Monthly Archives: February 2021
When Looking For An Attorney
Category: When Looking For An Attorney
Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over-Biller”
September 3rd, 2017 by berkeslaw
Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over Biller” or How to Stop Getting Ripped Off by Lazy Lawyers Yeah, I said…
Uncategorized
Category: Uncategorized
Home Is No Longer Where the Heart Is
February 25th, 2018 by berkeslaw
Home is No Longer Where the Heart Is Hello All: Rather than explain the whole sordid mess yet again, I thought…
Daily Tweets
Category: Daily Tweets
Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak
April 22nd, 2012 by berkeslaw
Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), the Supreme Court…
Legal News & Opinions
Category: Legal News & Opinions
Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over-Biller”
September 3rd, 2017 by berkeslaw
Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over Biller” or How to Stop Getting Ripped Off by Lazy Lawyers Yeah, I said…
“Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor….”
February 3rd, 2017 by berkeslaw
Hail the Statute of Liberty: Who We Were, Can We Ever Be Again? Unless you are an immigrant (like me), or the child(ren)…
The Texas Voter ID Law; Wait, aren’t we supposed to be encouraging voters?
January 25th, 2017 by berkeslaw
The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Texas Voter ID Case A still-hobbled SCOTUS Acts Before the Coming Hard Right Turn Harlem voters circa 1954…
Too Good To Be True
January 13th, 2014 by berkeslaw
Too Good To Be True If It Seems Too Good to be True, It Probably Is! Lurking in the deep, dark shadows of…
Well, You Asked It
January 12th, 2014 by berkeslaw
Well, You Asked It A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter…
Courtroom Follies – All New, All Bad
June 29th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Courtroom Follies – All New, All Bad A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you…
Brand New Courtroom Follies: Throw Me a Bone Here, Nathan
May 11th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Brand New Courtroom Follies: Throw Me a Bone Here, Nathan A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I…
Product Warnings: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You!
May 11th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Product Warnings: Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You! WARNING: DON’T READ THE PRODUCT WARNINGS As a lawyer, it’s not easy for me to…
Grimace and Bear It
December 17th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term
September 29th, 2012 by berkeslaw
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…
Legal History
Category: Legal History
On How We Rule
May 11th, 2013 by berkeslaw
On How We Rule When arguing politics disguised as “Constitutional interpretation,” many on either side of the divide fall into this same trap:…
Grimace and Bear It
December 17th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…
Abe Said It Best
September 29th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Abe Said It Best When trying to weigh all of the present-day acrimony between Democrat and Republican, labor v. capital, I looked to…
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term
September 29th, 2012 by berkeslaw
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…
The Fighting 14th!
March 31st, 2012 by berkeslaw
The Fighting 14th! It is a simple fact of American public life that both sides of the political aisle seek to use the…
Doctors Win Again
Doctors Win Again
A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result. Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy. Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.
Doctors 1, Lawyers 0
Lawyer: “Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for blood pressure?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “Did you check for breathing?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “How can you be so sure, Doctor?”
Witness: “Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.”
Lawyer: “But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?”
Witness: “Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.”
Who’s Counting
Lawyer: “How old is your son, the one living with you?”
Witness: “Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.”
Lawyer: “How long has he lived with you?”
Witness: “Forty-five years.”
Grimace and Bear It
Grimace and Bear It
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
With the horror of the massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School still searing raw in the collective consciousness, there may actually be developing some consensus to do something about the carnage routinely occurring in the streets, schools and homes of America. Maybe. Between the extremes — both self-evidently untenable — there must be available some action (or actions) that we can take to reduce the shocking flow of gun-related homicides. Indelicately stated, if there was something that we could have done that might have saved the life of even one of those precious children in Newtown, would we not have deemed it sufficient cause to act?
The gun lobbyists and “right to bear arms” absolutists love to argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry’s right to defend themselves against their own government. Take a deep breath: They are absolutely correct. Better still, the Second Amendment was also enacted to secure the ancient right of a free person to arm and protect themselves, their families and property. These are not “negotiating points.”
