bluntly that when someone actually moves out and gives notice of this, items left after ten days are abandoned, period, end of story. I could feel her deflate on the phone and encouraged her to dismiss the suit. She did not, we proceeded to a short bench trial in district court that we won.
#74
Two high school kids spend their day pissing each other off so they decide to drive to a fast food restaurant to fight. They park, get out, immediately approach, and swing. Kid A connects the first blow squarely and solidity across Kid B and instantly drops him. The whole fight was one punch with a total elapsed time of a few seconds. The restaurant is sued for failure to protect its patrons. The case is weak. Unfortunately Kid B hit the pavement hard and had severe brain damage. Attempts were made to settle but they were after millions. We knew walking in they had two former employees testifying about large crowds building up after school. The plaintiff attorney aimed to prove the restaurant had a reasonable expectation of trouble and should have had armed guards in the parking lot. At best, their witnesses wildly exaggerating to the point of perjury. Their credibility was shaky in being highly disgruntled for being fired. We had a list of witnesses ready to refute their claims. At trial, the plaintiff attorney presented first. He spent a long time building up the bad blood between the kids, the serious damages of Kid B, and his potential earning capacity. A lot of foundation work to build sympathy for his client. We break for lunch on day two after which it would be the defense presentation. As we were talking through where we were and how we should proceed, we realized the restaurant was not really mentioned at all. Plaintiff held back his "star" witnesses to rebut the defense presentation the restaurant was safe. So when we reconvened... "Defense rests your honor." The plaintiff attorney fell out of his chair. He begins frantically shuffling papers on his table and was stammering. The judge says, "I take it you will need a few minutes for your close?" After that break, plaintiff's attorney gave one of the worst closing remarks I've ever heard. Jury: Kid B 10% at fault. Kid A 90% at fault. Restaurant 0%.
A.E. Marlowe 3 years ago (edited)
Defense attorney was there to protect the restaurant, not the boy. The plaintiff attorney failed to bring up the restaurant's involvement in the situation, just focusing on the boys. Plaintiff was likely operating under the assumption that the defendant would involve the restaurant in their argument. By the defense choosing to rest instead of argue there was little too nothing at all tying the restaurant to the fight. Plaintiff failed to explain the restaurant's role, so they lost the case. Not a lawyer, that's just my read
Load More Replies...
Adam Belaire 3 years ago
Have you seen the McDonald Szechuan sauce mayhem from March 2020?
Load More Replies... #75
During jury selection, I'm sitting in the courtroom while the current prospective jurors are being interviewed. The *defense* lawyer asks each of them in turn: "Given a presumption of innocence, do you believe that someone who walks next door and shoots his neighbor dead can be acting in self-defense?" I absolutely boggled. That might be the most incompetent defense lawyer in the history of defense lawyers.
#76
Once had fairly standard RTC case - my client going round a roundabout in a small car got sideswiped by a lorry driver. Claim for damages, loss of earnings and the rest. Other side's entire case rested on whether the lorry driver saw my client or not (as we could prove from CCTV that my client was well within her lane, within speed limits and generally on solid ground legally speaking). Their client gets into the witness box and is asked if he saw my client (while you can't ask leading questions to your own client, a napkin could tell he was being prodded towards saying no). The man promptly responds: "Aye I did, but the b**** shouldn't have been where she was." My cross examination consisted of getting him to repeat that answer and then sitting down. To date the easiest day in Court I ever had.
#77
Not a lawyer, but I won a traffic court case with no words and just a piece of paper. I was given a ticket for reckless driving of 100+ mph at 2a on a Monday night after coming home from work. Problem being, my 4 cylinder Chevy s10 had a governor on the engine that did not allow the car travel more than 87 mph. Printed specs from Chevy and highlighted the line. Judge smirked and said I could go, but “slow down, cause something tells me you were still speeding.” That moment of eye contact with the cop on the way out...priceless.
Brandy Grote 3 years ago
You can break a governor by going as fast as it will allow every day. Did they examine the truck?
#78
He tried citing his own lawyer as an authority that the judge should defer to. The judge was not amused. I won.
Bobby 3 years ago
I agree, maybe the lawyer is an authority in a specific field of study, or some sort of hobby, or whatever. Just cause I'm the lawyer doesn't mean I'm not also the subject matter expert
Load More Replies... #79
I work for an attorney whose client wanted custody of his kids. At that time the mom was claiming that he was an unfit parent and that he drank and partied too much. Trial wraps up and an officer comes in an puts the dad in handcuffs, much to all of our surprise. Apparently the guy had an outstanding warrant for a DUI. He didn’t win custody.
