Hackard Law - Estate Planning
Call for free initial consultation.

916-229-6991

We speak Spanish and Russian.

Humor from on High | U.S. Supreme Court Musings

Humor in the Courtroom.jpg

Image Credit: Twentieth Century Fox

Lawyers engaged in litigation must keep up with appellate decisions related to their practice area. At times this can be a real challenge to staying awake. So, it is gratifying when some jurists salt their opinions with observations that can make us smile ... and keep our attention. Here are a couple examples:

A convicted murderer's lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that his client's conviction should be overturned because four eyewitnesses all clearly saw his face but didn't agree on his exact height and build. Justice Scalia, known as the "funniest justice," pointed out:

"The desperate implausibility of the theory that petitioner put before the jury must be kept firmly in mind. ... To assert that unhesitant and categorical identification by four witnesses who viewed the killer, close-up and with the sun high in the sky, would not eliminate reasonable doubt if it were based only on facial characteristics, and not on height and build, is quite simply absurd. Facial features are the primary means by which human beings recognize one another. That is why ... bank robbers wear stockings over their faces instead of floor-length capes over their shoulders; it is why the Lone Ranger wears a mask instead of a poncho; and it is why a criminal defense lawyer who seeks to destroy an identifying witness by asking 'You admit that you saw only the killer's face?' will be laughed out of the courtroom."

Justice Scalia was not the only Supreme Court wag. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor could also turn a phrase. Her clarity of thought allowed her to state the obvious:

"The issue presented in this case is whether a resolution banning all 'First Amendment activities' at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) violates the First Amendment."

It didn't take long for the Supreme Court to unanimously find that the ban did in fact violate the First Amendment.

I must admit that sometimes Hackard Law's litigation team fights trust, estate and elder financial abuse cases on behalf of wronged beneficiaries where we must oppose defense arguments we find to be as silly as the eye-witnesses case or as obvious as the First Amendment case. That said, what seems obvious to some of the parties may not be as obvious to their opponents. That's when we take action for our clients.

If you'd like to talk to us about your estate, trust or elder financial abuse case, call us at Hackard Law: 916-313-3030. We'll be glad to listen to your story and see how best to help you.

Humor from on High | U.S. Supreme Court Musings from Hackard Law on Vimeo.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Rated By Super Lawyers Michael A.Hackard SuperLawyers.com AV PREEMINENT Martindale-Hubbell Lawyer Ratings Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb Top Attorney Litigation Million Dollar Advocates Forum Multi-Million Dollar Advocates Forum Top Attorneys In Sacramento Lead Counsel | LC | Rated Hackard Law A Professional Law Corporation BBB Business Review Best Real Estate
Lawyers in
Sacramento
2016

*AV Preeminent is a certification mark of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies. Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell ratings fall into two categories - legal ability and general ethical standards.

Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters.