I Got Your Oral Argument Right Here, Pal
We went to court today to see oral arguments.
Some of you left early. Some of you left when Maya left (actually, most of you left when Maya left). Of the six people that were still around, only two of us, myself, and Air Force Captain Jarrod Stuard stayed for the whole thing (which stretched out to only about 3:40).
For shame, kids, you missed out.
The second to last case was about as law school as you can get--you had two young public interest lawyers, an assistant D.A. versus a public defender, carrying on a conversation straight out of our crim class last semseter (for those of you fortunate enough to have participated, think of a standard Jacobs lecture sans his winning personality). It was the only straightforward, well argued (well, by the assitant D.A. at least) case on the docket.
But it was the final case of the afternoon that was the most enlightening.
Defendant's Lawyer: "If it would please the court, I would like to summarize the facts for the benefit of the members of the audience."
The Five Judge Panel: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! No."
Jarrod and I started laughing, too, as he and I were the only "members of the audience" remaining.
One Judge (still laughing): "You can explain the facts to them afterwards." The lawyer, an impish, sickly looking man, who either could not afford or had failed to notice the value of teeth and hence, had few, looked at us and grinned in what I could only fear was anticipation.
I stopped laughing.
From there on, the man continued to rile and entertain us. Granted, he argued, the police had the right to enquire what the man and woman were doing after he noticed the two struggling and shouting and saw blood on the man's shirt and arms, and granted, he argued, the police had the right to observe and follow after the man yelled at the woman to get in the car and the two attempted to escape without answering the officer, but, he argued, the moment they sounded their sirens, they violated his client's 4th amendment rights. It was great. The attorney for the State did a fantastic job of not laughing. The judges, already on there last case of the day, did not feel the need to control themselves.
After the case was over, the man walked up and handed me his oral argument notes, saying, "It was the only case on the calendar today with any political appeal."
The notes, spanning several pages and bound with a single ill-placed staple centered at the top of page, begin with a single bold-face title in 24 or 36 point font that reads:
FREE ERIC
BREWER NOW!!
The first paragraph reads (errors included): "Let me tell you a story that's as American as applie pie. It's all about Eric Brewer who until September 2, 2002 was gainfully employed as a construction worker building skyscrapers that touched the sky."
MY GOD, that's good lawyering.
Some of you left early. Some of you left when Maya left (actually, most of you left when Maya left). Of the six people that were still around, only two of us, myself, and Air Force Captain Jarrod Stuard stayed for the whole thing (which stretched out to only about 3:40).
For shame, kids, you missed out.
The second to last case was about as law school as you can get--you had two young public interest lawyers, an assistant D.A. versus a public defender, carrying on a conversation straight out of our crim class last semseter (for those of you fortunate enough to have participated, think of a standard Jacobs lecture sans his winning personality). It was the only straightforward, well argued (well, by the assitant D.A. at least) case on the docket.
But it was the final case of the afternoon that was the most enlightening.
Defendant's Lawyer: "If it would please the court, I would like to summarize the facts for the benefit of the members of the audience."
The Five Judge Panel: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! No."
Jarrod and I started laughing, too, as he and I were the only "members of the audience" remaining.
One Judge (still laughing): "You can explain the facts to them afterwards." The lawyer, an impish, sickly looking man, who either could not afford or had failed to notice the value of teeth and hence, had few, looked at us and grinned in what I could only fear was anticipation.
I stopped laughing.
From there on, the man continued to rile and entertain us. Granted, he argued, the police had the right to enquire what the man and woman were doing after he noticed the two struggling and shouting and saw blood on the man's shirt and arms, and granted, he argued, the police had the right to observe and follow after the man yelled at the woman to get in the car and the two attempted to escape without answering the officer, but, he argued, the moment they sounded their sirens, they violated his client's 4th amendment rights. It was great. The attorney for the State did a fantastic job of not laughing. The judges, already on there last case of the day, did not feel the need to control themselves.
After the case was over, the man walked up and handed me his oral argument notes, saying, "It was the only case on the calendar today with any political appeal."
The notes, spanning several pages and bound with a single ill-placed staple centered at the top of page, begin with a single bold-face title in 24 or 36 point font that reads:
FREE ERIC
BREWER NOW!!
The first paragraph reads (errors included): "Let me tell you a story that's as American as applie pie. It's all about Eric Brewer who until September 2, 2002 was gainfully employed as a construction worker building skyscrapers that touched the sky."
MY GOD, that's good lawyering.
posted by Radio at 5:06:00 PM
2 Comments:
i want to become a lawyer so i can hand out propaganda.
If something that entertaining happens when Gans & Co go to court it will be the most exciting thing to ever happen in Laywering, ever. I am anticipatorily jealous.
Post a Comment
<< Home