INDEX
Disorder in Court
Lawyers
Forensic Science
Cough Up
Litigation
Grass
The Lawyer's Cigars
Lawyer Light Relief
Husband
TEXTS
From a little book called "Disorder in the Court."
They're things people actually said in court, word for word.
Q: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year.
Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
Q: This myasthenia gravis-does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've
forgotten?
Q: How old is your son-the one living with you.
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.
Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he
woke that morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.
Q: And where was the location of the accident? A: Approximately
milepost 499.
Q: And where is milepost 499?
A: Probably between milepost 498 and 500.
Q: Sir, what is your IQ?
A: Well, I can see pretty well, I think.
Q: Did you blow your horn or anything?
A: After the accident?
Q: Before the accident.
A: Sure, I played for ten years. I even went to school for it.
Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in the
voodoo or occult?
A: We both do.
Q: Voodoo?
A: We do.
Q: You do?
A: Yes, voodoo
Q: Trooper, when you stopped the defendant, were your red and blue
lights flashing?
A: Yes.
Q: Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What did she say?
A: What disco am I at?
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep,
he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?
Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?
Q: Was it you or your younger brother who was killed inthe
war?
Q: Did he kill you?
Q: How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the
collision?
Q: You were there until the time you left, is that true?
Q: How many times have you committed suicide?
Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?
Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?
Q: You say the stairs went down to the basement?
A:Yes.
Q: And these stairs, did they go up also?
Q: Mr. Slatery, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't
you?
A: I went to Europe, Sir.
Q: And you took your new wife?
Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?
Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male, or a female?
Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition
notice which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead
people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
Q: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go
to?
A: Oral.
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an
autopsy.
Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
A: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law
somewhere.
Q: You were not shot in the fracas?
A: No, I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel.
Here are some classic Court transcripts, all recorded by the
keepers of the word in various parts of the world...
LAWYER: What did the tissue samples taken from the victim's
vagina show?
WITNESS: There were traces of semen.
LAWYER: Male semen?
WITNESS: That's the only kind I know of.
LAWYER: Did you ever sleep with him in New York?
WITNESS: I refuse to answer that question.
LAWYER: Did you ever sleep with him in Chicago?
WITNESS: I refuse to answer that question.
LAWYER: Did you ever sleep with him in Miami?
WITNESS:No.
LAWYER: So, after the anesthetic, when you came out of it, what
did you observe with respect to your scalp?
WITNESS: I didn't see my scalp the whole time I was in the
hospital.
LAWYER: It was covered?
WITNESS: Yes. Bandaged.
LAWYER: Then, later on, what did you see?
WITNESS: I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were
removed and put on top of my head.
CLERK: Please repeat after me: "I swear by Almighty God..."
WITNESS: "I swear by Almighty God."
CLERK: "That the evidence that I give..."
WITNESS:That's right.
CLERK: Repeat it.
WITNESS: "Repeat it".
CLERK: No! Repeat what I said.
WITNESS: What you said when?
CLERK: "That the evidence that I give..."
WITNESS:"That the evidence that I give."
CLERK: "Shall be the truth and..."
WITNESS: It will, and nothing but the truth!
CLERK: Please, just repeat after me: "Shall be the truth
and..."
WITNESS: I'm not a scholar, you know.
CLERK: We can appreciate that. Just repeat after me: "Shall be the
truth and..."
WITNESS: "Shall be the truth and."
CLERK: Say: "Nothing...".
WITNESS: Okay. (Witness remains silent.)
CLERK: No! Don't say nothing. Say: "Nothing but the truth..."
WITNESS: Yes.
CLERK: Can't you say: "Nothing but the truth..."?
WITNESS: Yes.
CLERK: Well? Do so.
WITNESS: You're confusing me.
CLERK: Just say: "Nothing but the truth...".
WITNESS:Is thatall?
CLERK: Yes.
WITNESS: Okay. I understand.
CLERK: Then say it.
WITNESS: What?
