DON’T LOOK NOW, BUT I THINK THAT BOOMERANG IS HEADED BACK THIS WAY

December 22, 2011 § 1 Comment

Actual courtroom proceedings collected from hither and yon over the years …

Toxic voir dire

Q:       You indicated that you knew one of the attorneys. Which attorney do you know?

A:       I know you. You represented me in a personal injury claim I had.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q:       You have heard me ask about the distinction in burden of proof. What do you think of that?

A:       I think you have about beat that horse to death.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q:       Ma’am, I am having trouble reading your writing. It says that you are manager at a hotel?

A:       Yeah, it does. I thought you said you had trouble reading my writing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q:       Does it make any difference to you in this case that I prosecuted you a while back in another case?

A:       Not really, since I won the case.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Object Lessons

Atty:       I object under the “who cares” principle.

Court:     Sustained.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atty:       I prophylactically object to the question.

Court:     Prophylactically?

Atty:       I am not talking about contraception, judge. I am talking about preventing a line of questioning that would …

Court:     Your prophylactic objection is premature.

Atty:       Then I withdraw it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Atty 1:       Objection, irrelevant.

Court:        Sustained.

[Later in the trial …]

Atty 2:       Objection, irrelevant. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, judge.

Court:        Sustained.

[Later in the trial …]

Atty1:       Objection.

Court:       What’s the ground for your objection?

Atty 1:       That goosey-gander thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All in the Family Law

Q:       Have you and your wife equitably divided all of your personal property?

A:       Yeah. I went by and picked up what she throwed out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Q:       She has Chanel? Is that the name of the dog?

A:       Yes, and I want half.

Q:       You want half? How do you expect that to work?

A:       I want the front half. I will feed it. She can have the other half.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mens Rea in Corpore Insano

Prosecutor:       Mr. Sheriff, when you pulled over the defendant, was she drunk?

Defense atty:     Objection. Calls for a conclusion.

Court:                   Sustained.

Prosecutor:       Mr. Sheriff, when you stopped the defendant were your blue lights flashing?

High Sheriff:      Yes, sir.

Prosecutor:       Did the defendant say anything when she got out of her car?

High Sheriff:      Yes, sir.

Prosecutor:       What did she say?

High Sheriff:      “What disco am I at?”

Tagged:

§ One Response to DON’T LOOK NOW, BUT I THINK THAT BOOMERANG IS HEADED BACK THIS WAY

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading DON’T LOOK NOW, BUT I THINK THAT BOOMERANG IS HEADED BACK THIS WAY at The Better Chancery Practice Blog.

meta

%d bloggers like this: