When something as serious as the judiciary comes face-to-face with unhinged human behavior, the contrast creates either surreal comedy or absolute chaos.
There have been plenty of cases where high emotions or a total ignorance of legal decorum led defendants to yell bizarre statements, insult judges, or even show up completely intoxicated in front of the bench.
This post may include affiliate links.
#21
‘Is my client a perfect man? No.”
“I k****d him, yeah.”.
“I k****d him, yeah.”.
Report
15points
#22
In Texas I watched a felony get won by the defense because the prosecutors completely forgot to prove that the crime happened in our County.
15points
The stories in this list prove that courtroom dramas don’t need to be centered on large-law-firm cases or on retribution for serious crimes to be interesting. Everyday disputes, civil and criminal cases, and workplace conflicts have more opportunities to create empathy and immersion.
They also show us what human behavior looks like when people are pushed into high-stakes situations with nothing but their own flaws and weird quirks to guide them.
#23
Not an attorney, but I was technically evicted from my old apartment....after we had baically vacated it. The rent jumped something like 20-30% and we couldn't afford it. So we quit paying rent and looked for a new place.
We had an eviction notice and a lawsuit waiting for us when we showed up to clean the place up. So we only cleaned the bare minimums required in our rental agreement. We took pictures of everything, and documented everything including the letter we turned in with the keys.
When we got to the day of court for the eviction hearing, we showed up with our pictures and documents, and no one for the apartment showed up. Eviction court, though, isn't like criminal or other civil proceedings in my state (as far as I could tell). The other side not showing up doesn't mean you're not evicted. It just means the process takes longer because you wait for a court-supplied lawyer to look at what you have, hear the details, and then relay that to the judge for you.
We explained exactly what happened and why. We showed him all the documentation of every attempted conversation (calls, text, and email) and how terse the Manager's responses were. We told him we had already vacated the apartment and turned the keys in, showing our proof of that.
He looked dumbfounded. Like...in the filing they alleged that we refused to pay rent, refused to communicate, and had not turned in our keys. Technically true on the last point, but that's because we were only served the papers after we notified her of our intention to move and when we'd be out of the apartment. We showed up to a lawsuit and eviction notice. We didn't really care about the outcome because we already found a new place; it'd only be an issue if we had to move again soon, but that was a future problem.
We talked with the attorney about it for all of maybe 5 minutes on the eviction. We asked about the lawsuit for back rent.
He laughed and said he'd ask the judge about it, but was reasonably certain that because we had already paid first month, last month, security deposit and let deposit we shouldn't have to worry about that. Legally, the apartment would have to provide an itemized receipt of what our security and pet deposit was used for and turn over any unused portion, but the judge could rule that they automatically use any unused portion to satisfy the debt and forgive the rest.
The judge was the nicest person ever! The lawyer gave a recap of the situation and showed all our documentation. He requested a favorable ruling because we had done everything we were required to, and more, and had actually shown up.
Our eviction was dismissed because we already had vacated. He required the apartment to furnish documentation to the court on all costs incurred to turn over the apartment, as well as all documentation of all monies paid to them while we were tenants. If they felt we had damaged something, they needed pictures and other documentation for it to be considered.
And in the end, the money we were due back from the apartment from deposits was used to pay off a big chunk of what we owed and the rest was forgiven.
10/10 many lessons learned. And even if the eviction remained, it wouldn't have mattered. We have been living in the same apartment complex we moved into back then for over a decade now and we couldn't be happier. Our landlord adores us!
We had an eviction notice and a lawsuit waiting for us when we showed up to clean the place up. So we only cleaned the bare minimums required in our rental agreement. We took pictures of everything, and documented everything including the letter we turned in with the keys.
When we got to the day of court for the eviction hearing, we showed up with our pictures and documents, and no one for the apartment showed up. Eviction court, though, isn't like criminal or other civil proceedings in my state (as far as I could tell). The other side not showing up doesn't mean you're not evicted. It just means the process takes longer because you wait for a court-supplied lawyer to look at what you have, hear the details, and then relay that to the judge for you.
We explained exactly what happened and why. We showed him all the documentation of every attempted conversation (calls, text, and email) and how terse the Manager's responses were. We told him we had already vacated the apartment and turned the keys in, showing our proof of that.
He looked dumbfounded. Like...in the filing they alleged that we refused to pay rent, refused to communicate, and had not turned in our keys. Technically true on the last point, but that's because we were only served the papers after we notified her of our intention to move and when we'd be out of the apartment. We showed up to a lawsuit and eviction notice. We didn't really care about the outcome because we already found a new place; it'd only be an issue if we had to move again soon, but that was a future problem.
