Lawyers Are Sharing That Golden Moment When They Were Sure They Had Won

Not a lawyer but a paralegal. Not all screw ups happen in court. We recieved a box of discovery from oposing counsel in one of our workers’ comp cases. The case was not unusual and shouldn’t have that extensive of a history so I was surprised by the size of the box.

Per my job I open it and start organizing it for my attorney knowing what he needs to see and what just needs to be put in the file, etc. It’s a typical mess. Papers all over the place in the timeline, photos mixed in random places, etc. Lots of things duplicated.

It not typical, but sometimes an attorney will do this to bury the other side in paperwork so they don’t go through the whole thing and may miss something important because it is not a complicated or long case.

However, I am meticulous. About halfway through the box, I realize they sent thier ENTIRE file. Stuff they shouldn’t be sending. Like notes from interviews with thier client. Internal emails. This happens. In this particular case, we probably wouldn’t find a smoking gun.

I asked thr attorney what to do since it was all mixed together. He told me to pick out anything priviledged and set aside to send back and he would draft a letter but he didn’t want to see it. Perfect response. (He was awesomely ethical.)

However, as I went through the rest, I discovered that wasn’t all they sent us. They sent us the entire file on a completly DIFFERENT person who was NOT our client. I have no idea if it was thier client being WC sued by two different employess or another client of thiers alltogether. Also it was incredibly personal info about medical, social security number, the works.

This time the response was, “Pack it ALL up. Every paper. Seal it. Label it. Put it on my desk.” I came in with the box to him yelling at the secretary for oposing counsel who was tellig him the attorney was too busy to speak with him.

He basically told her unless he was on the toilet or in front of a judge, get him on the phone now. I did not get to hear the conversation, but he hand delivered the box to them that day. Two days later they settled. Fair settlement for both sides. I am sure someone in that office got fired.

Username: Drachenfuer

Most of mine are fairly boring. Witness unexpectedly told the truth, admitted they had lied previously, etc. However, one of my favorites was told to me by the loser - a county prosecutor who I regularly litigate against.

He is prosecuting a middle-aged woman for a DUI. She managed to bury her sedan some 20-30” feet into a snow-covered farm field. Somebody calls it in, cops find her passed out, “soaking wet, and smelling like she tried to drown herself with the two empty wine bottles they found in the backseat.”

Her version of events was that she hit some black ice causing a (fairly high speed) slide off. She had a full tank of gas, and although she only lived a mile and a half up the road, she knew her husband wouldn’t be off work for another three hours. So, she says she decided to leave him a VM with instructions to come pull her out, and proceeded to have herself a good time.

Although I have to believe the prosecutor knew roughly what story she’d tell, some specifics must have surprised him because he ended up asking the investigating officer some blind questions on re-call. (Although sometimes you have to, it’s generally a no-no to ask a question you don’t know the answer to.)

Looking closely at the decent crime scene photos, he realized there really weren’t many tracks disturbing the perimeter of the vehicle at all. The exchange went something like this:

P: “well, officer, if she drank all that wine while she sat there, I imagine she’d have to relieve herself.”
The officer began to laugh, which the prosecutor took as encouragement.
P: “Well, I don’t see any tracks outside the vehicle.”

O: “No sir, not really.” *more chuckles*
P: “Any yellow snow?”
O: “No sir, not that I recall.”

P: “So evidently she just has a very large bladder?”
O: “Well, actually...”

The prosecutor was looking at the jury to see how his astute observation to land, when it suddenly dawned on him a moment too late that “soaking wet” was a polite euphemism. The Defendant went an appropriate shade of red, a few jurors chucked along with the investigating officer, and the prosecutor knew immediately he’d talked the the jury into an acquittal.

Username: SnowRook

This was one of the weirdest things I saw when I was interning with a judge while I was in law school. Let’s set the scene. Guy’s car got impounded when he was arrested—I believe that he was arrested for having a substantial amount of marijuana in his car.

Anyway, he was being charged with something or another, but the trial for that case was weeks away. Guy wanted to get his car from impound, but due to some mishap, the car had been destroyed. (Guy claims he never received the notice that the car would be destroyed if he didn’t collect it by X date).

So he filed a separate case against the police to be reimbursed for the cost of the car and for his lost research. He claimed that his life’s work was in the car. He also claimed that he was a medical doctor with a PhD and that the lost research meant missing out on a lot of money.

This research involved using marijuana to treat some disease. Guy has decided to represent himself in this matter. Let’s call him Mr. PhD. The judge I’m interning with allows me to sit in on a phone call between his clerk and Mr. PhD.

This phone call was to get a summary of the issue so that we could be prepared for their upcoming court appearance. During this call Mr. PhD came off as odd, so much so, that the judge decides to call the hospital he claimed to work for (located in our city and one of the top ten hospitals in the US).

He finds out that Mr. PhD does not work there. Nor is he a real doctor. And shockingly, no PhD. But he is known at the hospital. Apparently he had a nasty habit of pretending to be a doctor there, going so far as to order lab coats with the hospitals name on them.

The judge finds this despicable. Decides that when Mr. PhD come to court he will ask him about his employment and will make it clear to him that there will consequences for lying.

The day comes. The judge is in chambers along with his clerk and bailiff. I’m the only one in the courtroom, getting some work done on my computer. Mr. PhD shows up a few minutes early. Want to guess what he was wearing? His fancy [Hospital Name] lab coat. I go back to chambers to warn them. No one can believe it.

Time for the meeting before the judge. Mr. PhD argues why he needs this research, how he wasn’t properly notified, etc. Judge asks him about his education. Mr. PhD assures him that his qualifications are real. Judge tells him that he spoke to the hospital and knows he doesn’t work there.

Mr. PhD admits that he doesn’t actually work there, but says that he has collaborated with other doctors there for his research. He maintains that he is a medical doctor with a PhD. The judge warns him about lying to the court, but Mr. PhD is adamant.

So the judge asks if he can provide evidence of his qualifications. Mr. PhD says no problem and that he can bring it to us that day. Mr. PhD leaves and none of us believe that he’s really going to come back. The judge returns to his chambers and I continue my work in the courtroom.

No more than 10 minutes go by and Mr. PhD is back. He had brought with him a diploma frame box. He comes up to my desk, opens the box and quickly shows me his diploma frame. He closes the box and gives it to me. I tell him that I’ll go show the judge, but before I’m even out of my chair Mr. PhD says he’ll come back for it later and leaves. Weird, but okay.

Before going to chambers, I take a look in the box. Now this was a very nice diploma frame. Very expensive. I know this because it came from my campus bookstore and was the most expensive frame that they sell. I unwrap the frame and take a good look at it. It wasn’t a PhD.

It was, in fact, a certificate of completion for a one-day biology seminar. I couldn’t believe it. The judge couldn’t believe it. Mr. PhD never came back for it. He was ordered to surrender any and all apparel with [Hospital’s Name] on it.

Username: Kraye5

It was the (winning) plaintiff in a civil lawsuit regarding real estate nondisclosure. When you sell a house in the US state where I live there is a very detailed form you fill out, noting all of the problems or defects that you know of regarding the property.

Despite the understandable desire to “gloss over“ any issues with the place, It is very much in the sellers best interest to fill these out honestly & correctly because if you lie about it and get caught, the buyer can sue you for triple damages.

The seller owned the house for about 12 years and at some point they discovered a major structural / water intrusion problem which would cost a lot to fix, instead of being honest about it, they decided to cover it up and lie about it on the disclosure form.

After we bought the place we discovered both the damage AND the cover up. The concrete foundation of an exterior structural wall had cracked, failed, and was slowly collapsing. This jeopardized the structural integrity of the house and let ground water run under the downstairs floor, rotting out all the layers of flooring beneath the newly installed top layer.

Instead of fixing it, they built two false walls inside to hide the collapsing foundation and covered up the rot beneath with a new layer of Pergo laminate. So here we are just a month after purchasing this house, looking at a $50,000 repair bill to fix a major problem that the sellers had obviously discovered, chosen not to fix correctly, made substantial efforts to cover up prior to the sale, and then lied about, on the record.

You will never find a lawyer who will take a case like this on commission since it usually comes down to a “he said, she said” situation which is nearly impossible to win. In this case however we had hard evidence showing the date that the false wall has been built, right in the middle of the previous owners tenancy. It turns out that drywall has the manufacture date printed on the back. Fiberglass insulation has the manufacture date printed on the paper facing. Romex electrical cable has the manufacture date printed on the plastic casing around the wires. All of these dates agreed, indicating that the false wall was built by the sellers about four years prior to the sale of the house.

After multiple failed attempts to settle we ended up in court, both sides paying for “expert witnesses“ to prove our opposing theories about how the false walls ended up there hiding all that damage, and specifically, when they were built.

They paid about $10k for the elaborate piece of fiction that their engineer/expert witness came up with, I know since they tried to get us to pay for it. He had a complex theories about how WE must have caused the foundation to collapse.

When confronted with the inconvenient dates on the various construction materials he came up with even more elaborate theories on how electrical wiring, fiberglass insulation, and drywall could’ve somehow been installed BEHIND A TILED BATHROOM WALL without the knowledge or participation of the sellers.

The kicker was that this “expert” engineer had NEVER ONCE STEPPED FOOT IN THE HOUSE! The opposing counsel had a baby in the middle of all of this, so the defendants “expert” had over six months time in which he could have examined the house in exhaustive detail but he never showed up, not even once. Our attorney asked him why not? He asked him “have you ever even laid eyes on the house? The “experts” answer was “ yes, yesterday morning I took a look at it from the street.”

You could see the judge cock his head a bit, and he asked him “why would you do that?” The “experts” answer was “ because I knew you would ask.”

Our attorney was an abrasive, irascible curmudgeon of a man but at that moment I saw the biggest smile light up his face. He turned his head and just smiled at us for a few seconds, and then slowly shook his head and told the judge “no further questions”. At that point everybody in the courtroom knew it was over.

The defendants dragged it out as long as they could, but two days before the deadline for the judge to render a decision on damages they showed up with a check. It wasn’t enough to pay for the reconstruction, especially after taking out the legal fees, but at least we weren’t on the hook for all of it.

We still live in the same small town and neither the opposing counsel, the defendants, or the “expert” will meet our eyes when we see them around.

Username: GlockAF

Attempted murder trial last summer. I'm representing the defendant. Prior to trial I was reviewing the transcript from the preliminary hearing. At the prelim the detective testified that the gun used to shoot the victim was a semiautomatic pistol with a specific size barrel.

This was important because the defendant had a prior conviction that prohibited him from possessing most firearms, including semiautomatic pistols with barrels under a certain length. The gun was never found during the investigation.

Five shell casings were found at the scene and sent to the state police lab for analysis. I read the report prior to trial which said all five shell casings were .22 caliber and fired from the same *unknown firearm.* I've seen this state police firearms expert testify before.

