Courtroom Humor

[Menu]

Jury: Twelve men and women trying to decide which party has the best lawyer.
Justice: A decision in your favor.

A judge in a semi-small city was hearing a drunk-driving case and the defendant, who had both a record and a reputation for driving under the influence, demanded a jury trial.
It was nearly 4 P.M. And getting a jury would take time, so the judge called a recess and went out in the hall looking to impanel anyone available for jury duty. He found a dozen lawyers in the main lobby and told them that they were a jury. The lawyers thought this would be a novel experience and so followed the judge back to the courtroom. The trial was over in about 10 minutes and it was very clear that the defendant was guilty. The jury went into the jury room, the judge started getting ready to go home, and everyone waited.
After nearly three hours, the judge was totally out of patience and sent the bailiff into the jury-room to see what was holding up the verdict. When the bailiff returned, the judge said,
"Well have they got a verdict yet?"
The bailiff shook his head and said, "Verdict? Hell, they're still doing nominating speeches for the foreman's position!"

One evening, after attending the theater, two gentlemen were walking down the avenue when they observed a rather well dressed and attractive young lady walking ahead of them. One of them turned to the other and remarked,
"I'd give $50.00 to spend the night with that woman."
Much to their surprise, the young lady overheard the remark, turned around, and replied,
"I'll take you up on that."
She had a neat appearance and a pleasant voice, so after bidding his companion good night, the man accompanied the young lady to her apartment. The following morning, the man presented her with $25.00 as he prepared to leave. She demanded the rest of the money, stating:
"If you don't give me the other $25.00, I'll sue you for it."
He laughed, saying: "I'd like to see you get it on these grounds."
The next day he was surprised when he received a summons ordering his presence in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. He hurried to his lawyer and explained the details of the case. His lawyer said:
"She can't possibly get a judgement against you on such grounds, but it will be interesting to see how her case will be presented."
After the usual preliminaries, the lady's lawyer addressed the court as follows:
"Your honor, my client, this lady, is the owner of a piece of property, a garden spot, surrounded by a profuse growth of shrubbery, which property she agreed to rent to the defendant for a specified length of time for the sum of $50.00. The defendant took possession of the property, used it extensively for the purpose for which it was rented, but upon evacuating the premises, he paid only $25.00, one-half the amount agreed upon. The rent was not excessive, since it is restricted property, and we ask judgement be granted against the defendant to assure payment of the balance."
The defendant's lawyer was impressed and amused by the way his opponent had presented the case. His defense, therefore, was somewhat different from the way he originally planned to present it.
"Your honor," he said, "My client agrees that the lady has a fine piece of property, that he did rent such property for a time, and a degree of pleasure was derived from the transaction. However, my client found a well on the property around which he placed his own stones, sunk a shaft, and erected a pump, all labor performed personally by him. We claim these improvements to the property were sufficient to offset the unpaid amount, and that the plaintiff was adequately compensated for rental of said property. We, therefore, ask that judgement not be granted."
The young lady's lawyer answered thusly:
"Your honor, my client agrees that the defendant did find a well on her property. However, had the defendant not known that the well existed, he would never have rented the property. Also, upon evacuating the premises, the defendant removed the stones, pulled out the shaft, and took the pump with him. In doing so, he not only dragged the equipment through the shrubbery, but left the hole much larger than it was prior to his occupancy, making the property much less desirable to others. We, therefore, ask that judgement be granted."
And it was. She won the case...