#80
We had a case where opposing counsel was cross-examining our expert witness on hydrology regarding some silt/runoff issues. “Mr. Smith, wouldn’t you agree that the book I’m holding is highly respected in your field and considered to be the gold standard on the subject?” Witness- I am aware that it is highly regarded in my field. “Would you be willing to explain, in your own words, what paragraphs 6-10 on page 121 is describing.” Witness reads the passage word for word. “Yes, I can read, but could you put this passage in your own words for the court?” Witness- These are my own words. I wrote it. ***We were the defendants. We were being sued by an HOA over silt in a lake. We were able to prove that we weren’t responsible and prevailed. It actually originated from another site and entered the lake, elsewhere. However, that site was owned by a very large corporation and I don’t think the HOA wanted to fight with an entity that could fight forever.
#81
This isn’t an “I rest my case” moment, but it was a damn fun cross examination. I was defending an alimony case, and in my state cohabitation with a new lover is a bar to alimony. We had had a PI on the plaintiff’s tail for a few months and she and opposing counsel had no clue. I had a mountain of evidence that the plaintiff had moved in a new boyfriend and they were essentially husband and wife without the marriage certificate. So, if I could prove cohabitation, she didn’t get alimony. On cross examination, I’d set her up with a question I knew she’d lie about and then hit her with a photo contradicting her. “So it’s your testimony that John Doe never visited your house?” “Oh, so do you have an explanation for why he’s walking in your front door in this photo?” “So he did come over, but never stayed overnight?” “I see, do you have an explanation for why his car was parked outside of your overnight on, X, X, X, X, and X nights as seen in these photographs?” For a solid 45 minutes to an hour I’d ask a question, she’d lie, and then I’d impeach her with a photo directly contradicting her. I was catching her in a lie per minute or more. She never wised up, either. After the first few times you’d think she’d tell the truth knowing that I’d just catch her in another lie, but nope. She just kept on lying. Again, it wasn’t the flashiest or even an “I rest my case” type moment, but it’s the most fun I’ve ever had on cross. In the subsequent order the court made the specific finding that the Plaintiff’s testimony was “without an iota of credibility.”
#82
IANAL, but I saw the best court moment ever. So there is this person I know that was charged with murder. He was very young and is on the spectrum. After several hours of interrogation, he gave a false confession. The confession was complete s**t and contained details that were easy to prove as false. The defendant's lawyer is questioning the detective that was involved in the interrogation. It comes out that the detective attended a training course on how to interrogate suspects just 3 months before the defendant was arrested. It in the detective was supposed to learn a specific technique that prevents false confessions. This technique was clearly not used when the defendant was questioned. L: "So, you learned [specific technique] but didn't use it. Did you not really learn the technique?" D: "Ummm, I don't understand the question. I learned about [specific technique] at the training course. I know how to use [specific technique]!" L: "But you didn't use it. You are aware that the style of interrogation you used leads to false confessions?" D: "I don't know what you want me to say." L: "So did you forget something you learned 3 months ago? Or did you purposely not do what you were supposed to because you wanted the defendant to be guilty, no matter what the truth is?" D: "I don't understand the question." L: "Are you bad at your job because you are incapable of learning or is it because you don't want to find the real culprit?" The lawyer backed the detective into a corner for 5 mins of what I'll paraphrase as "Are you stupid or are you corrupt?" There was no other option. Eventually the lawyer took pity on the dumb cop and let him get off the witnesses stand. The defendant was acquitted.
#83
Corporate lawyer, so I don’t have cases to rest. But once opposing counsel was forcefully insisting that it was ridiculous for me to expect a certain provision in a contract we were negotiating, and I pointed out that this provision was standard in his own firm’s contract forms, as I knew from several prior transactions I’d worked on across from them. Pretty exciting stuff. He took it in stride and said (jokingly), “Well, of course it’s fine when we ask for it.”
#84
I had one where I pretty much knew the jury was on my side by the end. I had prepared my closing statement the night before so I was ready to go. There was a break where the jury was out before receiving their instructions. I noticed that the opposing counsel was writing his closing statement during that break and would likely continue while judge was reading the jury instructions. His table was a mess - papers and books everywhere and he was frantically scribbling on a notepad and shuffling through papers, adding things up in a phone calculator, etc. I decided to clear everything off of my table and put it out of sight. When the jury came back in, I just sat there with nothing but a brand new, clean yellow legal pad and a pen. Opposing counsel was still scribbling and shuffling and his table was still a mess. I sat back and crossed my legs and pressed my fingertips together and listened while the judge read the instructions to the jury. I like to think that made a good final impression on the jury. They came back with a verdict fully in my favor.