But here’s the kicker, folks: Even the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), no friend to the “gun control” faction, has recognized that the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not “unlimited.” Do I need to say that again? Surely not. Indeed, from the pen of no less a personage than Justice Anton Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), comes the following passage (worth repeating in its entirety despite its length) regarding the boundaries of the Second Amendment:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citations omitted] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citations omitted]. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Post a Comment
Law in the News
Category: Law in the News
How do I Resist? What do I do?
February 10th, 2017 by berkeslaw
WE ARE NOT POWERLESS, AND WE ARE NOT ALONE Like many others, I suspect, I am awash with energy, frustrations and ideas…
The Texas Voter ID Law; Wait, aren’t we supposed to be encouraging voters?
January 25th, 2017 by berkeslaw
The Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Texas Voter ID Case A still-hobbled SCOTUS Acts Before the Coming Hard Right Turn Harlem voters circa 1954…
Too Good To Be True
January 13th, 2014 by berkeslaw
Too Good To Be True If It Seems Too Good to be True, It Probably Is! Lurking in the deep, dark shadows of…
Debt Ceiling Explained
January 7th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Debt Ceiling Explained According to economist Paul Krugman (who can do this far better than I), the ongoing “crisis” in Washington stems from…
Better Not Be Too Pretty in Iowa
December 22nd, 2012 by berkeslaw
Better Not Be Too Pretty in Iowa MELISSA NELSON, Appellant, vs. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 11–1857 Filed December 21, 2012…
Grimace and Bear It
December 17th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Grimace and Bear It The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of…
To The Rescue
November 3rd, 2012 by berkeslaw
To The Rescue I just received this email from a dear friend who lives in New York, and walked the walk last night…
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term
September 29th, 2012 by berkeslaw
What President Obama Has Done During His First Term Below I am quoting directly and completely from the PCTC Blog, and @MiltShook. The…
Don’t Touch That Dial
June 14th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Don’t Touch That Dial While use, mis-use and abuse of electronic means of storage and communication are now inexorable features of daily living,…
Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak
April 22nd, 2012 by berkeslaw
Citizen’s United: SCOTUS Double-Speak In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), the Supreme Court…
We Work For Them
We Work For Them
Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend: As a solo, and trying to bring value to a client, do not ever forget that we work for the client, and not the other way around. Forgetting who’s paying whom is a sure fire way to stop getting paid. Integrity pays.
Post a Comment
Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo
Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo
Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo
Civil Law Time Limits
A Cheat Sheet for California Lawyers, by California Lawyers
Hello Counsellor: Here is a handy guide for quickly reminding yourself about those pesky deadlines that are forever haunting the solo practitioner. BUT, please be advised that this is NOT a substitute for homework, AND YOU MAY NOT RELY on these dates as the “last word” on civil procedure deadlines. Dates change, or may vary from local rule to local rule, so please make sure to make sure.
SERVICE OF PROCESS
- • Serve Defendant after Complaint filed – 60 days after filing. [Source: CRC 3.110]
- • Serve Defendant Added via Amended Complaint – 30 days after adding. [Source: CRC 3.110(b)]
- • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint (proving to Court that you served Defendant) – 60 days after serving complaint. [Source: CCP § 538.210]
- • Defendant Time Limit to File Answer or Demurrer – 30 days from date complaint was served. [Source: CCP § 412.20]
DISCOVERY
- • Plaintiff may serve discovery questions – 10 days after service of complaint. [CCP §2030.020]
- • Subpoena for Personal (medical) records – Must be served on consumer at least 15 days (in actuality 20) days before date of production. [CCP § 1985.3(d) incorporating CCP 2020.220(a)]. The subpoena may not be served on records custodian until at least five days after service on consumer. [CCP § 1985.6(b)(2) & (3).] Must be served on records custodian 15 days before date of production.
- • Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum – must be served on defense counsel at least five days before date for production of documents. [CCP § 1985.3(g). 1985.6(f)(2)] Note: Court may still grant a motion to quash after this time. [Slage v. Sup.Ct. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1309, 1313]
- • Motion to Compel Additional Answers – 45 days. [CCP §2030.300]
- • Respond to Written Discovery – 30 days (+5 days if questions were mailed).
