Lawyers of reddit, whats the most ridiculous argument you've heard in court?

jollyrog3r88 · 7時間前

I have a brief encounter (personal injury prospect):

Old lady slipped & fell on an icy driveway which was not salted or maintained, so she wanted to sue for damages.

After hearing the story, turns out the lady fell on her own driveway which she did not salt / maintain. She was wanting to sue herself.

scruit · 7時間前

I was in the public gallery for this while studying Law. I was not the lawyer. Leeds Crown Court back in the early 90's.

75yo foreign (yes, this IS important) man was facing a preliminary hearing at relating to charges that he had sexually touched a 13yo relative. His barrister made a successful plea for bail based upon this man being an established pillar of the immigrant community, and the judge asked the old man if he had anything to say before he was bailed until the next hearing in a month.

He made two comments:

1) "She was wearing very, very tight shorts and I should not be held responsible because no real man could resist see something like that."

The judge reminded his this was a preliminary hearing not a trial so he should wait until the trial to argue his case, especially statements that are far from exculpatory and are better suited to mitigation.

2) "I cannot re-appear in a month because I am flying back to my home country tomorrow and will not be coming back."

The barrister appeared to be just as surprised as the rest of us. The judge ordered the defendant's passport seized and he was remanded in custody until his trial.

Tufflaw · 7時間前

Several years ago I was doing a civil trial (personal injury), defending a woman who (allegedly) hit a bus matron with her car.

We had offered to concede liability and just try damages (in other words, the jury wouldn't hear the circumstances of how the injury happened, just that we agreed my client caused the injury, and they would only decide the amount of damages - we had evidence that the plaintiff was significantly exaggerating her injuries). The plaintiff's attorney refused to agree to our concession, thinking that if they jury heard the circumstances they'd want to give even more money to punish my client.

So we went to trial on liability. The plaintiff called one witness, her client, who testified that an older woman in a green car hit her. They rested and I moved for a dismissal for failure to prove a case. There was literally no evidence connecting my client to this incident, just an older woman in a green car. The plaintiff never bothered to call my client to the stand.

The attorney told the judge that the bus driver had written down my client's license plate and gave it to the police. They never bothered trying to find the bus driver. The attorney asked if she could just put the police report in and I objected that it was hearsay.

The attorney then actually said "please just let me put this in, I haven't had work in a while and I got retained by a firm to try this case, I really need to win this." Of course I didn't agree, and the judge dismissed the case. I felt a little bad for her but that was maybe the worse presentation of a case I ever saw.

I spoke with the jury afterwards and they all said they hated the plaintiff, didn't believe a word she said, and likely would have found in my favor anyway.

Moral of the story, BE PREPARED IN COURT.

mothstuckinabath · 8時間前

Traffic court, speeding ticket. "Your honor, I didn't speed, and I can prove it with logic."

Judge: "Okayyy..."

Lady: "I drive a Prius."

Judge: "....?"

Lady: "That proves I'm responsible. Specifically in the realm of cars. So I obviously wouldn't speed."

She had to pay the ticket.

lemayo · 8時間前

Not a lawyer, but I was in traffic court and a cab driver had got a ticket for running a red. He argued that it was really difficult to see because the sun was rising (morning) right where the light was. He was traveling west.

half_diminished · 7時間前

Actual lawyer. What I dub the "Surprise Party Defense:"

In a hearing for an order of protection in which ex wife is trying to get an order of protection against ex husband who had been stalking her. They have a high-school aged child together. Ex husband tries to argue against the order of protection by saying they may need to be able to communicate about the child. The judge points out that they can communicate THROUGH the child, and also that other family members have been put in place by the juvenile court to be intermediaries re pickup, drop-off, etc.

Then ex husband has a brilliant light-bulb idea:

"Judge, what if I need to throw my son a surprise party, and I need to keep it secret from everyone, but his mom still needs to know so she doesn't throw a party the same day?"

In other-words, while I admit have been stalking my ex wife and that there are grounds to grant an order of protection, you should not grant that order just in case I need to throw a surprise party one day.

What made it was how clever he thought the argument was. Thus was born, the Surprise Party Defense.

EDIT: A lot of you are upset about the comment of communicating through the child. That was probably a poor way to phrase it. In this situation the father would be barred from passing messages to the mother through the child. He can't say, "Tell your mom X" But, of course, some indirect communication is going to occur, and that is what the judge was referring to. In other words, the father cannot argue that he needs to be able to have direct communication with the mother for purposes of coordinating child care, things like that (which is often the issue). Because the child in this case is old enough to tell both parents for example, about school, friends, trips, grades, etc. It is not as if the judge ordered the child to be the intermediary, that is ridiculous.

Also, I sort of simplified the complexities of it because these people's parental arrangement was not the point. The dumbness of the argument was the point. But this is a criminal judge determining an order of protection. There is a whole separate juvenile/family court judge that actually determines the custody arrangement and things of that nature.