LuckyL 3 years ago
I really HATE that it's so much about presentation, making the judge laugh, being liked at the lawyer. And not about the case itself.There are so many cases in this list.
User# 6 3 years ago
Yup, it really looks like a popularity contest, rather than a quest for justice.
Load More Replies... #85
Not a lawyer but this story still applies. My parents have a jewelry store and the landlord was trying to extort them to sign a lease for nearly double what it was appraised for. Problem was, the lease they signed and the landlord signed said when they renewed the lease both parties were to get their own appraiser then meet in the middle of what the two prices were. Landlord didn't like what his appraiser said so he refused to tell my parents what the appraisal was. So for two years he sent every lawyer in town to try to kick them out. They tried everything but legally had no leg to stand on. Well, unfortunately during this time the landlord developed Parkinson's and his mind started to go. We finally got him to do a deposition and that's where everything when to hell for him. It was like he drank a truth serum. He just told all. My parents lawyer would ask things like: "Why did you not show the appraisal to my clients?" And he'd say: "It wasn't what I wanted. I wanted them to pay more so I hired other appraisers, and paid them off to raise the price nearly double" Or another one was, "Why did you want them to pay you in gold that you would then sell back to them?" (Remember it's a jewelry store) He said, "Oh I didn't want to pay taxes" It was sad honestly. His lawyer by the end of it all just had his head in his hands. We had a new lease within a month for less than we originally even offered, and he had to pay back 75% of our legal fees. Nearly $100,000.
IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet 3 years ago
But he was mentally handicapped, how was he able to be in court and what he said taken as the truth?
WilvanderHeijden 3 years ago
Having Parkinson's doesn't necessarily mean that you also are mentally disabled. Mental issues usually become apparent in later stages of Parkinson's. So it depends on the stage of the disease if the guy would or wouldn't be considered unfit to testify.
Load More Replies...
Leodavinci 3 years ago
If I know anything about renters (and I do because I rent out a building), SOME of them will not go to the trouble/expense of cleaning, let alone repairing, anything... and they'll try to get their cleaning deposit back AND get out paying for any repairs. I do not recommend being a landlord. You can get sucked into it thinking it's a passive source of income that can generate a good income. Nope. Only if you have multiple units and get a management company to run them.
#86
Corporate lawyer but this was on a pro bono housing matter. My client just needed to not lose her housing, I was trying to get her on one year probation (but would agree to two) instead of termination. On the day of the hearing, I had six summer associates come with me each carrying huge binders. When my hearing was about to begin I had them all bring them in and sit them in front of me. The opposing lawyer was a very overworked nyc housing attorney who had budgeted an hour that day for my hearing. She instantly goes “what is this?” I told her it was my arguments. She said she didn’t have the time. I started off on a two minute opening I had prepared then grabbed one of the binders and she was like “let me stop you there. What do you want?” I said three months probation, she countered with a year, ended up agreeing on six months. The binders were all empty.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
Idk how to feel about this one. It would be based on what was she doing to get terminated from her housing in the first place... There are some issues that I might really fight harder to proceed with the termination for the betterment of the housing unit.
Peter Korsten 3 years ago
That's not what a lawyer is for. Lawyers are there to best protect their client's interests. You don't really want to go to "courts" where there is no defence lawyer, or where your "lawyer" says that you're guilty. (Hint: look up "Volksgerichtshof".)
Load More Replies... #87
It wasn't super dramatic, but for some reason opposing counsel included an Exhibit that was highly detrimental to their client's case. I was prepared to ignore it thinking it was entered in error, but opposing counsel spoke to it in what I believe was an effort to head off an argument I wasn't going to make. Opposing counsel went on to make a very strange and convoluted argument showing that my presumed rebuttal fell short of some nebulous standard. I let counsel speak, and when it was my turn I said we did not enter this evidence nor is it our intention to rely on it, and I immediately pivoted back to the argument I had prepared. We won and we got more than we should have. Always be the voice of reason.
#88
I'm relatively junior so I'm hoping to beat this one day. I defend professionals and brought a motion to dismiss a case on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove my client was negligent as she had not served the required expert evidence. As opposing counsel and I waited for our motion to be heard we were sitting in the courtroom. The judge, who I did not know and who had not read our materials, wanted to talk to the parties of a short trial which was to be heard after our motion was argued. That matter was also a professional negligence matter and the plaintiffs had no expert support. The judge then spent 10 minutes explaining that he had practiced in professional negligence for many years and was well versed in the evidentiary requirements to prove the elements of professional negligence. In fact, he said, "I very rarely use the word impossible in this court room, but it is impossible for you to be successful without expert evidence." Our matter was then called and I revelled in explaining to the judge that he was about to hear a motion to dismiss a professional negligence case on the basis that the plaintiff had no expert evidence. I won.
#89
When my client filed a restraining order against his ex and then asked me to leverage the restraining order just so he could get back with her. In our state, if you do this, you’ll have to pay the other persons attorneys fees.
#90
So I’m fighting a DWI case and the cop is a lying liar who is telling big lies about what signs he saw on the field sobriety test that my client was allegedly intoxicated. The state had not moved expeditiously enough to have a copy of all of the evidence in the case. So we got him up on the stand talking all about how my clients looked on the horizontal gaze nystagmus eye test, then buried him with his own body camera footage which he thought had been destroyed. It wasn’t. The judge, the newly elected Democrat in Texas, made findings on the record that the police officer had intentionally lied and misrepresented the truth. The state still tried to fight the case, but it came out the right way.
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
Why the US persists in using these backwards ways of proving intoxication is beyond me. Just bloody breath test them.
Beth L 3 years ago
Too many cops, lawyers, and judges would get caught...
Load More Replies...
#91
I was reviewing some documents of a case involving work-related death benefits. Naturally, the deceased's heirs were claiming the money as they were the beneficiaries. Basically, the heirs just had to prove that the deceased's death was work-related. I noticed that the official certificate of death said the guy passed away on January 1 (for example). But the heirs had submitted hospital records that the deceased had been admitted to that hospital in February. (the dates were so radically different that it could not have been a typo). This was the turning point when their credibility was wiped out, and I knew that the claim was bulls**t. When the court eventually rendered judgment, the case was dismissed. The heirs never appealed, or otherwise. I think they knew their case was f**ked.
#92
IP lawyer - deep in a set of terms and conditions on a website, our client's details (name and contact details) where listed. So it is very evident that they just copy pasted our client's legal terms and conditions and missed a couple of details they needed to change. I was handed the matter, did a quick ctrl+F for client details, and it was an open and shut case. Not really that impressive, but saved me hours of time going through each term one after the other, noting exact similarities for a letter of demand.
#93
I was in a gang related jury trial for attempted murder. Defendant was a known Crip and the Victim was a Blood. Against his attorneys advice, the Defendant testified. Defendant had a tattoo on his arm that said "BK". I asked him what "BK" meant and he replied with "Blood Killer". I was shocked he said what it actually meant, but in retrospect, I guess I shouldn't have been since he actually decided to testify.
TS Rhodes 3 years ago
The Battles between the Crips and the Bloods is legendary and very real. Lots of dead people.
Load More Replies...
#94
I argued a conversion case before a state court of appeals (over a painting of a 1950s era SEC coach commissioned and paid for by our clients, who loaned to the current coach, but was put in storage by new coach and “found” by other guy). My friend won at trial court but asked me to write and argue the appeal for him. It was my first appellate argument so I worked my butt off. Had three ring binders with tabs I could flip to that went along with my argument outline. Practiced with friends. Barely slept the night before. I was pumped and prepared. Other side appealed so they go first. Get HAMMERED by the Court. It was kinda painful but also terrifying, because I was next. I figured I was gonna get just as roasted. My turn comes up. I start my long-rehearsed presentation and almost immediately get interrupted with a question. Direct to my point, essentially making it for me. I agree with the Court and go to continue my argument. Get interrupted again with a question, again on point, agree and answer and before I move on get a third question, essentially closing my case for me. I realize I can only hurt myself if I go on, as the Court is OBVIOUSLY on my side. I ask “Can I answer any other questions for the Court?” The bench says no, I thank them and take my seat. 20 minutes of argument available to me and I used 3. We won.
Anna Snorrepot 3 years ago
good of you to read the room and not waste time of these professionals. I'm sure they appreciated it.
#95
Not a lawyer, but during a particularly nasty employment mediation hearing, I got to ask my former employer a question about payments per employment law: Me: “Did you or did you not pay into state mandated unemployment insurance fund for all your employees past and present?” Silence “Mediator: “Sir, answer the question” Silence Mediator: “Well, let me ask it.....Did you or did you not pay into state mandated unemployment insurance fund for all your employees past and present?” Silence Mediator: “”I’ll take that as a no”
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
Scheming crooked employer may get a little justice handed to him by a employee that he shafted.
