crazietalk.net

lawgrad91 wrote:Two co-defendants are charged with robbery of a man in his home for $140 from his wallet. The victim speaks no English. During the preliminary hearing, it comes to light that the victim and the female co-defendant, um, shall we say know each other in the Biblical sense, and that his dinero is helping to pay for her drug addiction.

The defense attorney asked, "How much did you pay her for sex?" Answer: "Twenty dollars."

Question: "Were you having vaginal intercourse or oral sex?" Answer: "I don't understand."

It was fun to watch the defense attorney turn various shades of red, trying to explain the difference. The interpreter turned pretty red as well.

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Two co-defendants are charged with robbery of a man in his home for $140 from his wallet. The victim speaks no English. During the preliminary hearing, it comes to light that the victim and the female co-defendant, um, shall we say know each other in the Biblical sense, and that his dinero is helping to pay for her drug addiction.

The defense attorney asked, "How much did you pay her for sex?" Answer: "Twenty dollars."

Question: "Were you having vaginal intercourse or oral sex?" Answer: "I don't understand."

It was fun to watch the defense attorney turn various shades of red, trying to explain the difference. The interpreter turned pretty red as well.

That great old show, "Nightcourt" comes to mind. This would have made a terrific story line. They'd have played it to the hilt!
Love, Ima

lawgrad91 wrote:

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Two co-defendants are charged with robbery of a man in his home for $140 from his wallet. The victim speaks no English. During the preliminary hearing, it comes to light that the victim and the female co-defendant, um, shall we say know each other in the Biblical sense, and that his dinero is helping to pay for her drug addiction.

The defense attorney asked, "How much did you pay her for sex?" Answer: "Twenty dollars."

Question: "Were you having vaginal intercourse or oral sex?" Answer: "I don't understand."

It was fun to watch the defense attorney turn various shades of red, trying to explain the difference. The interpreter turned pretty red as well.

That great old show, "Nightcourt" comes to mind. This would have made a terrific story line. They'd have played it to the hilt!
Love, Ima

Not the first time salacious information has stumped people in court.

I was besieged once by courtroom personnel wanting to know what "fell-ahh-tee-yo" was.

One of the bailiffs then said, "well, why didn't they just say 'suck' if that's what they meant?"

lawgrad91 wrote:Two co-defendants are charged with robbery of a man in his home for $140 from his wallet. The victim speaks no English. During the preliminary hearing, it comes to light that the victim and the female co-defendant, um, shall we say know each other in the Biblical sense, and that his dinero is helping to pay for her drug addiction.

The defense attorney asked, "How much did you pay her for sex?" Answer: "Twenty dollars."

Question: "Were you having vaginal intercourse or oral sex?" Answer: "I don't understand."

It was fun to watch the defense attorney turn various shades of red, trying to explain the difference. The interpreter turned pretty red as well.

lawgrad91 wrote:Poor TigerDevil is having a bond hearing as we speak, and her client just said she needed to leave the state pending her case because she has a job opportunity in Connecticut, "which is right next to North Carolina."

lawgrad91 wrote:I'm just full of helpful advice today.

People who fail drug tests for cocaine probably should not try the excuse "I didn't smoke crack, someone put it in punch at a party I attended."

lawgrad91 wrote:I am officially a .

Just wrote in regarding a typo in a Court of Appeals opinion. Someone apparently ran the spell check and didn't read the opinion, unless the Court really did mean to give the defendant a sentence "OFTEN YEARS," rather than a sentence "OF TEN YEARS."

lawgrad91 wrote:I don't need my esteemed colleague CathyCA's fashion sense to know that it's a bad idea for a defendant to wear a shirt depicting two humans engaged in something commonly referred to as "doggy style."

lawgrad91 wrote:Another court tip: If you are unlucky enough to ever be a defendant, you do not have to help the other side prove its case. So when the witness says, "He threw my cordless drill right through the screen of my TV," you do not need to inform the court and every spectator in the courtroom that you "only put the drill on the TV and it fell through the screen."

lawgrad91 wrote:Another court tip: If you are unlucky enough to ever be a defendant, you do not have to help the other side prove its case. So when the witness says, "He threw my cordless drill right through the screen of my TV," you do not need to inform the court and every spectator in the courtroom that you "only put the drill on the TV and it fell through the screen."

CathyCA wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:Another court tip: If you are unlucky enough to ever be a defendant, you do not have to help the other side prove its case. So when the witness says, "He threw my cordless drill right through the screen of my TV," you do not need to inform the court and every spectator in the courtroom that you "only put the drill on the TV and it fell through the screen."

This will hereinafter be referred to as the Henry County Corollary to the Miranda Rule.

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Gosh, how I wish you could get us pictures of all these dudes.
Love, Ima