We talked with the attorney about it for all of maybe 5 minutes on the eviction. We asked about the lawsuit for back rent.
He laughed and said he'd ask the judge about it, but was reasonably certain that because we had already paid first month, last month, security deposit and let deposit we shouldn't have to worry about that. Legally, the apartment would have to provide an itemized receipt of what our security and pet deposit was used for and turn over any unused portion, but the judge could rule that they automatically use any unused portion to satisfy the debt and forgive the rest.
The judge was the nicest person ever! The lawyer gave a recap of the situation and showed all our documentation. He requested a favorable ruling because we had done everything we were required to, and more, and had actually shown up.
Our eviction was dismissed because we already had vacated. He required the apartment to furnish documentation to the court on all costs incurred to turn over the apartment, as well as all documentation of all monies paid to them while we were tenants. If they felt we had damaged something, they needed pictures and other documentation for it to be considered.
And in the end, the money we were due back from the apartment from deposits was used to pay off a big chunk of what we owed and the rest was forgiven.
10/10 many lessons learned. And even if the eviction remained, it wouldn't have mattered. We have been living in the same apartment complex we moved into back then for over a decade now and we couldn't be happier. Our landlord adores us!
14points
#24
I had a client who’s medical malpractice trial was about to begin the next day, and that day, she was on the cover of the local paper being interviewed about a robbery, where she told the reporter she chased the perp down the street.
Her own statement. On the cover of the paper.
She was looking for damages in her medmal lawsuit because she allegedly couldn’t walk without pain.
Her own statement. On the cover of the paper.
She was looking for damages in her medmal lawsuit because she allegedly couldn’t walk without pain.
14points
#25
I was talking with a defense lawyer long ago, he related a story of a client pulled over on his way home in a bad neighborhood. The police, acting on a tip, got his permission to search the car, and found a significant amount of c*****e hidden under the shifter boot of his Camaro.
So, the lawyer cross examined prosecution witnesses, and underlined for the jury that the defendant never acknowledged ownership of the d**g, but had insisted the car was shared among a few people ("do remember the defendant saying xyz"), and therefore introducing a possibility the d***s were not his. Further, the tipster had specified exactly what amount of d**g and the specific location, which meant they were present when it was hidden, possibly because they had planted it.
It wasn't an airtight defense, but it left a couple windows for reasonable doubt, and might have induced an offer on reduced charges, and/or leniency at sentencing, even if there wasn't a conviction.
However, the defendant was adamant about testifying. A lawyer can recommend against it, relate that it is almost never a good idea, but a defendant has an absolute right to be heard if the wish, and this defendant would not relent.
He was sworn in, and stated he had no idea how the d***s got there, and that he knew people who didn't like him, who had access to the car and to d***s,
The prosecutor questioned him on the facts already entered, to see which he did not refute.
"You are the owner of the car?"
"Yes."
"You were driving the night of [date]?"
"Yes."
"You were driving at [location]?"
"Yes."
"You were pulled over by police?"
"Yes."
"They ordered you out of the vehicle?"
"Yes."
"You obeyed that order?"
"Yes."
"You obeyed that order because you knew it was a lawful command?"
"Yes."
"They asked your permission to search the car?"
"Yes."
"You granted then permission to search your car?"
"Yes."
"You granted them permission because you knew they wouldn't look under the shift boot?"
"Yes."
"No further questions your Honor.".
So, the lawyer cross examined prosecution witnesses, and underlined for the jury that the defendant never acknowledged ownership of the d**g, but had insisted the car was shared among a few people ("do remember the defendant saying xyz"), and therefore introducing a possibility the d***s were not his. Further, the tipster had specified exactly what amount of d**g and the specific location, which meant they were present when it was hidden, possibly because they had planted it.
It wasn't an airtight defense, but it left a couple windows for reasonable doubt, and might have induced an offer on reduced charges, and/or leniency at sentencing, even if there wasn't a conviction.
However, the defendant was adamant about testifying. A lawyer can recommend against it, relate that it is almost never a good idea, but a defendant has an absolute right to be heard if the wish, and this defendant would not relent.
He was sworn in, and stated he had no idea how the d***s got there, and that he knew people who didn't like him, who had access to the car and to d***s,
The prosecutor questioned him on the facts already entered, to see which he did not refute.
"You are the owner of the car?"
"Yes."
"You were driving the night of [date]?"
"Yes."
"You were driving at [location]?"
"Yes."
"You were pulled over by police?"
"Yes."
"They ordered you out of the vehicle?"
"Yes."
"You obeyed that order?"
"Yes."
"You obeyed that order because you knew it was a lawful command?"
"Yes."
"They asked your permission to search the car?"