He knows absolutely everything there is to know about guns. I knew that if he could tell that the gun that ejected those casings was a semiautomatic pistol, or that the barrel was a certain length, he would have put it in his report.

At trial the state police expert testified. He went over the intricate analysis with all the high tech equipment he used (think the car expert testifying in My Cousin Vinny) to come up with the conclusion that all five casings were .22 caliber and were ejected from the same *unknown firearm*.

I asked him: "can you tell the type of weapon that fired these rounds from your analysis of the shell casings?" He said no, he could not. I asked him if they could have been fired from a semiauto pistol, he said yes.

I said, how about a revolver? Or a rifle? He said yes and yes. I asked if he's able to tell the length of the barrel of the gun that fired those rounds. He said no. Then the detective testified. I asked him if he remembered testifying at the prelim.

*He said no!* The district attorney looked at me and rolled her eyes. She had already admitted the prelim transcript into evidence, the transcript which contained the detective's testimony. (This was my first "oh shit" moment... clearly the detective was underprepared for trial).

I handed him the transcript and asked him to review it. He did, and he said he remembered it now. I confirmed: "at the prelim, you testified that the gun that fired those shots was a semiauto pistol with a specific barrel length, correct?" He said "yes I did".

I then asked if he heard the state police expert's testimony (of course he did, he was in the room. I just wanted to remind the jury what the expert said before) about the intricate analysis and high tech equipment he used, and he couldn't tell the size or type of the gun.

Detective said yes. I confirmed: "And you never found the gun, did you?" He replied no, they never found the gun. That's when I dropped the bomb: "Then how were you able to tell the size and type of gun that you've never seen solely from the shell casings when this state police expert who had all this fancy equipment couldn't even tell?"

Long Pause.
"I guess he knows more about guns than I do"
*OH SHIT.*
Not guilty, all counts.

After trial, the judge spoke to the jury. I heard through the grapevine they told him they thought the detective did a bad job investigating the case. To those of you that don't understand the significance of this oh shit moment, at the preliminary hearing the detective *testified under oath* that the gun was a certain type and certain size.

You take an oath that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and *nothing but the truth*. The fact that the gun was a semi auto pistol and had a certain barrel length was not the truth because there's no way he could have known that. So to the jury, it looked like he lied under oath at the prelim.

Username: xLiquidx

There was a case I witnessed about a disputed will. Basically it looked like two sisters fighting over their mom's house. One sister (sister A)was a mooch that lived with her mom. The other lived a bit away but seemed to be a loving caring daughter(sister b).

When the mom died a will appeared. A will that sister B had no knowledge of until sister A produced it...after they got into an argument about what to do with the house. Sister B wanted to sell it and split the proceeds. Sister A just wanted it for free all for herself. I'm gonna mess up details so I'll keep it basic. Sister A had left dozens of angry voicemails on sister Bs phone.

This wasnt submitted evidence by the defence (sister Bs attorney's). So sister As attorney didn't know about it in discovery. On the stand sister A made a whole bunch of comments about how her mother was lucid and clear headed up until she died. That she wrote the will right beforehand.

Then the defense attorney made her repeat what she said and reminded her she was under oath. She stuck to that story. The defence introduced the voicemails into evidence as purgury-- the plantiffs attorney objected but was overruled when th defense explained that procedural rules permitted adding evidence in order to prove purgury.

The voicemails, played in court, were sister A ranting and raving at sister B telling her she would never get the house, their mom had lost it completely and sister b wasn't their for her, she(the mom) couldn't do xyz, wasnt there mentally/had bad dementia,blah blah blah, and she would do anything to keep sister b from getting the house.

The plantiffs attorney facepalmed so hard. Sister A turned white as a sheet. Sister B won, the judge ordered sister A out of the house as it was to be sold and the proceeds split. The will was thrown out as illegitamate. It was a great strategy by the defense that paid off big time. You could tell the judge was impressed.

Username: dachsj

It's going to get buried BUT...when I was interning with Legal Aide we did a bunch of VPO (victim protection order) work. I personally was not a fan of the judge. He made some weird calls that seemed very...odd to me. However, in this one, there was only one call to make and he did it.

Background story is that basically a woman and her ex boyfriend used to live together. They had been on and off for about 10 years, during which times he would sleep with numerous women and she would focus on raising their child.

The problem at hand was that, in this last break up, she had left in a fury and now her ex wasn't letting her back in the domicile to retrieve her son's birth certificate and a few other very important, personal documents.

Naturally, ex starts ranting about how OF COURSE he's not going to let her in! When she left, he says, she bashed the TV with a bat, threw their bedsheets everywhere, called him vile things, etc., and then left. She left him nasty voicemails and called him several times threatening legal action against him. Overall, painting such a bad picture of her that the judge was like, "Maybe you should be the one with the VPO, young man. Ma'am, what do you say to that?"

Her response was pretty understandable: "I found out that he gave me herpes, Your Honor. He had been sleeping with me for the last several months and gave me herpes without telling me. The legal action I was threatening was for battery/assault because he never told me before we had sex."

Judge's tune changed IMMEDIATELY. He told her he hoped she pursued that case, chided the ex by saying, "You intentionally hid from this woman that you had an uncurable STD and then gave it to her.

I'm surprised you only got a baseball bat hitting the TV." Granted an extension of the VPO immediately and advised her further about getting cops to help her when she went to go get the documents. Ex looked utterly deflated.