The bottom line is, the guy was trying to use the kid as an excuse to avoid an order of protection so he could continue to stalk and harrass his ex wife.

Kgeezi · 7時間前

Lawyer.

I was waiting in court one day for a hearing while a Judge was listening to a defamation case between co-workers in small claims court. Neither the plaintiff or the defendant was represented by an attorney. The plaintiff had sued the defendant over defamation at their job.

The plaintiff said the two were co-workers at the same company and one night the defendant told their mutual boss that the plaintiff was sleeping on the job.

Since it was small claims court it was fairly informal so the Judge looks over at the defendant and says "Did you tell your boss she was sleeping on the job?" The defendant says "Yes, I did." The Judge asked her why she told the boss that and she says "Because our boss asked where she was and it didn't matter, we're allowed to sleep on the job." The Judge looked at her sort of strangely and said "You're allowed to sleep on the job?" And the defendant says "Yes, there are 4 people who work our shift, but only 3 areas that need to be covered. So we rotate on hour shifts between the areas and there's always one person who isn't covering one of the 3 areas and that person is allowed to sleep in the back room if they want."

The Judge then looks over at the plaintiff and says "Is that true? Are you allowed to sleep on the job?" The plaintiff says "yes, that's true, but we used to be good friends and then she went and ran her mouth and she shouldn't have done that." The Judge sort of ignores her and says "if you're allowed to sleep on the job, then I'm presuming you didn't get in trouble for sleeping on the job?" The plaintiff says "No, I didn't get into any trouble because I was allowed to be sleeping."

The Judge then spent a few minutes explaining to her that the truth is a defense to defamation and that it sounds like the plaintiff told the truth, that even if that weren't the case she had no damages because she didn't get into any sort of trouble since they were allowed to sleep on the job, and to try and keep that job as long as possible and get along well with her co-workers since they were all apparently paid to sleep on the job at various points.

mgunter · 9時間前

Former assistant state attorney/prosecutor here.

This defendant is called up for arraignment and the judge is telling him that he's been charged with theft for stealing a roll of scratch off tickets from a gas station. The judge informs the defendant that since the value of the tickets was over $300 therefore it's a felony rather than a misdemeanor.

The defendant says to the judge "but your honor, to be fair the tickets were all losers" implying it's not theft at all.

I was amazed at the ingeniusness yet futility of the argument.

SuntoryBoss · 8時間前

Not so much ridiculous as ghastly, but - a man accused of raping his own daughter saying he couldn't have done so because he had a nine inch cock, and it would have caused her damage. And that the physical signs of sexual activity that she did exhibit were because she'd been screwing the family dog.

I don't do criminal law any more, that was enough for me.

Edit: Lots of people asking what happened, should probably have put that in here originally. I'd left the firm by the time it actually got to trial, but was kept in the loop about the case by friends still there. He was found guilty and went off to prison.

c-dupin · 8時間前

This came in a deposition, but it's still one of my funniest stories from this old job.

I worked part-time as a paralegal when I was in college. We had this massive case with a lot of people involved that had spun out into a bunch of little side cases. In one of those side cases, this guy was claiming our client had left him threatening voicemails related to the main case, and him and his wife sued for loss of consortium. Loss of consortium, and I swear to you this is a real thing, basically means something happened that is stopping a married couple from having sex, and they want to sue you over it. The guy was claiming that he was so scared from these voicemails that he couldn't sleep with his wife anymore.

Deposition time rolls around, and I'm sitting in the other room, but it's a small office and I can hear everything. My boss starts asking the wife how we're supposed to know that it was our client's fault they stopped having sex. Maybe she's just not as attracted to him anymore. Maybe he's not attracted to her. Maybe they didn't have that much of a sex life to begin with, etc. So this woman starts yelling "I love sex!" and banging her fists on the table. Her lawyers try to calm her down and tell her to stop talking, but she keeps on shouting "I love sex! We used to have sex 2, 3 times a day! We'd be thrown out of hotels because of the noise we'd make!" And to the protestation of everyone in the room, her counsel and ours, she proceeded to describe their sexual history in graphic detail, all of which was recorded in the deposition and filed with the court.

bunabhucan · 8時間前

This never made it to court.

I asked my divorce lawyer what was the worst thing a client had asked him to argue. I was expecting a "I want the salad spinner!" sort of story.

He had a client, a professor in his 70s who was divorcing from his wife, also a professor in her 70s. They were both Jewish. His wife had a tattoo on her arm. It was a number, put there by the Nazis when they put her in a concentration camp in WW2 as a child. Husband was born in the US, was not German. The German government was in the process of settling a case with the survivors. She had some amount of money, a six figure sum, due to her. The husband wanted his lawyer to argue that he should get half the settlement money.