"Yes."
"You granted then permission to search your car?"
"Yes."
"You granted them permission because you knew they wouldn't look under the shift boot?"
"Yes."
"No further questions your Honor.".
Report
13points
#26
My cousin's a defense attorney and had a guy who got pulled over for speeding insist the officer's radar g*n was calibrated wrong because it was a full moon that night. They actually went to court over it.
13points
#27
Not a lawyer but a good friend of my racist uncle got summoned at court for buying a couple of stolen scooter (according to him not realising they were stolen until he got called) in the south of the country, for context, here in Italy there's a deeply rooted racism towards the south in the North.
Asked if he suspected foul play, his response was "I did, when i realised they were (slur for southerners)".
Asked if he suspected foul play, his response was "I did, when i realised they were (slur for southerners)".
Report
13points
#28
My father-in-law once lost a case because he said in court, “A man with a name like Jesse James was born to steal.”
I’ve always wondered if he did it on purpose because he thought the man was actually innocent.
I’ve always wondered if he did it on purpose because he thought the man was actually innocent.
Report
12points
#29
Not a lawyer but a law student, had to analyze and summarize a case where a woman divorced and remarried her husband 12 times in 15 years.
12points
#30
I am not a lawyer, but the idiot who lost the case I am talking about was an attorney.
I once worked for an oil and gas company located in a state that isn’t known for oil. The company was originally a gas utility for an area and then started the oil and gas business to provide natural gas to the utility.
The basis of the litigation in question was underpayment of royalties to the mineral owners. The mineral owners alleged that the company was paying them less than the fair market price for their royalty gas volumes.
They were correct, sorta. If Henry Hub gas was $3.50/mmbtu, they were only being paid $2.00/mmbtu. However, the reason for this was the State Utility Commission.
The State Utility Commission set the gas price that the company could charge their customers. This fixed price translated as $2.00/mmbtu to the royalty owners. The company’s leases contractually tied the leases to providing gas to the utility, so they couldn’t legally sell the gas on the open market for a higher price. They had to sell to the utility side of the business for lower, fixed price set by the Utility Commission.
A set of plaintiff attorneys discovered the issue and collected a group of mineral owners for a class action lawsuit. The facts of the case were straightforward and the company should have easily won.
However, the CEO of the company, who was an attorney, lied on the witness stand during cross examination about something completely inconsequential. He was asked if he had ever been sued before and he said “no”.
In fact he had been sued before and the lawsuit was widely known and reported upon. If he had answered yes, it would have had zero bearing on the case. The question was a mere foundational question setting up a line of questioning by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff attorney doing the cross jumped on the lie and completely destroyed the CEO’s credibility.
The company lost the lawsuit and had to pay a massive sum that was 50% greater than their market capitalization. They narrowly avoided bankruptcy and the CEO was fired and the company General Counsel, who had botched the case, went home and k****d himself.
I once worked for an oil and gas company located in a state that isn’t known for oil. The company was originally a gas utility for an area and then started the oil and gas business to provide natural gas to the utility.
The basis of the litigation in question was underpayment of royalties to the mineral owners. The mineral owners alleged that the company was paying them less than the fair market price for their royalty gas volumes.
They were correct, sorta. If Henry Hub gas was $3.50/mmbtu, they were only being paid $2.00/mmbtu. However, the reason for this was the State Utility Commission.
The State Utility Commission set the gas price that the company could charge their customers. This fixed price translated as $2.00/mmbtu to the royalty owners. The company’s leases contractually tied the leases to providing gas to the utility, so they couldn’t legally sell the gas on the open market for a higher price. They had to sell to the utility side of the business for lower, fixed price set by the Utility Commission.
A set of plaintiff attorneys discovered the issue and collected a group of mineral owners for a class action lawsuit. The facts of the case were straightforward and the company should have easily won.
However, the CEO of the company, who was an attorney, lied on the witness stand during cross examination about something completely inconsequential. He was asked if he had ever been sued before and he said “no”.
In fact he had been sued before and the lawsuit was widely known and reported upon. If he had answered yes, it would have had zero bearing on the case. The question was a mere foundational question setting up a line of questioning by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff attorney doing the cross jumped on the lie and completely destroyed the CEO’s credibility.
The company lost the lawsuit and had to pay a massive sum that was 50% greater than their market capitalization. They narrowly avoided bankruptcy and the CEO was fired and the company General Counsel, who had botched the case, went home and k****d himself.
9points
#31
Constant lying.
I was tasked with trying to get an arbitration award vacated. That is an extraordinarily difficult task. We lost (I think the judge didn't even read our papers honestly).