Ellie Rosser 3 years ago
Terrible phrasing. Ask "Did you pay into ......" and wait for a yes or no answer.
#96
Any time you win a Motion for a Judgment of Aqcuital is pretty fun. An MJoA is a motion the criminal defense attorney makes immediately following the conclusion of the prosecution's case. The motion is essentially saying, "Even if you believe all of the prosecutor's evidence, including the testimony of their witnesses, you still cannot convict my client." I had a case recently where the prosecutor failed to establish that the incident occurred within the court's jurisdiction. So, because the prosecutor failed to ask its witnesses, "Where did this occur?" or something along the lines of "Did these events happen in X county?", I win. It feels like a "gotcha" tactic or exploiting a loophole, but I can almost guarantee that the prosecutor won't make that mistake again. Also, it is
#97
Several years ago there was a big drug bust in my town where the cops arrested about a dozen people in this garage and charged them with manufacture/delivery/possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (drug dealing), conspiracy, and criminal organization (known as RICO in other places). I was appointed to represent one of the people found in the building when the drug task force raided the place. The police filed an eight page affidavit of probable cause (most are one to two pages for most other cases) detailing their surveillance of this criminal enterprise and the comings and goings of various participants and their roles in the enterprise. I read all eight pages and realized that the only place my client's name appeared was on page seven, where it said "The following individuals were present at the garage when the warrant was executed: Person 1, Person 2, Person 3...." So he was there the day the drug task force raided the place but there was no mention of his involvement in the criminal enterprise. His bail was set at $250,000.00 which is ridiculously high, and the District Attorney refused to agree to a lower amount at his preliminary hearing. I filed a motion for bail reduction and showed up at the hearing loaded for bear. The DA calls the case, I approach the front, and the Judge jumps right in before I could even open my mouth (usually counsel makes their arguments first, the judge asks any questions of us he has, then he makes his decision). The Judge looks directly at me and says he's read the affidavit of probable cause. He says what is alleged in there is pretty serious, and a big deal in our small town. He noted how the task force had the place under surveillance for weeks to build their case which ultimately resulted in their raid. And if the allegations can be proven, the defendants are facing some serious consequences.... BUT he says, now turning to face the DA, he saw that my client's name appeared ONLY ONCE in the ENTIRE affidavit, and it makes no mention of his involvement in the drug enterprise. The Judge asks the DA "Why shouldn't I grant defense's motion for bail reduction?" The DA stammers "uh uh uh we have uh evidence that this defendant was uh involved with picking up the material from Philadelphia and transporting it here". The Judge looks at her again and says "did I miss that in the affidavit?" She replies no, they just recently found that out. The Judge turns to me ans asks me if I have anything to add. There I was, fully prepared to make this passionate argument for why my client's bail should be reduced: the deficiencies in the affidavit, my client's advanced age, his lack of a criminal record in the past 20 years, etc. I stood there trying my best not to smirk and said "I have nothing to add your Honor". Motion granted, bail reduced.
#98
I was a public defender. I had a client who was a real s**t head, like complete and total s**t head. This guy literally couldn't walk down the street without committing multiple felonies (that was hyperbole, but still). Anyway a guy he was known to have issues with was shot, not shot and killed, just shot. Everyone knew it was my client. Both of the guys were fairly well known around the courthouse and when the news got out about the guy being shot I immediately thought he was probably shot by my client (note I had not been appointed to represent him at this point). I mean after all my client had previously shot at (but missed) this guy. The detectives immediately went out and arrested this guy. He didn't keep his mouth shut when arrested, but also didn't incriminate himself (his statement was just him requesting the cops perform oral sex on him in various different ways). Anyways, I knew about this guy and his reputation, and his beef with the guy who shot, and when I looked at the charging documents, I was like yeah he probably did it, I'll just wait on the discovery and see how bad it is before we start talking plea. Anyways, I get the discovery back. The cops barely did any investigation. They interviewed a few people on-scene, they recovered some shell casings on-scene, and just decided that was all that was needed. They didn't send the casings or other evidence to the lab. They didn't get contact info for a few of the witnesses (so no way to track them down for the trial). They didn't canvass the area to check for security cameras. Basically every basic simple thing you could possibly do on a crime scene, they failed to do. I filed a motion to dismiss saying there was no evidence, the prosecutor looked it over and came back with an incredibly generous plea deal. We declined, refused any continuances, and got a really quick trial date. The state presented their case, I filed a motion at the conclusion of their case and pointed out how they did literally nothing but arrest my client purely on rumors and reputation and did no real investigation. Case was dismissed. Since I know the questions that will be asked, I'm fairly confident my client was guilty and would have been convicted had there been any real investigation conducted at all. And both my client and the guy he was accused of shooting were shot and killed in separate (but likely related incidents) the following summer.