- • Discovery Closes Before Arbitration – 15 days before arbitration.
[CRC 3.822]
- • Discovery Closes Before Trial: 30 days before trial – or 15 days before arbitration. [CCP § 2024.020]
- • Last Day to Hear Discovery Motions – 15 days before trial.
[CCP § 2024.020]
- • Practical Last Day to Serve Discovery (and be able to make a motion on it) – 90 – 100 days before trial.
- • Deposition Notice – Defendant may serve any time. Plaintiff must wait 20 days after service of summons and complaint to serve. [CCP § 2025.210]
- • Depositions – Must be set at least 10 days in the future (+5 days if the notice is mailed – CCP § 1013), at least 20 (+5 days if notice is mailed – CCP § 1013) if deposition notice includes a request for documents. [CCP § 2025.270]
EXPERT DISCOVERY
- • Experts Must Be Demanded – 70 days before trial (or within 10 days of setting trial date, whichever is closer to trial date) [CCP § 2034.220]
- • Experts Must Be Disclosed – 50 days before trial (or 20 days after service of demand, whichever is closer to trial date). [CCP § 2034.230]
- • Supplemental Expert Disclosure – Must be disclosed within 20 days of the Exchange of Expert Witnesses. May only disclose witness to cover a subject covered by opponent’s witnesses. [CCP § 2034.280]
- • Expert Depositions – May be set “on receipt of an expert witness list from a party.” [CCP § 2034.
- • 410]
- • Expert Discovery Cut Off – 15 days before original trial date. [CCP § 2024.030]
- • Last Day for Motions Regarding Experts – 10 days before original trial date.
[CCP § 2024.030]
TRIAL
- • Discovery Closes (with the exclusion of expert lists, and expert depositions) – 30 days before trial, or after non-binding arbitration. [CCP § 2034.210;
CCP § 1141.24]
- • Experts Must Be Demanded – 70 days before trial (or within 10 days of setting trial date, whichever is closer to trial date). [CCP § 2034.220]
- • Experts Must Be Disclosed – 50 days before trial (or 20 days after service of demand, whichever is closer to trial date). [CCP § 2034.230]
- • 998 Offers to Compromise – Can be made up until 10 days prior to trial. [CCP § 998]
- • Notice to Appear at Trial (to party) [With Documents] – 20 days before trial, send notice with time and place to attorney. [CCP § 19871987(c)]
- • Notice to Appear at Trial With Documents – 5 days “or any other time period as the court may allow.” [CCP § 1987(c)]
MOTIONS
- • Noticed motion – must be served and filed 16 court days before the hearing date (+5 more if served by mail) (+2 more if served by fax, express mail, or overnight delivery). [CCP § 1005]
- • Opposition to Noticed Motion – must be filed and served 9 court days before hearing. [CCP § 1005]
- • Reply to Noticed Motion – 5 court days before hearing. [CCP § 1005]
- • Ex Parte Motion – Opposing party must be notified by 10:00 a.m. the day before the hearing, absent “exceptional circumstances.” [CRC 3.1203]. Note: This is a minimum. Check local rules for more strict notice periods.
Manner of Service: “Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, all papers opposing a motion and all reply papers shall be served by personal delivery, facsimile transmission, express mail, or other means consistent with Sections 1010, 1011, 1012, and 1013, and reasonably calculated to ensure delivery to the other party or parties not later than the close of the next business day after the time the opposing papers or reply papers, as applicable, are filed.” CCP § 1005(c)]
CCP § 1013: “… The service is complete at the time of the deposit, but any period of notice and any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended five calendar days, upon service by mail, if the place of address and the place of mailing is within the State of California, 10 calendar days if either the place of mailing or place of address is outside the State of California but within the United States, and 20 calendar days if either the place of mailing or the place of address is outside the United States.”