Username: rivlet

I was doing family law for a while, and had this really nasty divorce we couldn’t reach settlement on and went to trial over. Literally millions of dollars at stake. She wanted the kids and alimony, as she’d lived a lavish lifestyle during their marriage, the husband was arguing that she’d forfeited that as the marriage was allegedly lost to infidelity on her part.

At this point in my career, I was desperate to make partner. So desperate in fact that I once went through with a sexual liaison with another powerful lawyer in the firm, just hoping to get some info on which candidates they were considering. I should mention I did this on the night of my sons birthday party. A party I ended up missing. I know, I was behaving like a real father of the year.

The sex wasn’t even that great. Anyways, we get to trial and I’m struggling hard with my case. Something had come over me. Maybe it was stress, maybe the universe was trying to straighten me out. Hard to tell, but at time I couldn’t even annunciate what I was trying to say.

While I’m freakin out, my client gets pissed with me and tells me she’s not going to some broke single mom at 37. Oddly though, I was pretty certain I’d reviewed her file, and that she was 39. Then it hit me. She’d lied when she was younger to get married to her future husband, because she wasn’t old enough to do so without parental consent.

One of the conditions of getting married as a minor where we lived is that you must do so with a pre-nup in place. Because she’d falsified her age to make herself old enough to marry without parental consent, they’d forgone the pre-nup.

She was entitled to half of the marital assets. Jordan faded back, swish, and that was the game. I was later ejected from a motorized staircase across a landing strip at LAX into a luckily placed pile of luggage, which saved me from certain death.

Username: steboy

I currently work in law and have for a few years now. What kick started my interest was when I had a crazy ex girlfriend out our false charges on me after I caught her cheating. We worked together. I caught her when I went on lunch and looked through her phone that I bought for her.

She had an entirely separate SIM card in it and was using it to text people without me knowing. I found hard proof of her cheating and took pictures with my phone. I took the phone, told her I always knew she was a cheating whore and left work for the day. It happened in front of everyone.

Later that night, she begged me to meet her to get her phone back for her baby pictures. I hear there but I’m suspicious. I get there and there’s cops waiting for me. I leave, and I guess they knew my vehicle because I was pulled over nearly instantly.

Full on ran at my car and told me to keep my hands up. They force me to give the phone back. I tell them I’ve got nothing else of hers but she has stuff of mine. They tell me to let it go and I agree then leave. We had no contact after despite ***her*** best efforts.

A week later police are beating on my door with an arrest warrant. My brother is a cop luckily, and the person sent to the door knew me. He let my brother do the arrest. I was very confused and then I read the charges and my brother got me all the reports.

She tried to say I was threatening her and **acting** like I was going to beat her. There were a few pages of texts I had no memory of sending. At all. Charges with assault and harassment. One of which is a felony where I’m at.

I got out on sig bond and got a public defender. A no contact order and order of protection is placed against me. If I do much as tell her to leave me alone, I’m in jail. He told me point blank that I need to plea out cause there’s no defense here.

I tell him that it’s all fake and I can prove it. I call my workplace. I’m fired. She told them I hit her. I ask them to check the cameras and they tell me no. I inform my attorney and he says he’ll get footage subpoenaed. That never happened.

So the next 4 months I’m doing all the discovery for him. I found out she used a text app to text herself as me. I found inconsistencies in her own police report. I found where she tried to break into my accounts on damn near everything. I had coworkers write affidavits that I didn’t hit her or even try to.

I took it to him and he gave me to a different attorney. She said the same thing and added that our particular judge won’t understand that she used a fake number, despite her herself believing that. I sigh and get ready to take some months in jail.

Then, the literal weekend before our trial, she texts me on my new number (no clue how she got it) and literally blackmails me into trying to testify against her ex husband for full custody. Says she’ll “drop the charges” if I do. That’s not how it works though.

I ignore her and print all the texts and take them to my lawyer who shares it with the prosecutor, who takes it to the ex and she acts dumbfounded. The attorneys approach the judge and speak off mic.

The judge then puts the case under advisement for a year, meaning the case is dismissed if no issues come up between now and then. She doesn’t even get a slap on the wrist for the false report and attempted extortion. Nothing at all.

For the next year and a half my now-wife and I live in constant fear of running into her and she makes two attempts to contact me. Both times, the police ignore it. Eventually the one year mark hits and the case is dismissed but if she would have just shut her mouth, I’d have been in jail for a crime I didn’t commit and she would have won. But she completely fucked herself by trying to blackmail me.

Username: [deleted]

Less than a year out of law school, the DA asked me to sit in on something without much warning about what was about to transpire. I assumed they needed an extra witness for an adoption hearing or something since it was a closed proceeding.

So I walked in, sat down on the back bench, and after a couple of minutes our entire compliance department personnel soon followed and joined me in the back. As the judge walked in, one leaned over to me and whispered...do you know why we're here? I shrugged and shook my head.

My boss stood in the center of the courtroom and an elderly woman in her mid-70s was seated in the witness stand. There was a court reporter present, but no real indicator of what was about to transpire. When the judge was seated, my boss introduced the lady in the witness stand and said that he wanted to make a court record of what she was about to say.

He asked her to tell the court about what brought her to the courthouse that day. On the back row, we all exchanged perplexed glances. She started by stating her name, DOB, the day of the week, where she is employed etc. Then my boss asked her about a crime she wanted to report.

This was highly unusual. I was racking my brain to think of why they would want to take a crime report in such an unorthodox and inefficient manner. I half expected the judge to be pissed off about wasting the court's time. Then my boss asked what it was that was stolen from her last night, and she exclaimed, "Muh vagina! And muh uterus too!"