Lawyer told him that there was a special circle in hell for lawyers who ask for stuff like that and that he was not planning on ending up there.

MakoSector7 · 7時間前

Prosecutor here. Had a case where a man raped his 6 year old daughter because she wore "suggestive" clothing and seemed to be asking for it. He tried to argue that "you know, girls are just sexually active at a younger age now."

I remember thinking...what would Dexter do??

Anyway, man got convicted and is now serving two life sentences plus one hundred years.

burkilla · 8時間前

I am a lawyer. Had a female inmate claim she was molested by one of the guards. One of her most damning pieces of testimony was testifying to this large vertical scar he had on his chest from a heart operation. She continued to say that she remembered this huge scar from when he molested her... The guard got on the stand, took his shirt off, and he had a tinyyyyy horizontal scar up on his shoulder. Case over. He had apparently told her one time that he had surgery, and she assumed it would've left his giant scar and used that to make up her story.

Edit: to clarify, I was a new clerk for the judge when the trial started, I don't know exactly why this didn't come out in discovery. My guess: plaintiff's counsel were two years out of law school, appointed to the case, had only done corporate law, and were from a monster NYC firm, so probably didn't give it any time. As for the defense, either the dept of corrections wanted to publicly humiliate the inmate (people make a lot of dumb decisions based on a "screw you" mentality), or defense counsel wanted to get that trial money.

Elyssian · 8時間前

Also a lawyer. Had opposing counsel try to argue that because a landlady had written on her eviction notice "it has been a pleasure getting to know you but...[please leave]" but had testified they were awful tenants that she hated, that she was dishonest and nothing she said could be trusted

Opened the question of dishonesty wide open. Although landlady wasn't an angel, tenants had an enormous string of fraud priors we could tell the court about as a result.

Edit because of confusion around impeachability doors: this is UK law and relates to gateways for admissibility of bad character evidence

OblivionGuardsman · 8時間前

I'm an attorney. I was in private practice for years and am a forcible felony public defender now. Hold your boos please. About a dozen times a year I get a client who wants to allege posse comitatus, sovereign state, living man argument in court. When I refuse to file their frivolous kook motions they file them pro se and demand to argue them to the judge. They are all ridiculous. I tell them to provide me a case or jurisdiction the argument has ever worked and to be pragmatic about it regardless of the merit to it. Reasoning with them only works about 10% of the time.

Dumbest specific argument I can recall was a defense in a murder trial where they alleged the victim was trying to commit suicide by gay rape. Basically wanted to die and wanted to incite this "straight" friend of his to kill him by trying to rape him. (They had agreed to mutual oral but defendant said victim was going for anal.) I wasnt involved but I spoke to the blood spatter expert for the police about it one day and his quote was, "who brings a shotgun to a blowjob?"

Logvin · 8時間前

Made a left turn on a green turn arrow, a city bus ran a red and T-Boned me. My car was a little VW rabbit so it just scooted me and I was perfectly fine. Driver pulls over, comes out and says "the sun was in my eyes." I say "I'm not hurt, thanks for asking".

Police arrive, and guess what? There was a literal bus load full of witnesses. Every one had the same story... She ran a red.

City paid for my car, etc. She denied wrongdoing and went to court, which I had to attend along with a witness or two and the officer. Her defense? She had a migraine.

Judge: so I should let you off the hook because you had a bad headache and was driving into the sun?

Driver: Yes, your honor I'm glad you understand.

She got her commercial vehicle license revoked. Should have just taken the points.

castor-and-Pollux · 6時間前

Law student, former professors story:

Defendant busted for possession of narcotics, they were in the pocket of his leather jacket. He argues the search was illegal because with his buttery smooth leather jacket, there's no way the officer would have felt the drugs in his pocket during a pat down, so he shouldn't have reached in the pocket to find the drugs in the first place.

Judge asks if the jacket is the one he was currently wearing in court; it was. Judge asks to feel this jacket and the pockets. Defendant hands it to the bailiff. Judge finds more drugs in the pocket.

Needless to say, it didn't go well for him.

Uncle_Erik · 7時間前

I'm a lawyer. The most ridiculous argument I've seen was one I actually made!

One of my clients got busted cooking meth. This was a very clear cut case, they actually caught him in the middle of a cook. No way he was getting out of this one. Even worse, he was cooking at home and children were there. Yep, the DA loaded him up with felonies, there was no bail and he was being held in the county jail.

My client knew he was fucked. He had been planning to get married a few weeks after he got busted.

My client asks me if he can get released for 24 hours so he can still get married. I tell him that I'll ask, but that there's no way in fucking hell they'll let him out.

First, I ask the DA if they will allow it. Nope. They laugh.

So I file a motion with the court. Now, I knew the judge was a crusty old conservative family values kind of guy. Who also has a raging erection for drug crime. There was no law involved, but I put together an argument about the sanctity of marriage and how the state should encourage marriage at all times, and that sort of thing.