- • Motions for Summary Judgment – Notice is 75 days before hearing (+10 if outside of California, +20 if outside the United States) [CCP § 427c(a)] Opposition is 14 days before hearing [CCP § 437c(b)(2)] Reply is 5 days before hearing. [CCP § 437c(b)(3)]
STATUTES OF LIMITATION
• Breach of Contract (Written) – 4 years [CCP § 337]
• Breach of Contract (Oral) –2 years [CCP § 339]
• Fraud –3 years [CCP § 338(d)]
The statute does not “accrue,” or start running, until “the discovery, by the aggrieved party, of the facts constituting the fraud.” When “discovery” occurs is generally question of fact. When “the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that her injury was caused by wrongdoing,” the statute starts to accrue. Parsons v. Tickner, 31 Cal. App. 4th 1513 (1995).
• Personal Injury – 2 years [CCP § 335.11]
- • Medical Malpractice – 3 years from the date of injury, or 1 year after the plaintiff discovers the injury, whichever occurs first. [CCP § 340.5] Note: You must give 90 days notice of intent to sue. [CCP § 364] Note: Statute may be tolled by (1) upon proof of fraud, (2) intentional concealment, or (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of the injured person. [CCP § 340.5]
- • Lawsuits Against Public Entities (like cities or counties) – Must file a claim within 6 months. Then you have 6 months from the date of the rejection letter to file a lawsuit.
Once again, please be advised that this page is not legal advice, nor is it intended as such, and there is no guarantee that this information is up to date. If you need legal advice, you should contact a lawyer.
Leave a Reply
Helpful Hints for the Solo Practioner
Category: Helpful Hints for the Solo Practioner
Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo
May 11th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Cheat-Sheet for the Over-Worked Solo Civil Law Time Limits A Cheat Sheet for California Lawyers, by California Lawyers Hello Counsellor: Here is a…
We Work For Them
June 26th, 2012 by berkeslaw
We Work For Them Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend: As a solo,…
Nickels Are The Size of Manhole Covers
June 24th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Nickels Are The Size of Manhole Covers In these days of enormous economic stress, it is all too easy for the solo practitioner…
Don’t Touch That Dial
June 14th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Don’t Touch That Dial While use, mis-use and abuse of electronic means of storage and communication are now inexorable features of daily living,…
Hold Fast
June 4th, 2012 by berkeslaw
Hold Fast Potential new hourly clients, especially these days, will do everything possible to talk you out of lowering, or eliminating altogether, your…
Waking Up Is Hard To Do
b e r k e s l a w
Waking Up Is Hard To Do
COURTROOM FOLLIES
A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result. Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy. Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.
WAKING UP IS HARD TO DO
Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”
Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”
Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”
AN OFFER’S STILL AN OFFER
Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”
Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”
THERE SIMPLY ARE NO WORDS
Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, 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.”
AT LEAST IT WASN’T THE GUY FROM THE PREVIOUS POST
Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”
Witness: “I could see his head.”
Lawyer: “And where was his head?”
Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”
ITS MY DUTY TO DRINK
Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”
Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”
NOW THAT YOU ASKED
Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”
Witness: “The victim lived.”
LET’S AT LEAST BE ACCURATE
Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”
Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”
WHAT HE SAID
Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”
Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”
ONLY THE WITNESS KNOWS
◦ Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”
◦ Witness: “I only have one, you know.”
ASK ME THAT ONE MORE TIME, AND I’LL . . .
◦ Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
◦ Witness: “By death.”
◦ Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
(stay tuned for future installments!)
courtroom follies
Category: Courtroom Follies
“Could you Perhaps Rephrase that Last Response?”
September 4th, 2017 by berkeslaw
“COULD YOU PERHAPS REPHRASE THAT LAST RESPONSE? INTRODUCTION A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can…
MORE COURTROOM FOLLIES: Waking up the Dead
January 25th, 2017 by berkeslaw
MORE COURTROOM FOLLIES: Waking up the Dead A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that…
Waking Up Is Hard To Do
August 12th, 2014 by berkeslaw
Waking Up Is Hard To Do COURTROOM FOLLIES A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell…
Sophie and Ernie
August 13th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Sophie and Ernie Sophie Tucker and her boyfriend Ernie were sitting around one lazy day when Ernie, hoping to inspire a little jealousy,…
Courtroom Follies Presents All New, Product Warnings
June 29th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Courtroom Follies Presents All New, Product Warnings WARNING: DON’T READ THE PRODUCT WARNINGS As a lawyer, it’s not easy for me to admit…
Signs & Notices: Read ‘em And Weep
May 11th, 2013 by berkeslaw
Signs & Notices: Read ‘em And Weep Face it; lawyers are everywhere. And, besides Congress <gag> one place you are sure to find…
b e r k e s l a w @xyzzy1973 I seem to have gott…
b e r k e s l a w Well, You Asked It
Well, You Asked It
A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result. Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy. Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.
Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”
Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”
Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”
Witness: “Fair.”
Lawyer: “Are you married?”
Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”
Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”
Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”
Lawyer: “And who is this person you are speaking of?”
Witness: “My ex-widow said it.
Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”
Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”
Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”
Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”
Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”
Witness: “Yes sir.”
Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”
Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”
Witness: “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.”
Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”
Witness: “No.”
Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”
Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”
Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”
Witness: “Attached to the ears.”
Lawyer: “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?”
Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”
Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”
Witness: “Oral.”
Lawyer: “How old are you?”
Witness: “Oral.”
Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”
Witness: “She is my daughter.”
Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”
Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”
Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”
b e r k e s l a w We Work For Them
We Work For Them
Here’s a Helpful Hint for the Solo Practitioner, which came as a reminder from a friend: As a solo, and trying to bring value to a client, do not ever forget that we work for the client, and not the other way around. Forgetting who’s paying whom is a sure fire way to stop getting paid. Integrity pays.
Post a Comment
b e r k e s l a w Warning FOGS
b e r k e s l a w Waking Up Is Hard To Do
Waking Up Is Hard To Do
COURTROOM FOLLIES
A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result. Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy. Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.
WAKING UP IS HARD TO DO
Lawyer: “And what did he do then?”
Witness: “He came home, and next morning he was dead.”
Lawyer: “So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?”
AN OFFER’S STILL AN OFFER
Lawyer: “Did you tell your lawyer that your husband had offered you indignities?”
Witness: “He didn’t offer me nothing. He just said I could have the furniture.”
THERE SIMPLY ARE NO WORDS
Lawyer: “So, after the anesthesia, 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.”
AT LEAST IT WASN’T THE GUY FROM THE PREVIOUS POST
Lawyer: “Could you see him from where you were standing?”
Witness: “I could see his head.”
Lawyer: “And where was his head?”
Witness: “Just above his shoulders.”
ITS MY DUTY TO DRINK
Lawyer: “Do you drink when you’re on duty?”
Witness: “I don’t drink when I’m on duty, unless I come on duty drunk.”
NOW THAT YOU ASKED
Lawyer: “Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?”
Witness: “The victim lived.”
LET’S AT LEAST BE ACCURATE
Lawyer: “The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased, objective witness, isn’t it? You too were shot in the fracas.”
Witness: “No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the naval.”
WHAT HE SAID
Lawyer: “Officer, what led you to believe the defendant was under the influence?”
Witness: “Because he was argumentary, and he couldn’t pronunciate his words.”
ONLY THE WITNESS KNOWS
◦ Lawyer: “Was that the same nose you broke as a child?”
◦ Witness: “I only have one, you know.”
ASK ME THAT ONE MORE TIME, AND I’LL . . .
◦ Lawyer: “Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?”
◦ Witness: “By death.”
◦ Lawyer: “And by whose death was it terminated?”
(stay tuned for future installments!)
b e r k e s l a w “狂热是一个可以’吨…
b e r k e s l a w Try as you might, it is hard t…
b e r k e s l a w “Today we may say aloud before…
b e r k e s l a w To The Rescue
b e r k e s l a w To The Rescue
To The Rescue
I just received this email from a dear friend who lives in New York, and walked the walk last night in Staten Island. I want to share this story with people in every way I know how. I will keep my friend’s [and other] names out of this, but not for lack of pride. Please read this:
Post a Comment