Sam Cohen, father of 3 and faithful husband for over 40 years, unexpectedly drops dead one day. His lawyer informs his widow that Stu Schwartz, Sam's best friend since childhood, is to be executor of the will. The day comes to divide Sam's earthly possessions, over a million dollars' worth. In front of Sam's family, Stu reads the will:
"Stu, if you're reading this, then I must be dead. You've were such a good friend for so long, how can I ignore you in this will? On the other hand, there are my beloved Sophie and my children to be looked after. Stu, I know you can make sure my family is taken care of properly. So Stu, give what you want to her and take the rest for yourself."
Stu then looks at the survivors and tells them that, in accordance with Sam's instructions, Stu will give fifty thousand dollars to Sam's widow. The rest he is retaining for himself. The family is beside itself.
"This is impossible! Forty years of marriage and then *this*?! It can't be!"
So the family sues. Their day in court arrives, and after testimony from both sides, the judge gives his verdict:
"To Stuart Schwartz, I award fifty thousand dollars of the contested money. The remainder shall go to Sophie Cohen, widow of the deceased."
Needless to say, the family is elated, but Stu is dumbfound.
"Your honor, how can you do this? The will made Sam's wishes quite clear: 'Give what you want to her and take the rest for yourself!' I wanted the lion's share! What gives?"
The judge answered back,
"Mr. Schwartz, Sam Cohen knew you his whole life. He wanted to give you something in gratitude. He also wanted to see his family taken care of. So he drew up his will accordingly. But you misread his instructions. You see, Sam knew just what kind of a person you are, so with his family's interest in mind, he didn't say, "give what you want to her and keep the rest for yourself.' No. What Sam said was, "Give what YOU want to HER; and keep the rest for yourself."

In a courtroom, a pursesnatcher is on trial and the victim is stating what happened. She says, "Yes, that is him. I saw him clear as day. I'd remember his face anywhere."
At which point, the defendant bursts out, "You couldn't see my face, lady. I was wearing a mask!"

Matthew P. Dukes, 26, sentenced to 30 days in jail in 1989 following his sixth drunken-driving conviction, tried for 15 months (through December 1990) to get into jail in Ravenna, Ohio, but each time was turned away because the jail was full. In December, Dukes filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that his constitutional rights are being violated by the jail's refusal to admit him.

A Norwegian friend of mine told me that a Swedish chainsaw manufacturer began marketing their product in the US, with an English language manual noticeably larger than the Swedish or Norwegian versions. News commentators explained with great humor in a report that this was because of all the additional warnings, including (they pointed out specifically)
"Do not attempt to stop the chainsaw with your hand."
This was made even more humorous a couple of years later, when they were saved a pile of money in a lawsuit brought by a U.S. citizen who was injured stopping the chainsaw with his hand. He was unable to collect, since the manual specifically warned against it. Rune surmised that the warnings were legally unnecessary in the Scandinavian manuals, since no Scandinavian would publicly admit to doing anything that stupid. I've always thought the problem could be solved if all products had a label on them stating: Warning: This product not intended for use by stupid people. Let this guy try to prove in court that, although he propped the ladder up on a manure heap, he is *not* stupid and didn't violate the instructions.

A man on trial in the Fourth Judicial district of Tennessee had previously pleaded "not guilty." However, once the jury, eight women and four men, had been seated and the trial was under way, the defendant switched his plea.
"Why the change?" asked the judge, "Were you persuaded to plead 'guilty'?"
"No Sir," the man replied, "When I pleaded 'not guilty', I didn't know women would be on the jury. I can't fool one woman, so I know I can't fool eight of them."

Just remember: when you go to court, you are trusting your fate to twelve people that weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty!

A witness was called to stand to testify about a head-on automobile collision. "Whose fault was this accident?" the lawyer asked. "As near as I could tell," replied the witness, "they hit each other at about the same time."

The U. S. Attorney in Miami declined to prosecute a drug smuggling case in which the Customs Service had confiscated a half ton of marijuana because the office is overworked and won't touch cases under the 2.5 ton minimum.

There once was a young fellow who fell prey to a speed trap in a small southern town. The cop wrote him a ticket and then hauled him before the local Justice of the Peace. The Justice fined the young man $200 and collected the money on the spot. The young fellow turned to go but was called back by the Justice and handed the old ticket. The speedster said, "Just what am I supposed to do with this? I paid my fine!" Whereupon the old J. P. replied, "Keep it, when you get three, you get a bicycle!"

In 1993 in Bangladesh, Falu Mia, 60, was released from prison after 21 years. He had been locked up until his trial for theft in 1972, then found not guilty, but a lethargic bureaucracy failed to release him. He recently filed a lawsuit against the government for 21 years' back wages (about $26,000).

From "Disorderly Conduct - Verbatim Excerpts from Actual Court Cases" selected by Rodney R. Jones, Charles M. Sevilla, and Gerald F. Uelmen.
The Court: In this case the request is made for the appointment of the psychologist for the performance of an IQ test. The court does not see the need for an IQ test since it appears to me that he is dumber than a fencepost.
Counsel: Has the court started it in numerical terms?
The Court: His IQ is less than zero.