We have a hearing and I make the argument. The DA is totally opposed and calls it ridiculous.

And the judge grants it. The judge actually decided to allow my client out for 24 hours to get married. He had to surrender at the county jail at 8AM the next day and some other conditions, but, still, he was allowed out.

Everyone is stunned. Nobody can believe it.

The day of the wedding comes, my client gets out, gets married, then goes back to the jail. Everything went exactly like how it was supposed to, which is also pretty shocking.

Raistlin719 · 8時間前

Wasn't the other lawyer, but his client. Took the stand in a retail theft trial. Claimed he didn't steal a couple salmon filets on purpose, he was just so flustered by a phone conversation with his girlfriend that he accidentally slipped them into the pockets of his jacket (in a part of the store the loss prevention officer called "shoplifter alley" because it's a blind spot for the cameras) and walked out without realizing it.

It's not like it was a candy bar or something small, it was two salmon filets! I asked him, "have you ever done that before?" Him: "No." Me: "Have you ever seen anyone, anywhere, ever put fish like that in their pocket in your entire life?" Him: ".....No."

Mercifully, the jury did not buy his ludicrous story and found him guilty.

mythrion · 7時間前

Had a pro se litigant argue that she didn't owe the credit card company because Jesus.

The basic argument was that debt is a sin (or maybe not paying the debt was a sin). And Jesus died for all of our sins. Therefore Jesus died to pay off her debt. Brilliant.

TomCollinsEsq · 8時間前

Actual lawyer here, but this one comes from my time as a law student. As a 1L, they send you to go watch a day in a courtroom to see what it's really like. One of the things nobody tells you is how much talking goes on in courtrooms when motion hearings are going on rather than an outright trial. There's a noted buzz throughout the room, usually of attorneys speaking to their clients about how the process was going to go.

I happened upon a domestic violence hearing. When the poor victim took the stand, that buzzing stopped. You could hear a pin drop as she was sworn in and began testifying. Her attorney set the stage for the morning, and then asked her, "And then what happened?" The victim looked right at the judge and said, "I made him hit me, your honor." There was an audible gasp. The judge, probably overstepping his bounds a little here, intervened in the questioning to say to her, "Ma'am, forgive me, but I feel like this is an important point you need to know, dear: you can't make anyone hit you, and you didn't make him hit you." The woman, instead of consoled, looked completely baffled. She waited a few beats, and then finally said to the judge, "I'm pretty sure I did. I mean, I jumped on his back and hit him over the head with a frying pan, after all, your honor."

The entire courtroom burst into laughter, and the judge conceded that she had, in fact, made him hit her.

MelGibsons_taint · 8時間前

I'm a prosecutor now, but I used to have a private practice where I did a lot of evictions. My usual landlord clients wouldn't even come into my office until their tenants had been behind for months, and most of the time the tenants were defiant in their non-payment, so it wasn't difficult to not take pity on them.

Anyway, one tenant was a particularly dumb guy. He usually came to court dressed in a wife-beater and cutoff jeans. We had a trial date set and my client and I showed up. Tenant did not. At the last second before the judge entered a default, some woman comes bursting into the courtroom and yells, "Darryl's on the phone!" The judge allows her to bring the phone up and we put Tenant on speaker. He proceeds to ask the judge to delay the trial for one week because, "My brother got his head knocked inside out and is prolly gon' die."

I didn't buy it, but my client knew Darryl well enough to sense the stress and fear in his voice. I told the judge that we would allow the continuance, but only until the next available court day. The judge set it for one week out. I still didn't believe Darryl until that night my grandfather was in an accident and we had to rush to the hospital. As we're walking up the hallway, I see Darryl in a room with a bunch of people who dressed like him enough to obviously be family. When we get to my grandpa's room (he ended up being not as seriously injured as we originally feared), the first thing he says is, "You'll never guess what happened to the guy down the hall. Nurse told me his idiot brother dropped a tractor bucket on his head and opened it like a cracked egg. He's in a coma now."

I relayed the news to my client and she felt sorry enough for Darryl that we signed an agreement stating that he would clear out within 15 days and we would forgive all back rent owed.

Berg426 · 8時間前

Not a lawyer but when my mom was killed by a drunk driver, we were filing a wrongful death suit. And the lawyer for the defense used my mom's cancer to say that she was going to die anyways so a wrongful death dispensation was not owed.

Promist · 7時間前

Several years ago I was junior counsel in a prosecution in which the State alleged the 30-year-old male accused sexually penetrated his 13-year-old foster daughter.

Part of the State case relied on SMS messages allegedly sent by this gentleman to the complainant. Some of them were pretty bad (I won't repeat them), but there were some which amounted to: 'Sorry, I thought you liked it when I did x.'