#99
Not a lawyer but... I was listening to the Casefile podcast. Guy gets obsessed with his former teacher. Kidnaps her and her daughter and holds them for 52 days. They escape. At the trial while she is testifying he slashes her with a knife. He was convicted...
Jo Johannsen 3 years ago
How did he get a knife(?) into the courtroom? How did he get close enough to the victim/witness to slash her?
Merino 3 years ago (edited)
Mary Stauffer and her daughter were kidnapped in 1980 by Ming Sen Shiue. They were able to escape and later there were two trials, one in 1980 and one in 1981. It was during the second trial that he cut Mary’s face. Security has increased these days because of incidents like this.
Load More Replies... Kai David 3 years ago
Not an attorney, but my job (a juvenile msw that specialized in juvenile sex offender, juvenile gang, drugs and alcohol), was in court with my client. A 17 year olde male. The kid really screwed up and knew it. He was being moved to adult court due to his latest screw up. When the judge announced this, the next thing I knew, I was on my back holding my left hand. The kid had a knife- was transported directly from juvie lock up to court, he attacked me, nearly severing my hand in half between my thumb and index finger. Where and how he got a knife was never determined.
#100
My phone rang in court and forgot to put it on silent. The ringtone was the mortal kombat theme song.
#101
Not a lawyer, but I will say I was in Mock Trial in high school. I won our case when I got the coach of the team to say that she’s just the coach and not responsible for someone else’s child. I know that’s nothing like a real case but I was so proud when the “jury” cited that line as the reason they voted in favor of “my client”.
Cold Contagious 3 years ago
If she's working in a capacity as the student's coach, at the time, I'd think that by all definitions, that this lunatic, is in fact, responsible for the students at that moment. Wtaf is she thinking?
Busy Panda 3 years ago
For example: If the guy is a basketball coach, he doesn't responsible for the child's biology test, or whether the child was well fed at home, or being abused at home or not. If he sees the signs of abused or danger to the child's welfare, he should report it to the authority if he's a good guy, but if he claims he didn't see any signs nobody could sue him because he's not the parent of the child.
Load More Replies... #102
I was trying a case where my client was charged with being a felon in possesson of a firearm. Prosecutor has to prove a) he had a gun and b) he is a felon. A) is not in dispute. The way to prove b) is to bring into evidence a certified conviction and sentencing order. This guy had been convicted of several felonies in another state and one in my state. The prosecutor was having some issues with getting a certified out of state order and just relied on the single in state order which was provided to me in discovery. My client pointed out to me that neither the DOB or SSN on the order was his. At trial, when the prosecutor tried to introduce the conviction order, I objected on relevance. The name was the same but DOB and SSN was different than what was on the indictment. The judge agreed and refused to let it into evidence. Not guilty.
Wintermute 3 years ago
Yup. And because of bureaucrats holding up paperwork. So an armed felon goes free so the cubicle jockeys can make it to happy hour and the judge doesn't have to try too hard.
Load More Replies...
MortyMouse 3 years ago
Well aware of both necessity of evidence and burden of proof. In this case however it just seems that both sides were well aware the defendant had prior felony convictions, but the fact that attaining these from other states proved "difficult", and a guy brought in the wrong document, was the problem. Should be fixable in proceedings.
#103
My time in court was preceded by people who had license violations but had not yet gotten proper licensing. I was called up to the stand, identified and so forth, the judge asked "Have you since gotten a proper license?" "Yes, your Honor." I held it up. "Dismissed!"
SoozeeQ 3 years ago
I think what OP is saying is that he was in court with a bunch of other people who also had license violations. It seems he was the only one with a license and so his case was dismissed. (At least, that's my take on it).
Load More Replies... #104
As a someone taking my former employer to an employment tribunal, one of the parts they denied was the base roster of days based at 7:24 mins, my barrister said, well why do all of your rosters and pay records have that as a base day, they denied it, my barrister turned to there legal guy and said so these papers from HR that show all pay records for my grade are based on a 7 hour 24 min day, he said, yes they do!
