Sui Generis--a New York law blog

Everyone's A Lawyer

Here's a funny clip from Comedy Central.  Lawyers and clients alike will enjoy it!

Jury Pool From Hell

It sounds like this particular jury pool must have been sipping lots of vodka.  This 2005 AP article describes a rather motley crew of prospective jury members in a Memphis case centering around trailer park violence:

Right after jury selection began last week, one man got up and left, announcing, “I’m on morphine and I’m higher than a kite.”

When the prosecutor asked if anyone had been convicted of a crime, a prospective juror said that he had been arrested and taken to a mental hospital after he almost shot his nephew. He said he was provoked because his nephew just would not come out from under the bed.

Another would-be juror said he had had alcohol problems and was arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer. “I should have known something was up,” he said. “She had all her teeth.”

Another prospect volunteered he probably should not be on the jury: “In my neighborhood, everyone knows that if you get Mr. Ballin (as your lawyer), you’re probably guilty.” He was not chosen.

Now, that's my kind of voir dire!

(Hat tip:  Say What?)

Crimes and Misdemeanors

Surprisingly, there has been criminal activity afoot--even since just last week.  The good news is that I'm here to keep track of it for you.  Ain't it grand?

• Criminal Masterminds Steal GPS Device--And, it lead the cops right to their house!  Doh!  (Dave Barry's Blog)
• PDs Gone Wild!--Well, ok, not really.  What actually happened was that an Asst. PD punched his client in the face in an attempt to subdue him and prevent him from obtaining a court bailiff's gun.  Chaos ensued only to be brought to a sudden halt by the use of a taser.  (Legal Reader)
• Vodka-Sipping Juror Causes Mistrial--I'm envisioning an entirely new defense strategy--providing jurors with coffee mugs full of booze as they enter the jury box.     It's a guaranteed mistrial every time!  (QuizLaw)
• Never give an iguana Viagra--The bad news:  "Mozart, an iguana with an erection that has lasted for over a week, will have his penis amputated in the next couple of days."  The good news:  Apparently he's got a spare.  Way to go Mozart!  (Although not technically crime-related, I figured that at least some of you might think that poor Mozart's predicament violated the Penal Code as explained in this recent post.)
• I Really Do Give a Crap--In a bag!  Delivered to your congressional office!  I do hope that you have enjoyed this exercise of my First Amendment Right to free expression as much as I have, but you'll have to  excuse me now while I head off to court so that my lawyer and I can fight this ridiculous and pesky misdemeanor charge of "use of a noxious substance." (Legal disclaimer:  By "I", I certainly do not mean "me", Nicole Black.  By "I", I mean Kathleen Ensz, some other chick that I definitely do not know.)  (Overlawyered)

Not That Kind of Penal Law!

Here's another bit of legal humor from one of my favorite web sites, Overheard In New York.  In an attempt to keep Sui Generis work-friendly, I've deleted a few choice words from the following conversation.  You'll have to follow this link to read it in its entirety:

An Attorney? Contribute to Society?

Hobo to girl with two bags and seven textbooks: Damn, girl, where you goin' wid all dem books? You rob a Barnes and Noble or somethin'? You tryin'a sell your sh*t, too? Yeah, you know how it is...
Girl: No, I've actually spent the last 18 hours in the library studying for my law school exams so I can become an attorney and contribute to society. But I'm sure you know all about that.
Hobo: Yeah, law school ain't work out for me, neither. How much you sellin' that New York Peen... Penal... Oh, shit! You learn about **** and **** and sh*t in law school?!

-Church St, TriBeCa

No One Told Me It Was Lawyer Appreciation Day!

From Overheard in New York:

One Wonders Why He Doesn't Simply Represent Himself

Young black guy #1: Being a lawyer is a no-brain job. They don't have to know nothing about nothing. Just stand there.
Young black guy #2: Yeah, but I'd like to be a lawyer. I don't want to go to court or nothing, just have the title.
Young black guy #1: Most lawyers are worse than the criminals they defend.
Young black guy #2: So, what's happening with your case?
Young black guy #1: It's getting dismissed, or I'm pleading guilty or something.
Young black guy #2: Yeah?
Young black guy #1: God rest Johnnie Cochran's soul.

The Hazards of Being a Female Lawyer in Criminal Court

From a recent Craigslist posting:

to the cute assistant DA who arraigned me yesterday - m4w
Reply to: pers-264150195@craigslist.org
Date: 2007-01-17, 2:50PM

I noticed you in the courtroom as soon as they let me in from the bullpen; you arraigned me on charges of making graffiti, posession of a graffiti implement and misdemeanor posession. any chance I can buy you dinner when I'm done with my 2 days community service?

Original URL: http://newyork.craigslist.org/mnh/mis/264150195.html

(Hat tip: Knownunknowns)

Comedic Break

For your reading enjoyment, I offer the following:

The following are actual statements placed on insurance forms where the car's driver attempted to summarize the details of their accident in the fewest words possible.

• No one was to blame for the accident but it would never have happened if the other driver had been alert.
• I didn't think the speed limit applied after midnight.
• I was going at about 70 or 80 mph when my girlfriend reached over and grabbed my testicles so I lost control.
• On approach to the traffic lights the car in front suddenly broke.
• The accident was caused by me waving to the man I hit last week.