Defence counsel conceded that if he did send those messages, that it would have been very inappropriate. Later, during closing argument, defence counsel argued: 'Surely it would've been more appropriate if he wrote, "You have lovely breasts," or, "I want you to have my children."'

Uhh, to your 13-year-old foster child? While in the same house you share with your wife? You're right, that's way better

PrivateEyesWatchingU · 8時間前

I am a lawyer. Colleague argued that it wasn't animal cruelty to shoot a dog because the dog didn't suffer. This wasn't like a euthanasia situation, rather a robbery gone bad. The judge entertained it for a second and then came to her senses.

Quackattackaggie · 8時間前

Not in court but a conversation in my office:

It doesn't matter if you were sober or not. You jumped out of a third story window with a beer bottle and threw it at a cop. The jury is going to think you were drunk. Also, I think you were drunk.

justcallmetarzan · 7時間前

(Edit - actual Lawyer here.)

Hands down the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard was a Constitutionalist, pro se defendant trying to explain why the Court lacked jurisdiction over him.

I was prepared for the standard arguments about "freeman on the land," non-corporate natural person, admiralty court, etc... But this one was different. This particular defendant was part of a Jehovah's Witness compound and happened to be Marshallese-American (i.e. he was black).

After the Court patiently explained to him that it has jurisdiction over all persons in the county, the defendant promptly piped up that, under the Dred Scott decision, he wasn't a person and the Court had no jurisdiction.

Zer0Summoner · 9時間前

I am a lawyer. The state tried to argue that probable cause exists simply because there is a police report alleging the crime. "From the fact that a police officer filed this report it is a reasonable inference that the crime took place as described."

Good, allegations are self-proving now. Well, wrap up court then, I guess no need to hear any more motions to dismiss ever. I wonder why no other prosecutor in 240 years of jurisprudence ever thought of that before, 25 year old assistant district attorney who went to the worst law school in this state.

trivial_sublime · 7時間前

Lawyer here. During an order of protection hearing the 6'3" muscular tattooed idiot told the judge that my 5'1" female client deserved the black eye he gave her because she wouldn't stop running her mouth. He actually expected the judge to be sympathetic or something. The second he admitted to hitting her the judge cut him off and said "Order of Protection granted. Next case."

losthunter27 · 7時間前

My parents are both lawyers.

Was in court with my dad when I was younger. Dad is throwing out objection after objection at the opposing counsel during cross examination. Judge is sustaining all of them. Several hours into this, the judge is getting restless and asks the opposing counsel to hurry it up.

Opposing counsel responds: "Well if Mr. Surname would stop objecting perhaps I could get through my examination."

Judge did not like this. She lays into the guy: "If you would stop asking objectable questions Mr. Surname wouldn't have to object! Hurry this I am not going to sit here all day."

Was pretty cool to watch as a kid. Dude got roasted. Dad won that trial.

DBREEZE223 · 8時間前

Hah I have a story for this one. I'm not a lawyer nor could I talk at the time. During a custody battle between my grandparents and my mom and dad who were addicts. The judge asks why my parents should have custody, "well we are his parents" the judge says well you guys have substance abuse issues" "No we don't" "So you're not using anything?" "No we're both clean" "When is the last time you've used?" "A few days ago and we're done now" My grandparents won that day in court. This story has been told to me a few times by my grandfather.

thoph · 9時間前

Am a lawyer, but this happened a little prior to me starting my current job so this is second hand. A friend of mine is an AUSA and last year prosecuted several chiropractors for insurance fraud. Turns out, they were sovereign citizen types who insisted on representing themselves. At one point, a defendant got up to the lectern and started lecturing the federal judge that because there was fringe on the flag in the courtroom, the court was an admiralty court lacking jurisdiction over him. Bizarre. Later pled out and all are serving time.

Edit: Should also mention--because this got so much attention--that the chiropractor ring was also handing out literature to clients (all poor, mostly uneducated) about how the government could not tax them, etc. That to me was the worst part and also, I think, why they got actual jail time as opposed to just probation/restitution.

RobotReptar · 8時間前

I wasn't a lawyer, but a law clerk working with the prosecutor's office. This guy was caught on the highest quality security cam video I've ever seen stabbing a store clerk like 15 times (she survived), and then was tackled a block away from the scene not 5 minutes later by a man who had see him flee and followed him, 25 feet from the knife and the jacket he'd been wearing that was covered in blood with a receipt with his name on it in the pocket.

It was the literal definition of a slam dunk case. The guy chose to proceed to trial without his lawyer instead of having the case postponed after his attorneys house was broken into and all his files were stolen.

This guys's main argument was that it wasn't him because in the statement of probable cause written by the officers after the incident they misspelled his highly unique lastname by adding a T in the middle (e.g. Johnson became Johnston). He spelled his name out at every opportunity with much emphasis. He also argued it couldn't be him because the man on the video tied a t-shirt around his head so that the distinctive tattoos there would be hidden, but he would never cover over his tattoos like that because he was proud of them and they represented his heritage as a Korean man.