She then proceeded to retell a sequence of events that she said took place after she went to bed and accused her neighbor of the deed. My boss asked why her neighbor would do such a thing and she replied "Well....B'cause hers is all dried up!" as if it was so obvious that asking the question was ridiculous.

The judge told her these were serious charges, and that they would need to escort her to get checked into the hospital while they investigated the crime because her health must be at risk after being the victim of such a violent crime. Then he signed an order for a 5 day mandatory stay at a mental health facility and she complied.

Apparently she had a long history of these kind of accusations. Her family had tried everything to get her to get treatment, but she wouldn't go. They worked something out with my boss and the judge when she started accusing someone again. Weirdest day in court ever though.

Username: Crixxa

I was trying a shoplifting case as defense counsel. I was convinced they couldn't make the case. In my opening statement, I apologized to the jury that they would not get to render a verdict because once the state had finished its case-in-chief, I would ask the judge for a directed verdict, and he would grant it.

They put on WAL-MART security, and the rookie prosecutor forgot to ask him whether the person he saw in his testimony was in the courtroom. After cross-examination, the judge did not ask the lawyers whether the witness was excused, which is unusual. I knew why he did not, and so did he, but the rookie prosecutor did not know that this was strange at all, and it would have been illegal for the judge to tell her.

I said something like "Judge, I know you're new to the bench, but I think it would be common practice to ask whether the witness is excused." The judge knew exactly what I was doing, but it's against the law for judges to give legal advice or make comments, so he just asked the prosecutor whether the witness was excused and she said yes. I said he was excused from the defense as well.

After she had finished with a second witness and closed her case, I turned to my client, who was quite nervous and said, "this is about to be over." I stood up and moved for a directed verdict because there was no witness that even put my client inside the store.

Sure, there was a description of the conduct of "a female," but the witness never said that the female was my client. Because the witness had been excused, the prosecutor could not call store security back to the stand to fix this problem. The judge granted my motion for directed verdict, and afterwards patted me on the back saying I had made a nice move, and then ordered my bill paid in full.

About an hour after my client had left the courthouse, I got a call on my phone from a lady at the local newspaper. She said that my client had come to see her and wanted to take out an ad in the paper saying that I was the best lawyer she had ever seen.

The lady from the newspaper wanted to know if that was OK with me. I said that I had not asked for it, but that my former client has a First Amendment right and can say what she likes. Moral of the story: when the enemy is destroying herself, do not intervene.

Username: slip-7

I clerked for a federal judge in Texas who presided over a number of drug smuggling cases that involved tractor-trailers full of narcotics (like 500 pounds of cocaine or crystal meth). The problem with these cases is that the truck driver (who was always in on it) believed that they could feign ignorance and argue that somebody else must have swapped out their legitimate cargo for the illegal drugs.

So the way the DA's office prosecuted these kinds of cases was using a theory called "book ending." For example, they would put on witnesses who worked at the loading point and they would testify that nobody could have loaded the massive amounts of drugs unnoticed.

The DA would then put on witnesses from the scheduled unloading point who would testify that nobody would be able to unload the massive amounts of drugs unnoticed. The resulting inference was that the driver must have allowed his load to be compromised and never intended to drive straight to the unloading point.

At one point, we had a case that involved a truck driver who was stopped with 800 pounds of crystal meth. As typical, he argued that he had nothing to do with the drugs and that he was only carrying grapefruits from a produce warehouse.

So the DA decided to apply the "book ending" theory and called -- as his second witness -- the USDA inspector who worked at the produce warehouse. This gentleman was supposed to come across as an observant government worker whose job was to watch the loading docks. If all went to plan, the jury would conclude from his testimony that nobody could have loaded 800 pounds of meth on his watch.

But this didn't go to plan...
DA: "Can you please state your name for the record?"
Witness: "John Smith."

DA: "And what is your job?"
Witness: "I am an inspector for the USDA."
DA: "And for the jury's benefit, what does 'USDA' stand for?"
Witness: "....... uhhhh......"

I sat and watched for about 2 minutes as the witness -- a USDA inspector -- tried to remember what the initials 'USDA' stood for. My attention kept bouncing between the witness, who was visibly sweating and turning red, to the members of the jury, who were just staring at him in disbelief. If memory serves, the case resulted in a hung jury.

Username: drmcsinister

I’ve had a couple. Best one was when I was a youth prosecutor/defense attorney in Teen Court. The youth defendant was on “trial” for assault. I asked him what happened and he said, “my friends told me I wouldn’t beat up the Easter Bunny at the mall so I did.” Only time I truly could not control my laughter in court.

Another, I was watching a detention hearing in federal court (only issue is whether the defendant will get to go home until trial). This was an appeal of the court’s previous decision that the defendant be held until trial. The third witness was an FBI agent which, needless to say, is not normal at a detention hearing.

The FBI agent testified that some other attorney (not the one representing the defendant at the hearing) had been taking letters from the defendant and sending them to different people for the defendant. Those letters were contracts to have the prosecuting attorney killed.

The representing attorney withdrew and the defendant was not released pending trial. One more, I was in traffic court one time and a sovereign citizen who was acting fairly hostile began approaching the judge’s bench. He was arrested at gunpoint which was pretty wild considering there were 150 or so people in the court room.

Last one, my first ever civil trial I was representing the plaintiff who wanted to evict the defendant from her property for non-payment of rent. After presenting my case, the judge asked the defendant to present his evidence. The defendant replied, “huh.” The Judge said, “now is your turn to present your case.”

The defendant said, “I don’t understand.” The Judge leans over the bench and asks, “why are you here.” The defendant said, “oh yeah... yeah, right.” The defendant then went on a thirty minute tangent about all sorts of things like how he only parks his car so he can see where he is going when he pulls out because that was taught when he was in the military.

I could have objected but the more he talked, the more the judge disliked him. After thirty minutes the judge finally asked, “about the rent...?” The defendant says, “oh yeah. I’m not trying to debate that I didn’t pay it.” That’s how I won my first civil trial.

Username: hostilecarrot

I am a chemist and not a lawyer, but I had one of these moments. (I am sorry as this gets a bit technical, but I think it pays off.)

So I was asked to be an expert witness. This was during deposition rather than in the trial. One of the things my client had been accused of was hiring an incompetent cleanup team.

The case was a release of sulfuric acid, and they had brought in a vacuum trailer to hold the dirty sulfuric acid that they had collected from the ground. They then collected all of the sulfuric acid from the tank as well (to below where the hole was to stop the leak). What they couldn't collect with the vacuum truck, they threw down sodium hydroxide on and then powdered absorbent and collected.

The material that was absorbed could be transported off-site as a nonhazardous solid, but the waste sulfuric acid was a hazardous waste. They were alleging that the cleanup crew was incompetent because they hadn't neutralized the sulfuric acid in the tanker with sodium hydroxide so it could be transported off-site as a nonhazardous waste. My "OS" moment was that no one except me understood how absurd that was.

My initial response was something like: "It isn't that they are incompetent, it is that my client isn't in the habit of hiring wizards, and they have to obey the laws of thermodynamics." (This was in New Jersey, and my attorney was a clone of Tony Soprano (look, diction, etc.). He advised me not to speak to the opposing counsel in that way.)

I then had to explain to them that treating hazardous waste in a tanker would make it melt because of the amount of heat that would be generated by the chemical reaction. The volume of the tanker wouldn't allow for neutralization. It is illegal to treat hazardous waste along the side of that particular highway in New Jersey (as it is every highway in New Jersey).

I then had to explain what I considered high school chemistry to the opposing counsel and judge. It was actually kind of disappointing because they ended up settling, and I didn't get to go to trial.

Username: Navarp1

I’ve had a couple of such enjoyable moments, though they have all been “no further questions” moments, as “I rest my case” is not something I get to say in family court. I apologize in advance for what is likely to be a pretty lengthy post.

In the first ever Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) case I had as a new attorney, I represented a woman who had broken up with her ex-boyfriend after he had shoved/hit her. She filed for a DVRO when he continued to harass her and show up uninvited to her place.

The process for getting a DVRO (at least in my state) is that the victim files documents describing the alleged abuse, and a judge decides to grant a temporary restraining order, with a hearing scheduled within a couple of weeks. At the hearing, each side can present their case.

Even after my client got the temporary restraining order, her ex continued to try to contact her, including “randomly” showing up where she always took her dog for a walk at 5:00 AM the morning of the hearing (even though this was 25 miles away from where he lived).

At the hearing, even before either party got to testify, the judge reiterated that any violation of the temporary restraining order, including attempted contact with the victim, was grounds for a permanent DVRO being issued. The judge ended up ordering a brief recess before we were to introduce evidence/testimony. During the recess, my client went to the bathroom, and the ex decided it would be a good idea to follow her into the bathroom to talk her out of pursuing the DVRO.

He had not noticed that the bailiff was also using the bathroom, and the bailiff immediately ordered him out of the women’s bathroom and threatened to arrest him. When we got back into the courtroom, the ex took the witness stand to testify. I asked him if he had just attempted to enter the women’s restroom to make contact with my client.

When he answered affirmatively, I smugly stated that I had no further questions. The judge tore him a new one, and the DVRO was immediately ordered.

In another DVRO case I handled, I was defending a husband who was accused of completely unsubstantiated (and clearly fabricated) abuse by his train wreck of a wife. My first question for the wife when she took the witness stand was, “Isn’t it true you made these allegations and are requesting this DVRO solely for purposes of gaining an advantage in custody and support proceedings?”

I obviously assumed she was going to deny it and was really just planning to try to get her angry on the stand so she’d slip up and give inconsistent or conflicting testimony. When she answered “yes,” the judge looked as surprised as I was. I immediately stated that I had no further questions (despite the fact that I had prepared at least 40-50 questions for her) and sat down. The judge tossed the case moments later.

Username: swayzaur

I had this client Gene, and I represented him in three child support matters (yep, three different moms), two dependency matters (like child protective services), and at least four criminal matters. Gene didn't have any money, so when he got in trouble, he'd ask the judge to appoint me as his attorney.

Gene was a combat vet who did four or five tours in the Middle East. He was completely broken by the experience, and the VA just screwed the guy over and over again.

So one day I get a call from Gene. He's been arrested for domestic abuse. He's alleged to have thrown objects at his girlfriend (plates, a vase, beer bottles, etc.). Gene has three prior assaults on his record including one domestic, so instead of looking at probation and a week in jail, Gene's now looking at going upstate for five years.

Gene tells me the story. He picked up Veronica at the bar a week before he was arrested. Veronica was married and lived in a house behind Gene, and for the week before he was arrested, Veronica was hopping the fence to run over to Gene's house. She'd get loaded and then hop the fence again before her husband came home. According to Gene, they'd made out and stuff, but they'd never had sex.