Counsel: What device do you have in your laboratory to test alcohol content?
Witness: I have a dual column gas chromatograph, Hewlett-Packard 5710A with flame analyzation detectors.
The Court: Can you get that with mag wheels?
Witness: Only on the floor models.

Counsel: Now, in your report under "Foundation" you indicated that there is a minimum of cracking and no signs of settling.
Witness: Yes.
Counsel: When you say there is a minimum of cracking, I take it that you did find some cracking.
Witness: No. Because if I said there was no cracking, I would be in court just like this answering some stupid lawyers' questions. So I put minimum in there to cover myself, because somebody is going to find a crack somewhere.

From "The Houston Chronicle" A defense attorney in a Northern California murder case says he believes Max the parrot may hold the answer to who smothered Jane Gill to death in her bedroom two years ago. But an attempt to get the African gray parrot's testimony into evidence last week was blocked by the judge. Max was found dehydrated and hungry in his cage two days after Gill's murder. After the parrot was coaxed back to health at a pet shop, the shop's owner said the bird began to cry out, "Richard, no, no, no!" The man charged in the case is Gill's business partner, and his name is not Richard. He says he is innocent. Gary Dixon, a private investigator working on the case, surmised that the bird is now in a witness-protection program. "Max's identity has been changed, and he is now a macaw," he said.

In December 1993, Atlanta attorney Dennis Scheib stopped by the prosecutor's office on his way to court to represent a new client in a criminal case. Just outside the office, he saw two officers chasing a man down the hall, and he joined in to help. After the three men caught the escapee and handcuffed him, Scheib learned the man was the client he had been on his way to court to represent.

From the Chicago Tribune, 6/8/90: Naples, Italy(AP):
...the claim (for damages) involves an accident in March involving a medium-sized Regata and a tiny Panda car. The young man claimed he and his girlfriend were engaged in amorous activity in their car when the large car hit it from behind. The impact momentarily made them lose control, resulting in pregnancy. The suit demands compensation for the cost of repairing the Panda and the cost of the wedding the couple decided to have after discovering the woman was pregnant.

In February 1994, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., accused murderer Donald Leroy Evans, 38, filed a pre-trial motion asking permission to wear a Ku Klux Klan robe in the courtroom and to be referred to in legal documents by "the honorable and respected name of Hi Hitler." According to the courthouse employees interviewed by the Associated Press, Evans thought Adolf Hitler's followers were saying "Hi Hitler" rather than "Heil, Hitler."

Heard through friends: Rumor has it that the state of California, which recently enacted a "Three Strikes" crime bill (three felonies and you're jailed for life), was considering the following amendment: Three strikes and you're out, unless the judge drops the gavel on the third strike and you can run out of the courtroom before the bailiff grabs you.

Rachel Barton-Russell petitioned a court in Springfield, Ore., in February 1994 for a ruling on the meaning of the state's law against corpse abuse. Her deceased husband, Donal Eugene Russell, had declared in his will that he wanted his skin used to make book covers for a collection of his poetry, but the state Mortuary and Cemetery Board claims that carrying out that request would subject a funeral home to liability for corpse abuse.

From the Dallas Morning News:
A prospective juror in a Dallas District Court was surprised by the definition of voluntary manslaughter given the panel: "an intentional killing that occurs while the defendant is under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause, such as when a spouse's mate is found in a 'compromising position.'" "See, I have a problem with that passion business," responded the jury candidate. "During my first marriage, I came in and found my husband in bed with my neighbor. All I did was divorce him. I had no idea that I could have shot him." She wasn't selected for the jury.

The lawsuit Irene Geschke, then age 55, filed against a mortgage company in 1979 in Chicago has passed its 15th anniversary without coming to trial. There have been more than 530 motions and orders, and nine dates for trial have come and gone. Geschke claims the mortgage company caused her to go out of business when it wrongly foreclosed on a loan and is now acting as her lawyer, managing the one ton of legal documents involved in the case.

Apparently weary of interfamily bickering in the federal bankruptcy case of Judith Herskowitz of Florida, Judge Jay Cristol ordered Herskowitz in March to "obtain and mail to" her sister Susan Charney, at least five days before Susan's next birthday, a card which reads "Happy Birthday, Sister" and contains the signature of Ms. Herskowitz. Further, Cristol ordered that "the card shall not contain any negative, inflammatory, or unkind remarks."