A Facebook Proposal

I would like to propose an experiment to those who regularly read my blog:  my fellow bloggers, lawyers across New York and law students (hence my reason for including this post under the "funny stuff" category, since I know that many of my law student readers enter my blog through that RSS feed).

What I propose is that a few of you join "Facebook" and then join a group that I've set up there called "Lonely Lawyers on Facebook" (since it appears that I'm one of only two lawyers on Facebook).  I suggest this since  I believe that Facebook offers a number of advantages for discussions and networking over the formats typically used by lawyers such as email list serves on Yahoo, etc., which I find to be unbelievably cumbersome and annoying. 

If you're not familiar with Facebook, here is Wikipedia's description:

Facebook is an English-language social networking website, popular among college students. It was originally developed for university students, faculty and staff, but has since expanded to include everyone, including high school, corporate and geographic communities.

As of December 2005, the website had the largest number of registered users among college-focused sites (at over 7.5 million US college student accounts created with an additional 20,000 new accounts being created daily).  It is the number one site for photos, ahead of public sites such as Flickr, with 2.3 million photos uploaded daily, and is the seventh most visited site in the United States, according to comScore's Media Metrix.

I think that the discussion boards found within the "groups" on Facebook are far easier to read and would be a much better format for discussions amongst lawyers, whatever the particular group's interest.  And, the groups can be set on "private" so that only those who belong to the group can access the discussion boards.  Each group could have its own focus and serve as a more organized and cohesive "list serve" than those generally employed by lawyers when forming groups of this sort.

Furthermore, the profiles allow you to provide information about yourself and your areas of practice--a feature that traditional list serves sometimes have, but it's rarely particularly effective or useful.

But, in order to test out my theory, I need a few good people to join me in this experimental endeavor.  Should you choose to be a brave pioneer, here's how to go about joining my group.

Once you join Facebook, most likely using your geographic location (as opposed to a university, etc.), you can search for my name, "Nicole Black", using the search button at the top left corner of the page.  Once you locate my profile (I used  the same photo of myself as on this blog, so that should make it easy for you), request that I add you as a "friend".  Once I confirm, you can access my profile and can then access a link to the group that I've set up.  At that point you can join the group and the experiment can begin. 

And, for those law students who read my blog and already belong to Facebook, you could always just add me as a "friend" even if you don't want to join my group (although you're certainly welcome to).  As you can see from reading my profile, I'm in desperate need of friends that aren't related to me!

So, how about it?  Any takers willing to venture forth into a brave new frontier?  I'm banking on the fact that a few of my fellow bloggers, who are obviously already quite computer savvy, might be game.  Am I right?

UPDATE:  I've already got a few takers.  We're up to 5 members already.  So, I implore you, my adventurous, thrill-seeking friends--come along and join us and boldly go where no lawyer has gone before.  Onward to Facebook!

Now I Remember Why I Don't Miss Law School

The following conversation from Overheard in New York reminds me of some of the reasons that I never really liked law school in the first place--maddeningly cryptic professors and annoying colleagues full of stupid questions:

Now See, That Was a Normal Question. Four.

Professor: I've heard from students that have taken my exams that they're generally considered thinking exams. Rather than just have you recite the law, I try to throw questions in there that will make you examine the policies behind it... Yes?
Law student: What would you say the ratio of thinking questions to normal questions is going to be?
Professor: Hmmm... Really, I don't know if I can answer that. I mean, what to one person would be a thinking-type question, to another might not be, you know? [Same student raises hand again.] Usually I'm reluctant to let a person who asks a question like that ask another question, so let me ask you first -- how many of your questions are thinking-type questions?

--Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Understatement of the Year

In Pillars v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 78 So. 365, 366 (Miss. 1918), the plaintiff was not a happy camper.  It seems that he was merrily chewing away on his tobacco when he happened upon a foreign substance.  A pretty nasty one at that.  I could describe it for you, but the Court does a much better job.  So without further ado:

The appellant sued the Corr-Williams Tobacco Company, distributors, and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, manufacturer, of “Brown Mule Chewing Tobacco,” for damages resulting to the appellant from chewing a piece of Brown Mule tobacco in which was concealed a decomposed human toe. The evidence disclosed that R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was the sole manufacturer of the tobacco, and that this company manufactured the identical plug which contained the rotten toe; the tobacco in question was sold by the manufacturer to the other defendant, the Corr-Williams Company, and resold by the latter company to a retailer in Jackson, and was bought by appellant from the retailer. It seems that appellant consumed one plug of his purchase, which measured up to representations, that it was tobacco unmixed with human flesh, but when appellant tackled the second plug it made him sick, but, not suspecting the tobacco, he tried another chew, and still another, until he bit into some foreign substance, which crumbled like dry bread, and caused him to foam at the mouth, while he was getting “sicker and sicker.” Finally, his teeth struck something hard; he could not bite through it. After an examination he discovered a human toe, with flesh and nail intact. We refrain from detailing the further harrowing and nauseating details. The appellant consulted a physician, who testified that appellant exhibited all of the characteristic symptoms of ptomaine poison. The physician examined the toe and identified it as a human toe in a state of putrefaction, and said, in effect, that his condition was caused by the poison generated by the rotten toe.

Um, yuck. 

But, by far, my favorite part of the case is the following statement by the court:

We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care, human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found in chewing tobacco, it seems to us that somebody has been very careless.

And that, my friends, is the understatement of the year.  (You knew I'd tie in the title of this post  somehow, didn't you?)