In Iowa, the "domestic" element of a domestic abuse claim requires that the parties live together, have a child in common, were once married, or are currently having sex.

So, I got myself appointed to the case, and I moved to have the State pay for expenses related to deposing Veronica. I scheduled the deposition with the county attorney (prosecutor).

Veronica had been telling the county attorney that she and Gene were in a relationship. When I sit down to depose Veronica, I ask her two questions: "Have you ever slept with my client? Do you have a toothbrush at my client's home?" She answers "No" to both.

I take a break and have a chat with the county attorney. She agrees to let Gene plead out to a disorderly. A $65 fine. That was the shortest deposition I've ever taken.

Username: schmerpmerp

This is kind of the reverse. But I got into a car accident when I was 18 that I consider myself responsible for. I was driving home through a residential area near a school doing the speed limit, but I guess I was slightly too close to the car in front of me.

We were coming to a light that was green, and it turned amber. IMMEDIATELY when it turned amber (not red yet. Amber.) the crossing guard walks out into the street to cross some kids. The car in front of me stopped short, and in order to not rear end her, I turned my wheel to the left hard to try and miss her bumper. I wound up clipping her driver's side bumper, and had to go to court.

On my court date, I had just taken an overnight bus home from Boston (I was visiting my bf at the time). I got off the bus and then went to court. I was exhausted and moving a little slow because I was so tired.

I get to court and before going to the judge, I speak with the ADA, who tells me they'll be dropping my charge down to Obstructing the Flow of Traffic, which was slightly more of a fine but carried no points. Great, awesome. I'm thrilled.

So I finally have my turn to go to the judge, and read off my info and asks "So, you are pleading guilty to obstructing the flow of traffic, is that correct?" I said yes. He follows up with "Please explain *how* you obstructed the flow of traffic."

It was so unexpected and I was so tired that I was a little stunned for a moment. My exact response was something like "I...um...blocked cars...going the other direction when I turned my wheel to try and avoid...hitting the car in front of me?" Punctuation included. I'm sure I sounded ridiculous.

He accepted the plea and I paid $300. I still laugh about it because it was just so absurd to me at the time and I'm still surprised that I managed to formulate a response that made sense.

Username: oblivionkiss

I was on a jury for a medical malpractice lawsuit. A guy had a medical procedure weeks later died from a chronic genetic condition. This was like 20+ years ago. The Judge was quite interesting.

His opening instruction to Jurors was that lawyers tend to only ask questions they want answered and for a jury to properly evaluate the case he allowed questions if we first wrote them down on notepads and then raised our hands. The Judge would get passed the question and if it was pertinent to the case we were told to ask aloud.

The plaintiff's medical expert gets on the stand and they proceed to ask him very pointed questions about the medical procedure in question. Specifically about how it was not the standard of care for the specific medical issue because it was newer.

The procedure was a laparoscopic surgery. I knew something about this type of surgery because my ex-GF's dad had lapro done on his knee. Its basically tiny holes and tiny surgical tools to do a surgical repair. So I wrote a question down on my little pad and raised my hand. The judge takes a look at my note says ok ask your question.

So I asked the Medical Expert: If the Surgery he was saying was the standard of care caused more or less surgical trauma than the procedure that the lawsuit was about AND also if he could physically describe the differences between the two procedures because thus far the Plaintiff Lawyer was only asking about standard practices.

Medical expert guy blinks, pauses, and says,"Well the standard procedure causes alot more trauma because we have to completely cut a patient open and also stitch them back up plus as serious risk of infection with incisions that large. With the lapro there really isnt much surgical trauma because its just a couple of 1cm holes and most of the time you can go home the same day."

Plaintiff lawyer turned a bit red and looked super pissed off at his medical expert. Asks for a recess. We brake for the day. Came back the next day and plaintiff had dropped their malpractice suit.

Username: TommyAtomic

Mom had her two kids taken by the state due to allegations involving abuse and neglect. Instead of terminating her parental rights, the state set up a guardianship (akin to foster care) in order for mom to get her act together.

As a note of explanation, sometimes moms in this situation clean themselves up, obtain stable housing, dump their loser boyfriends, and eventually start reconnecting with their kids through a process called "visitation." The idea being, that as mom stabilizes, she will incrementally have more time with her kids. After a period of time has passed, overnight visits occur, and the kids eventually reunify with their mother.

On the other hand, some moms never clean themselves up. The mom in question files a petition to get her two kids back. The state sends a lawyer to interview mom. Mom says she simply wants her kids back "...because they are mine," and doesn't want to engage in visitation.

In fact, mom hasn't seen, written, or phoned her kids in years. The lawyer files the report stating this. Keep in mind that 99.99% of the time, the moms that don't engage in visitation lie through their teeth. "They won't let me see my kids," or "I lost their phone number," or "My car broke down..." are the most common excuses.

On the day of the hearing, mom is present in court. Her case is called and the judge starts visibly shaking as she is reading the report. The judge can't believe what she is reading, so she stammers out "So mom, am I to understand, ...you don't want to visit your kids?" Her eyebrows became deeply furrowed as she waited for the reply.

Mom stands up and yells "I WANT MY KIDS BACK 'CAUSE THEY'RE MINE!" She sits back down. This was followed by an uneasy silence that lasted close to a minute. Then the judge calmly stated "Well, that isn't going to happen" and sent her on her way.