In Pittsburgh in March of 1994, Donita Jo Artis, 24, told prosecutors and the judge, after being denied custody of her 3-year-old son and sentenced to prison for beating him until he was blind, deaf, and unable to walk, "You guys are so unfair."

In June 1994 in London, lawyers for convicted murderer Stephen Young filed an appeal after learning from one juror that three other jurors had conducted a Ouija board seance during jury deliberations and "contacted" the dead man, who named Young as the killer.

Mary Louise Gilman, the venerable editor of the National Shorthand Reporter has collected many of the more hilarious courtroom bloopers in two books - 'Humor in the Court' (1977) and 'More Humor in the Court', published a few months ago. From Mrs. Gilman's two volumes, here are some of my favorite transquips.

Q. What is your brother-in-law's name?
A. Borofkin.
Q. What's his first name?
A. I can't remember.
Q. He's been your brother-in-law for years, and you can't remember his first name?
A. No. I tell you I'm too excited. (Rising from the witness chair and pointing to Mr. Borofkin.) Nathan, for God's sake, tell them your first name!

Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?
A. I refuse to answer that question.
Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?
A. I refuse to answer that question.
Q. Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?
A. By death. Q. And by whose death was it terminated?

Q. Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?
A. No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.

Q. What is your name?
A. Ernestine McDowell.
Q. And what is your marital status?
A. Fair.

Q. Are you married?
A. No, I'm divorced.
Q. And what did your husband do before you divorced him?
A. A lot of things I didn't know about.

Q. And who is this person you are speaking of?
A. My ex-widow said it.

Q. How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?
A. Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney, and said he was really good.

Q. Do you know how far pregnant you are right now?
A. I will be three months November 8th.
Q. Apparently then, the date of conception was August 8th?
A. Yes.
Q. What were you and your husband doing at that time?

Q. Mrs. Smith, do you believe that you are emotionally unstable?
A. I should be.
Q. How many times have you comitted suicide?
A. Four times.

Q. Doctor, how many autopsies have you peformed on dead people?
A. All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.

Q. Were you aquainted with the deceased?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before or after he died?

Q. Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?
A. Because he was argumentary and he couldn't pronunciate his words.

Q. What happened then?
A. He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify me."
Q. Did he kill you?
A. No.

Q. Mrs. Jones, is your appearance 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.

The court: Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.

Q. Did he pick the dog up by the ears?
A. No.
Q. What was he doing with the dog's ears?
A. Picking them up in the air.
Q. Where was the dog at this time?
A. Attached to the ears.

Q. When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?
Mr. Brooks: Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.

Q. And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Okay? What school do you go to?
A. Oral.
Q. How old are you?
A. Oral.

Q. What is your relationship with the plaintiff?
A. She is my daughter.
Q. Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?

Q. Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?

Q. ...and what did he do then?
A. He came home, and next morning he was dead.
Q. So when he woke up the next morning, he was dead?

Q. Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?
A. He didn't offer me nothing; he just said I could have the furniture.

Q. So, after the anesthesia, when you came out of it, what did you observe with respect to your scalp?
A. I didn't see my scalp the whole time I was in the hospital.
Q. It was covered?
A. Yes, bandaged.
Q. Then, later on.. what did you see?
A. I had a skin graft. My whole buttocks and leg were removed and put on top of my head.

Q. Could you see him from where you were standing?
A. I could see his head.
Q. And where was his head?
A. Just above his shoulders.

Q. What can you tell us about he truthfulness and veracity of this defendant?
A. Oh, she will tell the truth. She said she'd kill that sonofabitch - and she did!

Q. Do you drink when you're on duty?
A. I don't drink when I'm on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.

Q. ...any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?
A. The victim lived.

Q. Are you sexually active?
A. No, I just lie there.

Q. Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
A. Yes, I have been since early childhood.

Q. The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn't it. You too were shot in the fracas?
A. No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.

Q. What is the meaning of sperm being present?
A. It indicates intercourse.
Q. Male sperm?
A. That is the only kind I know.

Q. (Showing man picture.) That's you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you were present when the picture was taken, right?

Q. Was that the same nose you broke as a child?

[Menu]