But the reason that the client lost the arbitration was because the arbitrator had to constantly reprimand him for dishonesty. His case was actually pretty easy. If a particular contract was a collective bargaining agreement, then he won. The contract had a cover page that said in big bold all caps "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT." The arbitrator determined it was not a collective bargaining agreement out of spite for the clients constant constant constant lies.
I was tasked with trying to get an arbitration award vacated. That is an extraordinarily difficult task. We lost (I think the judge didn't even read our papers honestly).
But the reason that the client lost the arbitration was because the arbitrator had to constantly reprimand him for dishonesty. His case was actually pretty easy. If a particular contract was a collective bargaining agreement, then he won. The contract had a cover page that said in big bold all caps "COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT." The arbitrator determined it was not a collective bargaining agreement out of spite for the clients constant constant constant lies.
9points
#32
Other party never responded to a complaint where the damages were estimated at $100k+. Contacted our office, was told that, while it was unadvisable, he could represent himself, but not his corporation, which was also a defendant in the case. After he missed the first deadline, the judge also instructed him of this. He still refused to hire counsel or respond to the complaint or any of the Court's orders. Judge finally granted a default judgment, including attorney's fees and costs.
Report
9points
#33
Saw a mistrial on the first witness within two minutes because plaintiff's witness broke one of plaintiffs motions in limine. That was special, but annoying.
I also think the guy who admitted on the stand that he had lied about being a student while a tenant at rent controlled housing might be the most Phoenix Wright level stupidity I've seen yet. Jury found against him. Shocker.
I also think the guy who admitted on the stand that he had lied about being a student while a tenant at rent controlled housing might be the most Phoenix Wright level stupidity I've seen yet. Jury found against him. Shocker.
8points
#34
Perhaps not exactly what you are wanting but:
1. Smoking w**d in the car.
2. Giving cops permission to search their person/belongings/vehicle when they have d***s on them.
3. Admitting to having d***s on them to cops.
1. Is where it is because smelling like w**d is automatic probable cause. Like 90% of criminal m*******a cases come from people smoking in their cars, and most of the rest come from the car smelled like pot. Pretty high percentage of busts for possession of harder d**g come from those too. If you smell like pot, don't drive with anything illegal in the car. And if there is anything illegal in the car, wait until you get home to smoke.
The last two I say because it's truly amazing how often officers don't have probable cause, but when they ask people admit to possession or, even dumber, deny possession then give permission for a search when they know they've got stuff on them.
1. Smoking w**d in the car.
2. Giving cops permission to search their person/belongings/vehicle when they have d***s on them.
3. Admitting to having d***s on them to cops.
1. Is where it is because smelling like w**d is automatic probable cause. Like 90% of criminal m*******a cases come from people smoking in their cars, and most of the rest come from the car smelled like pot. Pretty high percentage of busts for possession of harder d**g come from those too. If you smell like pot, don't drive with anything illegal in the car. And if there is anything illegal in the car, wait until you get home to smoke.
The last two I say because it's truly amazing how often officers don't have probable cause, but when they ask people admit to possession or, even dumber, deny possession then give permission for a search when they know they've got stuff on them.
Report
8points
#35
I’m not a lawyer, but my wife had a guy t bone her because he crossed the double yellow line to get around a lot of traffic. They were screaming at each other and cursing each other out, I made them stop by telling them I called the police. Dude immediately went to his trunk and got a set of crutches and a boot for his foot. When the cop got there he claimed that he was injured.
When we got to court, he was limping in a very exaggerated manner, he brought a word document (like one he typed himself) that had HOSPITAL BILL typed on the top, and the five or six things itemized, like BROKEN ANKLE…$2000, STRESS…$8,000, stuff like that. Then he brought photos of the intersection a block away from where the accident happened where the road went to two lanes. The judge awarded him $12,000, and right after dude threw his crutches on the ground and shouted, “THATS WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT!!!”
I approached the bench after the verdict, and gave the judge a w*f look. He told me that he had a more severe personal injury case in half an hour and the dude was getting on his nerves. For the record, I never have luck like that.
When we got to court, he was limping in a very exaggerated manner, he brought a word document (like one he typed himself) that had HOSPITAL BILL typed on the top, and the five or six things itemized, like BROKEN ANKLE…$2000, STRESS…$8,000, stuff like that. Then he brought photos of the intersection a block away from where the accident happened where the road went to two lanes. The judge awarded him $12,000, and right after dude threw his crutches on the ground and shouted, “THATS WHAT IM TALKIN ABOUT!!!”
I approached the bench after the verdict, and gave the judge a w*f look. He told me that he had a more severe personal injury case in half an hour and the dude was getting on his nerves. For the record, I never have luck like that.
-7points