The jury took less than a half hour to return a guilty verdict.

Rackem_Willy · 8時間前

In a child custody modification I once had the respondent site her arrest record as a defense against a claim my client had made. The arrest in question was for an aggravated assault charge in another state that we were not aware of.

Later the same woman refused to take a drug test because she had already paid her lawyer enough money, before basically fleeing the courthouse.

Needless to say the children now permanently reside with my client.

Edit: a word.

theeglitz · 9時間前

Postman claims speeding fine got lost in the post. The judge accepted it too.

granola_dad · 7時間前

Longtime lurker, and maybe I'm only posting bc this happened like a week ago, but whatever. First time for everything :) The criminal defense attorney representing a guy who stabbed his wife several times and then beat her with a frying pan and then stabbed her again tried to argue that it is an affirmative defense to attempted murder if you take your victim to the hospital after. He claimed its impossible to attempt to murder somebody if you "save her life" after. He got benchslapped pretty hard (1) for the horrible legal argument and (2) for continuously saying this guy saved her life after he tried to kill her.

bellend_bellend · 9時間前

Not a lawyer but my uncle is. He had to defend a man accused of beastiality with a horse.

Defence was that his dick was too small to actually achieve climax in the horse's anus, ergo he didn't actually have sex with it. But I mean he was giving it enemas with washing-up liquid and even had a little stool to stand on when he was ready to go at it, so the defence didn't really work in his favour. Neither did the CCTV footage.

BullsLawDan · 7時間前

Oh geez where do I start. I mean I could tell plenty of these about my own clients but I like this one:

A lady has an injury/Comp case. It's for her upper back and of course complex regional pain syndrome.

She decides she needs the insurance company to pay for a special mattress for her. Like a $6000 memory foam, with heat and massage and a thousand other features. And not just a twin, she needs a California King because of course her layabout unemployed boyfriend needs to sleep there too.

We spend months litigating this damn thing. Finally, she buys it herself and my client agrees to give her $1500 just to be done with it. The judge takes myself and opposing counsel aside and says he's gonna motherfuck us if we ever say the word mattress in his court again after wasting all this time. It was that ridiculous.

Not three months go by and the case comes on for another hearing. After exhausting all the chiropractic care allowed under the law, her doctor was seeking a variance to get some additional chiropractic.

We get to court and I'm arguing it should be denied, etc. Judge turns to her and says, "ma'am, why do you feel you need more chiropractic care?"

She pauses for a minute then says, "I'm having a lot of trouble sleeping on my mattress."

I think I saw smoke coming out of his ears.

Occams_ElectricRazor · 6時間前

Not an attorney, but my grandfather told me a story about how he was in to court in the early 1950s to defend himself for a traffic violation. The police officer used evidence against him that he had been "rampaging all around town for the past few months," but the cop was such a nice guy he had been letting him go. My grandfather's response was, "Judge, I'm not sure about how much rampaging I've been doing, but it wasn't in your city. I've been helping to rebuild Germany for the past 18 months. I just got back in town on Friday."

thebestatspaghettios · 9時間前

Not a lawyer but was the child in a custody case between my parents. My mother's lawyer argued for and had put in the final agreement that I had to add my mother as a Facebook friend.

Edit: This was 7 years ago, we are still not friends on Facebook, and she's blocked on everything I have an account for.

Legalbegallove · 9時間前

Car accident case where the Plaintiff was clearly trying to ham it up. Brought friends and family for back up and the stories were all inconsistent. Cried on the stand. It was a small accident and the Plaintiff wanted a lot of money for sprains. The attorney said "Yeah there are inconsistencies and crazy stories. But you don't believe the person who tells you the same thing every time. That is the person pulling the wool over your eyes." Um, no. Honest people are consistent. The attorney also had his client testify that no interpreters were used when they were and that there was confusion about a question regarding a prior accident when that question was never asked. Edit: Am a lawyer

ifeelfuzzyinside · 7時間前

A lawyer basically tried to defend a molester by saying that the victim's breasts were too voluptuous and attractive, and that the accused would not have committed the crime if the victim was unattractive.

He even asked the accused to stand up in court so that everybody could get a view of her voluptuous her breasts are.

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/lawyer-who-focused-on-molest-victims-breast-size-rapped-by-judge

tberriman · 8時間前

Currently studying law. One of my tutors told me about a case he had while working for the state, where the defendant tried to claim that being an orphan had given him severe PTSD and mental illness and he was unfit to stand trial.

Unfortunately, he was on trial for murdering his parents, so it didn't really fly.

TodayKindOfSucks · 9時間前

Defendant pro se (without an attorney) pleading guilty to a minor drug charge after rejecting a plea deal where if she took a urine test every month for a year and passed each time, the charge would be dropped.

