A court of law is a serious place. We think of courtrooms as places that serve justice, where people act with composure and focus on logical decision-making. Yet sometimes, judges face cases and arguments so ridiculous that it can feel like a hidden camera is watching.
Plenty of ridiculous lawsuits have plagued the U.S. court system. For example, PETA tried to prove, albeit unsuccessfully, that a monkey can own a copyright to its own selfie. Michael Jordan and the Nike CEO have been sued by a self-proclaimed look-alike, citing damages for emotional pain and suffering.
Absurd reasoning is a staple in court hearings too, it seems, as many lawyers have shared plenty of funny stories when one netizen asked, “Lawyers of Reddit, what’s the most ridiculous argument you've heard in court?” From trying to justify running a red light because the sun was in their eyes to claiming responsibility simply because they drive a Prius, these folks really should’ve used a better defense in court, because theirs was pretty laughable.
#21
Not a lawyer but my uncle is. He had to defend a man accused of b*********y with a horse.
Defence was that his d**k was too small to actually achieve climax in the horse's a**s, ergo he didn't actually have s*x 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.
Defence was that his d**k was too small to actually achieve climax in the horse's a**s, ergo he didn't actually have s*x 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.
Report
11points
#22
Girlfriend is a reddit lurker. Posting on her behalf:
This is a story that my grandpa always tells, so some of the details are fuzzy but this is the gist of it. My grandpa was a public defender, and this was a defense he used for one of his clients, who was being accused of attempting to break into a car.
How it happened: Man #1 is sitting in his house, and he looks out the window and sees Man #2 next to a car parked in the street. Man #2 is out there fiddling with the car door for like 10 minutes, and so Man #1 realizes he's trying to break into the car and calls the cops. Man #2 runs, and eventually Man #3, my grandpa's client, is picked up nearby because he matched the description of Man #2.
So my grandpa is meeting with his client and telling him what he's accused of. Client asks, "Wait, what kind of car was it?" Grandpa tells him. Client says, "I can prove that it wasn't me." Grandpa: "How?" Client: "You said the guy was out there for 10 minutes – I can break into that car in less than 20 seconds." Grandpa: "Prove it."
So he finds one of whatever kind of car it was, and the client proceeds to pick the lock in 12 seconds. Grandpa gets the judge out there, and the client does it again for the judge, who makes him do it one more time and then dismisses the case.
This is a story that my grandpa always tells, so some of the details are fuzzy but this is the gist of it. My grandpa was a public defender, and this was a defense he used for one of his clients, who was being accused of attempting to break into a car.
How it happened: Man #1 is sitting in his house, and he looks out the window and sees Man #2 next to a car parked in the street. Man #2 is out there fiddling with the car door for like 10 minutes, and so Man #1 realizes he's trying to break into the car and calls the cops. Man #2 runs, and eventually Man #3, my grandpa's client, is picked up nearby because he matched the description of Man #2.
So my grandpa is meeting with his client and telling him what he's accused of. Client asks, "Wait, what kind of car was it?" Grandpa tells him. Client says, "I can prove that it wasn't me." Grandpa: "How?" Client: "You said the guy was out there for 10 minutes – I can break into that car in less than 20 seconds." Grandpa: "Prove it."
So he finds one of whatever kind of car it was, and the client proceeds to pick the lock in 12 seconds. Grandpa gets the judge out there, and the client does it again for the judge, who makes him do it one more time and then dismisses the case.
Report
11points
#23
Dammit, this thread is five hours old and this comment will never see the light of day, but f**k it.
This wasn't so much a bad argument, but an example of terrible questioning.
This was a CERCLA case (clean up of polluted ground water and soil). A witness (a former manager of the polluted property) was asked the following at a deposition:
Q: Did you ever see anything strange?
[At that point, a number of objections to the question were made by the attorneys present]
A: What? Did I ever see anything strange is your question?
Q: Yes sir. Did you ever see anything strange?
A: Yes. I saw a man with b***s.
Q: You saw a man with b***s at the site?
A: No. I saw a man with b***s in New Orleans once.