#105
I was with a fellow bro who robbed a bank when he was 15 years old. He stole a complete block of pure gold priced at around £7 million. He got caught after he tried sawing it in half in his garage at 3am after his neighbours called the police for a noise complaint. They burst right into him cutting the gold block and arrested him there and then because they recognised his face from the worlds top 5 most wanted list. He was in custody with me, his lawyer, and he said he just wanted to buy the sheriffs wife for half the gold. He then f**ked up completely by pulling out a knife he hid under the skin in his thigh and slit the throats of all three officers in the room. He’s been sentenced for 200 years.
Beth L 3 years ago
I suspect it is the plot to some obscure movie the OP thinks is the best thing ever, at least this week...
Load More Replies...
Ty Stratton-Quirk 3 years ago
At the current price of gold, that block would weigh over 300 pounds, so good luck to any teenager trying to lift that. Also, being in the world's top five most wanted, at fifteen years old? Yeah, I'm calling b******t.
Victor Botha 3 years ago
Can someone please translate this into English. Is the poster the lawyer or some random other person in custody with the "skin sheath" maniac. Also how, when you are in custody,do you get away with a knife in a skin sheath. You are stripped naked and searched. My BS meter is giving high readings here
Christine Jemison 3 years ago
This did not happen 1) if it was pure gold he couldn't lift it. And 2) pure gold can't be cut with a standard saw. And don't get me started about the knife and the three officer's bet they're busting a gut over a beer!!!
Guido Pisano 3 years ago (edited)
A block of gold 24k of 1kg is worth 64'000$ - so weight of that stolen piece should have been around 109kg - def too much
What do you think ?
Two_rolling_black_eyes 3 years ago
I was the beneficiary but it was someone else's lawyer who won me the case. I was busted for making an illegal right turn on red out of a mall parking lot. After getting the ticket, I was so pissed I circled back to look for the sign - it was at the end of a row of parking spots 150 feet from the light you could only see if you came down that row. There were overt 50 people there and all of us but 1 were there for the same thing - (A couple in and the judge asked a show of hands who was here for this right turn). A lawyer asked to approach the bench. He had pictures and other evidence showing the chief of police, his two sons, and a son-in-law set up the sign illegally and wrote all the tickets because the police department got to keep traffic ticket revenue. They expected people to mail in the $20 fine and not go to court. Judge dropped all charges and eventually the chief of police served jail time over it.
Kanuli 3 years ago
We had a school excursion to a puplic courthouse. One case I will never forget: it was 2 vs 2 and both were pleading for the other for constraint. An elderly couple against 2 friends. The couple made their statements all normal. Now the first friend started, and you could notice he was the smarter one, and he had some good points and presented them well. When the other one was questioned, he was more the rude type, he tried to say basically the same stuff his friend did, but we kids didn’t believe him one sec, so we were like “yea sure”, and giggled a bit. He turned around and said “shut your f*****g traps you goddamn kids”, and went on to continue stating how behaved and gentle in nature he is. 😂😂🤣
HarriMissesScotland 3 years ago
Yes, cops lie. But I have a different story. I was hit head-on when a young man took a curve too fast during a rainstorm. A FHP arrived on scene, took all of the pertinent info, and issued numerous tickets to the driver. When we went to court, the insurance company's attorney did everything in his power to discredit HER. She was a very petite redhead with freckles who looked very young. She made him look the fool when he couldn't rattle her. And she was not happy when he caused a mistrial. She was amazing. What's really funny is that he had a serious Napoleon complex. Idiot.
Magoomba 3 years ago
When I was in college I took an elective pre-law class that made us an official bailiff & allowed access to the meetings between lawyers and judge in judge’s chamber. The case was a guy suing Sears because he had cut off his hand with a Sears table saw. Sparing the details in the pre-trial conference the judge informed the guy’s lawyer that based on the evidence it was virtually impossible to find Sears at fault & the lawyer said “I know, your Honor, but my client wants a jury trial”. So for two days they all put on a dog and pony show for a case that had been decided before it started. The judge told the jury essentially the same thing he’d told the lawyer & it took the jury about 15 minutes to let Sears off the hook.
Darren Brown 3 years ago
I didn't own a car for a couple of years. Finally get one and get it insured. A week later, I get a letter doubling the price of the insurance because I lied on the application. I apparently had a ticket on my record for Driving on the wrong side of the road with a too loud radio, no driver license, and a failure to appear, 100+ miles away from where i live. No other details from my DMV record. So I have to drive two hours away and spend the day to appear in court. Judge: "How do you plead?" Me: "Not guilty. It's not me." Judge looks down at the paper in front of me. Looks Up. Looks down again. Judge: "Are you 5'5"?" 6'2" Me: "No, your Honor." Judge looks down again at the paper in front of me. Looks Up. Judge: "Are you a black man?" Very white Me: "No, your Honor." Judge: "Dismissed."