CLERK: "Nothing but the truth..."
WITNESS: But I do! That's just it.
CLERK: You must say: "Nothing but the truth..."
WITNESS: I WILL say nothing but the truth!
CLERK: Please, just repeat these four words: "Nothing", "But",
"The", "Truth".
WITNESS: What? You mean, like, now?
CLERK: Yes! Now. Please. Just say those four words.
WITNESS: "Nothing. But. The. Truth."
CLERK: Thank you.
WITNESS: I'm just not a scholar.
LAWYER: On the morning of July 25th, did you walk from the
farmhouse down the footpath to the cowshed?
WITNESS: I did.
LAWYER: And as a result, you passed within a few yards of the duck
pond?
WITNESS: I did.
LAWYER: And did you observe anything?
WITNESS: I did. (Witness remains silent.)
LAWYER: Well, could you tell the Court what you saw?
WITNESS: I saw George.
LAWYER: You saw George *******, the defendant in this case?
WITNESS: Yes.
LAWYER: Can you tell the Court what George ******* was doing?
WITNESS: Yes. (Witness remains silent.)
LAWYER: Well, would you kindly do so?
WITNESS: He had his thing stuck into one of the ducks.
LAWYER: His "thing"?
WITNESS: You know... His thing. His di... I mean, his penis.
LAWYER: You passed close by the duck pond, the light was good, you
were sober, you have good eyesight, and you saw this clearly?
WITNESS: Yes.
LAWYER: Did you say anything to him?
WITNESS: Of course I did!
LAWYER: What did you say to him?
WITNESS: "Morning, George.
'Why are they using lawyers in laboratory experiments instead of
rats?
Because there are just some things a rat won't do!'
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science,
AAFS
President Dr Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the
legal complications of a bizarre death....... Here is the
story.
On March 23, 1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald
Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the
head.
Mr Opus had jumped from the top of a ten-storey building intending
to commit suicide. He left a note to the effect indicating his
despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was
interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window, which
killed him instantly.
Neither the shooter nor the deceased was aware that a safety net
had
been installed just below the eighth floor level to protect some
building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to
complete his suicide the way he had planned.
"Ordinarily," Dr Mills continued, "A person who sets out to
commit
suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might
not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide."
That Mr Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably
would not have been successful because of the safety net, caused
the medical examiner to feel that he had a homicide on his
hands.
In the room on the ninth floor, where the shotgun blast emanated,
was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing
vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was
so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his
wife and the pellets went through the window striking Mr Opus.
When one intends to kill subject "A" but kills subject "B" in
the
attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject "B."
When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife
were both adamant and both said that they thought the shotgun was
unloaded. The old man said it was a long-standing habit to threaten
his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder
her.
Therefore the killing of Mr Opus appeared to be an accident; that
is,
if the gun had been accidentally loaded. The continuing
investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son
loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal
accident.
It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial
support
and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the
shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his
father would shoot his mother. Since the loader of the gun was
aware of this, he was guilty of the murder even though he didn't
actually pull the trigger.
The case now becomes one of murder on the part of the son for
the
death of Ronald Opus.
Now comes the exquisite twist.
Further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald
Opus.
He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his
attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off
the ten story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a
shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had
actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case
as a
suicide.
(A true story from Associated Press, Reported by Kurt
Westervelt)
Return to Index
A dad walks into a market with his young son. The kid is holding
a quarter. Suddenly, the boy starts choking, going blue in the
face. The dad realises the boy has swallowed the quarter and starts
panicking, shouting for help.
A well dressed, attractive, but serious looking woman in a blue
business suit is sitting at a coffee bar in the market reading her
newspaper and sipping a cup of coffee. At the sound of the
commotion, she looks up, puts her coffee cup down on the saucer,
neatly folds the newspaper and places it on the counter, gets up
from her seat and makes her way, unhurried, across the market.