Judge: why didn't you take the offer the prosecutor initially gave you?

Defendant: my body my choice.

latotokyo123 · 9時間前

Law student here. Not certified to legally represent a client, but was working as an associate to the prosecution, against some man charged of breaking in to a convenience store in the middle of the night. He tried to break through a trap door after sneaking onto the roof. Panicked after the alarm was triggered and shattered the front door.

His argument:

"I was hungry and the door was locked"

The prosecutor was clearly patronizing him at this point (and rightfully so) and was trying to comprehend what he just heard

"So you broke into a store from the roof at 2 in the morning, wearing a black beanie and carrying a medium sized sack because you were hungry?"

Let's just say he needed a better ~~civil defense lawyer.~~..

Edit: Criminal Defense Lawyer That's embarrassing...

jellywx · 9時間前

Slightly different but worth noting: I recall off a Rob Dyke video that there was a guy arrested for multiple rapes and the murder of a young woman. He was sentenced and in prison he injured himself to go to hospital. He then broke out, raped another woman and took a family hostage before being arrested again. He tried for parole and his claim followed the lines of this: Whilst the victim of the crime only has to suffer for a minute or an hour, the person who commits the crime has to suffer many many years exiled from society. He got rejected 18 times and died before the 19th.

Edit: corrected spelling from peroll to parole. many thanks.

Edit 2: corrected spelling from exciled to exiled. thanks again

Trailerparkqueen · 9時間前

I had a former employee fired for rampant and blatant stealing. (She actually quit when presented with the evidence). She sued me for $10,000 for lost wages, since she couldn't find a job because she was scared I would bad mouth her if she put me down for a reference. She had also been turning tricks right from the office for extra cash.

papereverywhere · 9時間前

Ha! I'm a lawyer. I should win right there.

Anyway, we were in trial, and opposing counsel was objecting to a document I was trying to enter into evidence through one of their witnesses. The witness had identified it as one of their business records, but opposing counsel objects. Jury is in the courtroom, so the Judge has us approach. We do, and opposing counsel argues the authenticity of the document. I was a little surprised. So my response was "Your Honor this is their exhibit. Is Counsel stating they submitted in-authentic documents to this Court?" Judge turns to counsel, "Are you submitting non-authentic documents?" Opposing counsel stammers out a no and the document goes in. I was a little surprised they wanted to argue their own document wasn't authentic just to keep me from getting it to the jury.

Adverse_Yawn · 8時間前

There's a case clock made in the 18th century that has been in my family for over a hundred years. The first born child normally inherits the clock. That is, until my grandparents had my uncle.

My uncle has been a fuck up since he was a teenager and always has relied on his parents to help him out - no matter his age. When he was in his late twenties, he flew to Taiwan and spent all of his money on stupid shit and needed to have my grandmother wire him money for a plane ticket. Or the time that he couldn't pay his mortgage on a house that he could never afford and also quit his job expecting my grandmother to pay for it. She gave him $20k in agreement that if he didn't repay her then he give up his "right" to inherit the clock.

Over the years he seemed to "forget" that the clock would never be his and had a friend appraise the clock with the appraisal calling it "(uncle's name) clock".

Uncle never repaid the money he borrowed. He pissed my grandmother off enough for her to write him out of the will for tangible personal property (aka items/the clock). He takes the executor of the estate (my dad) to court for the clock.

My dad just has his attorney represent him. Uncle wants to be allowed in the court room with his attorney but my dad's attorney says, "No, that's not fair since (my dad) isn't there." Judge agrees but uncle pouts about it and accepts.

The "trial" lasts no longer than 10 minutes. The will is evidence saying that uncle has no claim to the clock. Uncle's attorney submits the appraisal but my dad's attorney gets it thrown out because it's not proof of ownership and it was written by my uncle and his friend. Attorneys and judge agree that he has no claim to the clock.

My uncle is allowed in but wants to go on the record even though the case is settled. My dad's attorney rolls her eyes but agrees. He states that they were in court because he was supposed to inherit the clock but did not. Dad's attorney states that he has no legal claim to it. Uncle's words were, "Well, I suppose it was always just matter of ethics than legality." My dad's attorney, baffled, states, "Then what are we doing in court?!"

Tsanker75 · 7時間前

An opposing attorney the other day said I should not cross-examine his witness at a preliminary hearing because it would only hone the witness's testifying skills to be cross-examined at trial. I laughed out loud.

brony4lyfe33 · 9時間前

Not one myself, but my friend who's a lawyer told me this a few weeks ago.

Guy orders something like 50 subscription boxes from the same website, keeps all the orders then charges back on his credit card. Small company almost goes under from this, and his explanation was "Oh, I didn't know I had to return the 49 accidentally ordered boxes..". Keep in mind he ordered them all, kept them all then charged back the company.