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
Me, in front of a tribunal arguing why my client shouldn't be on an involuntary mental health order. I put forward my arguments as to why he doesn't meet the criteria. Tribunal turns to doctor. Doctor looks down at paperwork. 'Yeah, he doesn't meet the criteria'. Quickest tribunal case ever.
Two_rolling_black_eyes 3 years ago
I was the beneficiary but it was someone else's lawyer who won me the case. I was busted for making an illegal right turn on red out of a mall parking lot. After getting the ticket, I was so pissed I circled back to look for the sign - it was at the end of a row of parking spots 150 feet from the light you could only see if you came down that row. There were overt 50 people there and all of us but 1 were there for the same thing - (A couple in and the judge asked a show of hands who was here for this right turn). A lawyer asked to approach the bench. He had pictures and other evidence showing the chief of police, his two sons, and a son-in-law set up the sign illegally and wrote all the tickets because the police department got to keep traffic ticket revenue. They expected people to mail in the $20 fine and not go to court. Judge dropped all charges and eventually the chief of police served jail time over it.
Kanuli 3 years ago
We had a school excursion to a puplic courthouse. One case I will never forget: it was 2 vs 2 and both were pleading for the other for constraint. An elderly couple against 2 friends. The couple made their statements all normal. Now the first friend started, and you could notice he was the smarter one, and he had some good points and presented them well. When the other one was questioned, he was more the rude type, he tried to say basically the same stuff his friend did, but we kids didn’t believe him one sec, so we were like “yea sure”, and giggled a bit. He turned around and said “shut your f*****g traps you goddamn kids”, and went on to continue stating how behaved and gentle in nature he is. 😂😂🤣
HarriMissesScotland 3 years ago
Yes, cops lie. But I have a different story. I was hit head-on when a young man took a curve too fast during a rainstorm. A FHP arrived on scene, took all of the pertinent info, and issued numerous tickets to the driver. When we went to court, the insurance company's attorney did everything in his power to discredit HER. She was a very petite redhead with freckles who looked very young. She made him look the fool when he couldn't rattle her. And she was not happy when he caused a mistrial. She was amazing. What's really funny is that he had a serious Napoleon complex. Idiot.
Magoomba 3 years ago
When I was in college I took an elective pre-law class that made us an official bailiff & allowed access to the meetings between lawyers and judge in judge’s chamber. The case was a guy suing Sears because he had cut off his hand with a Sears table saw. Sparing the details in the pre-trial conference the judge informed the guy’s lawyer that based on the evidence it was virtually impossible to find Sears at fault & the lawyer said “I know, your Honor, but my client wants a jury trial”. So for two days they all put on a dog and pony show for a case that had been decided before it started. The judge told the jury essentially the same thing he’d told the lawyer & it took the jury about 15 minutes to let Sears off the hook.
Darren Brown 3 years ago
I didn't own a car for a couple of years. Finally get one and get it insured. A week later, I get a letter doubling the price of the insurance because I lied on the application. I apparently had a ticket on my record for Driving on the wrong side of the road with a too loud radio, no driver license, and a failure to appear, 100+ miles away from where i live. No other details from my DMV record. So I have to drive two hours away and spend the day to appear in court. Judge: "How do you plead?" Me: "Not guilty. It's not me." Judge looks down at the paper in front of me. Looks Up. Looks down again. Judge: "Are you 5'5"?" 6'2" Me: "No, your Honor." Judge looks down again at the paper in front of me. Looks Up. Judge: "Are you a black man?" Very white Me: "No, your Honor." Judge: "Dismissed."
Oopsydaisy 3 years ago
Me, in front of a tribunal arguing why my client shouldn't be on an involuntary mental health order. I put forward my arguments as to why he doesn't meet the criteria. Tribunal turns to doctor. Doctor looks down at paperwork. 'Yeah, he doesn't meet the criteria'. Quickest tribunal case ever.
You May Like 49 Body Things That Make People Panic But Are Totally Normal, According To Doctors 52 Sculptures Around The World So Unbelievable They’ll Leave You Wondering How They Even Exist 80 People Share The Most Unusual Things They Did When They Were Desperate For Money
Justinas Keturka
Viktorija Strelciunaite
Larysa Perih
Related on Bored Panda