Reaching the boy, the woman carefully takes hold of the boy's
testicles and starts to squeeze, gently at first and then ever more
firmly. After a few seconds the boy convulses violently and coughs
up the quarter, which the woman deftly catches in her free hand.
Releasing the boy, the woman hands the coin to the father and walks
back to her seat in the coffee bar without saying a word.
As soon as he is sure that his son has suffered no lasting ill
effects, the father rushes over to the woman and starts thanking
her saying," I've never seen anybody do anything like that before,
it was fantastic. Are you a doctor?"
"No," the woman replies. "Divorce Attorney."
Were not quite as bad as America - yet!!
The "Stella" awards rank up there with the Darwin awards. In 1994,
a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9m US in damages to 81-year-old Stella
Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and
buttocks after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself. This
case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most
frivolous lawsuit in the U.S.
The ones listed below are clear candidates. All these cases are
verging on the outright ridiculous and yet with the right attorney
you could win anything!
1. January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded
$780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping
over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store. The owners
of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict,
considering the misbehaving little bastard was Ms. Robertson's
son.
2. June 1998: A 19 year old Carl Truman of Los Angeles won $74,000
and medical expenses when his neighbour ran over his hand with a
Honda Accord. Mr Truman apparently didn't notice there was someone
at the wheel of the car, when he was trying to steal his
neighbour's hubcaps.
3. October 1998: A Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Pennsylvania was
leaving a house he had just finished robbing by way of the garage.
He was not able to get the garage door to go up since the automatic
door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house
because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he
pulled it shut. The family was on vacation. Mr. Dickson found
himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case
of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. He sued the
homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue
mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million
dollars.
4. October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas was
awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the
buttocks by his next door neighbour's beagle. The beagle was on a
chain in its owner's fenced-in yard. The award was less than sought
because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little
provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly
with a pellet gun.
5. May 2000: A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber
Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on
soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor
because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier
during an argument.
6. December 1997: Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware successfully
sued the owner of a night club in a neighbouring city when she fell
from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front
teeth. This occurred while Ms Walton was trying to sneak through
the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover
charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses.
And the winner is:
Mr Merv Grazinski of Oklahoma City. In November 2000 Mr Grazinski
purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first
trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at
70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and
make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly the Winnie left the
freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr Grazinski sued Winnebago for
not advising him in the handbook that he couldn't actually do this.
He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnie. (Winniebago actually
changed their handbooks on the basis of this court case, just in
case there are any other complete morons buying their
vehicles.)
One afternoon, a wealthy lawyer was riding in the back of his
limousine when he saw two men eating grass by the roadside. He
ordered his driver to stop and got out to investigate.
"Why are you eating grass?" he asked one man.
"We don't have any money for food," the poor man replied.
"Oh, well, you can come with me to my house," instructed the
lawyer.
"But, sir, I have a wife and two children with me!"
"Bring them along!" replied the lawyer.
He turned to the other man and said:
"You come with us, too."
"But, sir, I have a wife and six children!" the second man
answered.
"Bring them as well!" answered the lawyer as he headed for his
limo.
They all climbed into the car, which was no easy task, even for a
car as large as the limousine.
Once underway, one of the poor fellows says:
"Sir, you are too kind. Thank you for taking all of us with
you."
The lawyer replied: "Glad to do it. You'll love my place; the
grass is almost a foot tall."
A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars then insured them against fire among other things.
Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great
cigars, the lawyer filed a law suit against the insurance
company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series
of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the
obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal
fashion.
The lawyer sued.... and won!
In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance
company that the claim was frivolous. The Judge stated
nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in
which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also
guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining
what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to
pay the claim.
Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the
insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the
lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the fires."
NOW FOR THE BEST PART:
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him
arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case
being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally
burning his insured property and he was sentenced to 24 months in
jail and ordered to pay a $24,000 fine.
This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in the recent
Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.
Return to Index
Updated 15 January 2004