Edit: For all the people asking, the company is here. If you want to support them, watchmonthly20 gives you 20% off.

babno · 9時間前

Not a lawyer cause they don't exist. I got a ticket for expired parking meter. Went in and contested it. The guy says "the parking authority took some pictures for evidence, how do you explain these?" The pictures included my car, my license plate, and the parking meter which clearly showed 13 minutes left on it.

Mellonhead58 · 9時間前

My dad told me a story in which his opponent claimed that the surgeon general's 1964 warning was never released in the New York Times. He did this through use of a book and he claimed the headline was not in there and did not exist. My father spent the entirety of the next night looking for the book, found it, bought it, found the headline for which he was looking, and absolutely demolished the argument the next day by showing the headline to everyone.

ottos-mops · 8時間前

A guy on probation was arrested because he was late at night in a Park and seemed drunk. The judge asked him what he was doing there in the middle of the night and he answered "I was doing Yoga". He was obviously lying, the judge asked him to name a Yoga position and some lawyers behind him whispered a Position to him which caused the whole Court room to laugh. The judge then let him go.

Quackattackaggie · 8時間前

When I was clerking for a judge in my first year as a lawyer, we had a case that centered around if a person could lawfully shoot a dog that is attacking his chickens. The law said that he could shoot him if the dogs were "bothering or wounding" the chickens. Plaintiff was suing for the value of his dogs that were killed and emotional distress. His argument was that the dogs were not bothering or wounding the chickens because they were running away when the farmer came outside with the shotgun.

He then argues that wounding has to be active. So he gave an example. If the dog has a chicken in his mouth you can shoot. If he drops it but the chicken is floundering right in front of him you cannot shoot as the wounding has ended. Picks it back up? Shoot the mut. Lightly paws at it? Not wounding!

It was ridiculous and inconsistent with caselaw. I wrote the opinion awarding defendant summary judgment (here comes my favorite part). Plaintiff asks for a reconsideration based on a single word I used in a throwaway line in the 8 page opinion (I said it was reasonable to assume that the dogs were still a danger to the chickens).

During the reconsideration, the partner from the firm comes for plaintiff instead of joe schmo and says "frankly judge I have always thought you were the finest attorney in the region, so I'm shocked you got this so wrong. It's baffling to me." Judge didn't react but I was plenty offended on his behalf. So I am tasked with writing the reconsideration opinion. I wrote a two page summary of the hearing with no indication on the two pages which way we were leaning then pasted the original 8 pages but with the sentence about reasonableness omitted.

I wish I could have watched that lawyer read 3 pages deep to realize it was the exact same decision as before.

PlutoniumPa · 7時間前

There was this defendant that was running a Ponzi scheme with a story about going into depleted mines in South America with new technology to recover previously unrecoverable gold. He was actually using half of the money to buy gold bullion to dazzle investors, and pocketing the other half. When they arrested him, they found a shit-ton of gold under his bed.

At his sentencing hearing a few years later (around 2011), it was argued that his sentence should be significantly reduced because, in the intervening time, the gold that had been seized had greatly appreciated in market value such that the investor victims would be mostly paid back in full, showing that his "investment" was actually prudent.

Kull_Story_Bro · 8時間前

Not a lawyer but I once heard the worst argument of all time being made by this kid and his father to their attorney. It goes something like this:

I only drive this car while I'm at home and I have a different one at school. When you drive this car it accelerates much faster than you realize and you easily lose track of your speed.

No shit Sherlock, some cars are fast and we have this magical gauge that tells you your exact speed! Jesus Christ.

queenofhearts90 · 9時間前

Of course I'm not a lawyer ~ was doing my journalism degree and was just watching cases all day for an assignment.

One guy was up on drug charges for distribution. He was selling weed. His lawyer tried to argue to the judge that weed never hurt anyone, and it even made it easier for police during domestic disturbance calls, and that, in fact, the police should be using his client to get weed to calm people down.

His client got something like 3 years in jail, and 5 years probation.

some	header
Ask Others	Self & Others
Find a subreddit	Learn something
Meta Subs	What is this ___
AskReddit Offshoots	Offers & Assistance

AskReddit

[ SERIOUS ]

Rules:

If you think your post has disappeared, see spam or an inappropriate post, please do not hesitate to contact the mods, we're happy to help.

Tags to use:

[Serious]

Use a [Serious] post tag to designate your post as a serious, on-topic-only thread.

Filter posts by subject:

Do you have ideas or feedback for Askreddit? Submit to /r/Ideasforaskreddit.

Interested in the amount of traffic /r/AskReddit receives daily/monthly? Check out our traffic stats here!

We have spoiler tags, please use them! /spoiler, #spoiler, /s, #s. Use it `[like this](/spoiler)`

Other subreddits you might like:

Ever read the reddiquette? Take a peek!

調停者