This wasn't so much a bad argument, but an example of terrible questioning.
This was a CERCLA case (clean up of polluted ground water and soil). A witness (a former manager of the polluted property) was asked the following at a deposition:
Q: Did you ever see anything strange?
[At that point, a number of objections to the question were made by the attorneys present]
A: What? Did I ever see anything strange is your question?
Q: Yes sir. Did you ever see anything strange?
A: Yes. I saw a man with b***s.
Q: You saw a man with b***s at the site?
A: No. I saw a man with b***s in New Orleans once.
Report
11points
#24
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.
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.
Report
10points
#25
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.
Report
10points
#26
Not a lawyer, did work experience with one back in highschool.
He had to go speak to someone in the court cells, where I wasn't allowed, so I went and sat in one of the courtrooms while he did that. There were a few cases, but the one that stood out were the 2 guys who both had some injuries and claimed the other one had attacked them unprovoked. Neither wanted any representation, there was no evidence apart from them blaming each other, and when the lawyer I was with came to find me, they were literally just stood in front on the judge screaming "He did it"/"No he did it" over and over again.
Edit: Just thought of another story from a close friend who's a defence barrister:
Her client was a building firm that had done shoddy work on an OAP's roof that had lead to it collapsing, causing the OAP a head injury and fractured hip, so were being sued. She said the damages were wildly inflated in value by the prosecution, but her client was even more ridiculous with their offer. Her research had shown her that the minimum they should have been offering for the collapse of the roof alone, without the additional injuries, should have been ~£4000. They refused to offer more than £1600 on the grounds that they expected her to d*e before anything happened as a result of their work. She said she'd never felt more embarrassed than when she had to tell the judge this in front of the prosecution and their client.
He had to go speak to someone in the court cells, where I wasn't allowed, so I went and sat in one of the courtrooms while he did that. There were a few cases, but the one that stood out were the 2 guys who both had some injuries and claimed the other one had attacked them unprovoked. Neither wanted any representation, there was no evidence apart from them blaming each other, and when the lawyer I was with came to find me, they were literally just stood in front on the judge screaming "He did it"/"No he did it" over and over again.
Edit: Just thought of another story from a close friend who's a defence barrister:
Her client was a building firm that had done shoddy work on an OAP's roof that had lead to it collapsing, causing the OAP a head injury and fractured hip, so were being sued. She said the damages were wildly inflated in value by the prosecution, but her client was even more ridiculous with their offer. Her research had shown her that the minimum they should have been offering for the collapse of the roof alone, without the additional injuries, should have been ~£4000. They refused to offer more than £1600 on the grounds that they expected her to d*e before anything happened as a result of their work. She said she'd never felt more embarrassed than when she had to tell the judge this in front of the prosecution and their client.
Report
10points
#27
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.
Report
10points
#28
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.
Edit: This was 7 years ago, we are still not friends on Facebook, and she's blocked on everything I have an account for.
9points
#29
Not a lawyer but when my mom was k****d by a drunk driver, we were filing a wrongful d***h suit. And the lawyer for the defense used my mom's cancer to say that she was going to d*e anyways so a wrongful d***h dispensation was not owed.
Report
9points
#30
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.
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.
Report
9points
#31
As with everyone else in this thread, I am not a lawyer but did work in court.
Had multiple mothers in separate cases claim that they couldn't be sent to prison because it breached their "European Union right to a family life". I can only assume they got it from something like the Daily Mail because they all used that same phrasing.
Edit: Yes, this was at least in the UK.
Had multiple mothers in separate cases claim that they couldn't be sent to prison because it breached their "European Union right to a family life". I can only assume they got it from something like the Daily Mail because they all used that same phrasing.
Edit: Yes, this was at least in the UK.
Report
9points
#32
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.
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.
9points
#33
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 d**g charges for distribution. He was selling w**d. His lawyer tried to argue to the judge that w**d 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 w**d to calm people down.
His client got something like 3 years in jail, and 5 years probation.
One guy was up on d**g charges for distribution. He was selling w**d. His lawyer tried to argue to the judge that w**d 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 w**d to calm people down.
His client got something like 3 years in jail, and 5 years probation.
Report
9points
#34
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.".
Report
9points
#35
In family court hearing a motion for entry of a restraining order for an a*****e husband. Husband's lawyer argues that in a marriage, there is implied consent for a certain amount of a***e/violence.
Report
9points
#36
Not a lawyer, but I was a part of a court case with an odd defense. I was an assistant manager at a record and tape store. I busted a girl for shop lifting. She filled out part of a form saying she wouldn't come back to the store and then made a run for it. I saw her driver's license as filled out the paperwork, so the info on the paper was hers.
I followed her out and stood behind her car to try to stall her until the police arrived. Not a smart move as she floored it, clipping me and running over the side of my foot. She drives away but the police have her info from the paper so they go get her. Store prosecutes all shop lifters and I am pretty pissed that she was willing to run me over to get away.
Anyway, her lawyer's defense in court was that I had framed an innocent teenager for shoplifting in hopes that I would get a monetary reward from my store. When she realized what I was trying to do, she ran from the scene to escape my nefarious plot. Needless to say, this defense did not fly and she got like 25 hours community service. The court didn't seem to care that she was willing to run me over.
I followed her out and stood behind her car to try to stall her until the police arrived. Not a smart move as she floored it, clipping me and running over the side of my foot. She drives away but the police have her info from the paper so they go get her. Store prosecutes all shop lifters and I am pretty pissed that she was willing to run me over to get away.
Anyway, her lawyer's defense in court was that I had framed an innocent teenager for shoplifting in hopes that I would get a monetary reward from my store. When she realized what I was trying to do, she ran from the scene to escape my nefarious plot. Needless to say, this defense did not fly and she got like 25 hours community service. The court didn't seem to care that she was willing to run me over.
Report
9points
#37
Recovering Small Business/BK Attorney here.
Was in Bankruptcy court on a motion of my own, when a very young attorney gets up to argue his position (his request was denied in pre-hearing disposition).
Young Attorney ("YA") - Your Honor, I believe your reading of the three cases you have cited is incorrect.
Bankruptcy Court Judge ("BKJ") - You think that, do you?
YA - Yes, your honor. I don't think the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel believed these cases would be used in this fashion, and I think you are misreading the author's scope.
BKJ - Ok. Tell me, as those are BAP opinions - who wrote those opinions?
YA - I'm not sure, your honor. I didn't check.
BKJ - In the future you may want to check those sorts of things - all three cases were authored by the judge you just told didn't understand his own writing.
Court Audience (mostly attorneys) - *Collective gasp*
YA - *Blank stare*
BKJ - *facepalm* Jesus, son. I WROTE THOSE OPINIONS.
YA - Oh. Well I still think they're wrong.
BKJ - Request denied. Get the hell out of my courtroom.
It was, quite possibly, the most awkward type of walk of shame I've ever seen as he gathered his things and left.
Was in Bankruptcy court on a motion of my own, when a very young attorney gets up to argue his position (his request was denied in pre-hearing disposition).
Young Attorney ("YA") - Your Honor, I believe your reading of the three cases you have cited is incorrect.
Bankruptcy Court Judge ("BKJ") - You think that, do you?
YA - Yes, your honor. I don't think the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel believed these cases would be used in this fashion, and I think you are misreading the author's scope.
BKJ - Ok. Tell me, as those are BAP opinions - who wrote those opinions?
YA - I'm not sure, your honor. I didn't check.
BKJ - In the future you may want to check those sorts of things - all three cases were authored by the judge you just told didn't understand his own writing.
Court Audience (mostly attorneys) - *Collective gasp*
YA - *Blank stare*
BKJ - *facepalm* Jesus, son. I WROTE THOSE OPINIONS.
YA - Oh. Well I still think they're wrong.
BKJ - Request denied. Get the hell out of my courtroom.
It was, quite possibly, the most awkward type of walk of shame I've ever seen as he gathered his things and left.
Report
9points
#38
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.
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.
Report
8points
#39
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.
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.
8points
#40
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' d*e."
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.
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' d*e."
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.
Report
8points