Username: Hodaka

My grandfather used to work as a lawyer, and this was his favourite case: So this man and woman are getting a divorce, and things aren’t going well. Because of the rules on property that come with marriage here in the Netherlands (which I won’t go in to), the two are in a disputed as to what will be his, and what will be hers. The lady finds the man has no right to anything, as he was the one who cheated on her.

So, court day comes and the man, the eldest son sit on one side, the woman and her father sit on the other side. The woman has her rant about how she ‘caught’ him cheating because he was away from home more often than usual and she found a condom in his bag.

She used birth control so that shouldn’t have been necessary. Along with that she presents dated photos of the bag with the condom and a schedule of when he was away. On the other side of the room my grandpa sits there laughing with the man and son.

She continues: therefore, My EX!-husband has zero right to the house, property, nor the parental control. The judge asks the father for his response, he said literally two things: ‘My schedule changed, which I can show you, and two: that’s not my bag, that’s his.’ While pointing at his son.

‘LIAR!’ The woman yells. My grandpa asks for the photo and points out the school books that are in, and that the father doesn’t use a bag, but a business case. He proceeds to show the mans work roster, which reflected the woman’s documented times. The man got all rights and property, while the woman was charged with perjury.

Username: MatthiasWW

I did some work as an medical legal consultant at one point, basically law firms would contract me to assess certain aspects of medical related cases that fell within my training and experience.

There were a few cases that were notable, but my personal favorite was a civil action against a nursing home for failing to provide adequate, sufficient and appropriate care. The facility was known in the region for being the last choice publicly funded option, so at least half of the people there were residents with no local family who didn't know the reputation of the facility.

Wound care orders were made by the medical provider (does rounds 3 times a week) for what was a diagnosed skin tear on a elderly woman's leg for twice daily dressing changes, simple thing. Cleanse with saline, pat dry, apply Bactroban, sterile gauze pad with kling gauze.

Pretty much the epitome of a 3 minute or less procedure. 10 days later the medical provider doing rounds was called by a nurse who was brand new to assess the wound, and was found to be infested with maggots. Transfer to hospital, big blow up ending up in civil suit.

During discovery the attorney for the plaintiff (resident's daughter who lived overseas) had made record requests from the facility and the hospital. Facility had signed signatures twice daily from Nurses Aides or Licensed Practical Nurses they had provided the dressing changes.

Nothing really to contradict that on any of the patient records. I get asked to review documents to find out if they should continue to move forward or settle for the little pittance the facility had offered.

I asked the attorney if they had requested the medication billing from the supplying pharmacy and paramedic reports from the ambulance that brought her to hospital. For those that don't know, paramedics generally doing a primary assessment when taking clients, even stable ones, and do generally take pretty good notes.

A tube of Bactroban comes as a 30g tube. The facility should have had at least 3 tubes dispensed to it if they had been following the wound care instructions. Sure enough, patient had been billed for a single tube, enough for maybe 4 days. Facility had never re-ordered it, and thus hadn't used it.

Then, we got the paramedic report which indicated the dressing that was on the client at the time of transfer was yellowed, foul smelling, saturated with discharge, and had initials written on it, time and date.

Turns out that the medical provider that had ordered the initial dressing; due to the floor nurses being busy at the time they did the original assessment, orders and prescription; went back and cleaned it and dressed it with a simple gauze dressing that they **that hadn't been changed in 10 days.** Medical provider involved was advised, got their own representation separate from the facility and the entire thing just exploded.

12 staff over 10 days implicated in falsifying documentation, reported to their professional colleges, directors and supervisors all became involved in the legal proceedings and third party management took over the facility due to compliance issues.

Her eventual settlement was 275 times what they had originally offered her ($5000) and over 50 times what she was initially seeking ($25000). She could have probably got way more, but just wanted to ensure that her two grand kids were taken care of. She ensured that two hundred residents started receiving exceptional care. Facility was sold shortly after to an agency that brought it up to proper standards.

Username: Graigori

Years ago in the pre-internet days, I defended a worker’s compensation claim brought by a young gas station employee with severe third-degree burns on his leg. He said that the injury occurred when he was on a break smoking a cigarette while sitting at a desk.

There was a carton of dry gas (a flammable gas additive that contained a lot of alcohol) bottles on an overhead shelf, and one of the bottles leaked, dripping dry gas all over the desk and his leg, which he accidentally ignited with his cigarette.
Under the laws of my state at the time, if that’s what happened, the incident would have been considered an “act incidental to employment,” and the claimant would’ve been entitled to benefits. Between his hospital expenses, follow-up care, lost wages, and other benefits, I estimated the value of the claim at around $15,000.
However, the gas station owner told me that one of the claimant’s coworkers saw the accident and said that what really happened was that the claimant got bored, was playing around with dry gas and matches, and set his leg on fire.
If that’s how he got hurt, then the claim should be dismissed as an injury arising from horseplay. The problem was that the co-worker had moved across the country, and no one knew where to find him. That meant I had to find a way to prove the horseplay defense without a witness. Here’s what I did.
At the first preliminary hearing, I let the claimant tell his story. Then I said, “I’m gonna make you an offer you can’t refuse. I propose that we all adjourn to the men’s room. I’ve got a pack of cigarettes, a pack of matches, and a bottle of dry gas. We’ll put a little bit of dry gas in the sink. If you can light it with a cigarette, then we’ll accept the claim and pay all of the benefits due to you under the law of our state. If you can’t, then you have to accept $500 as a full and final settlement of your claim.”
The commissioner smiled, looked the claimant in the eye, said that he liked my proposal, and told the claimant he had nothing to fear if the accident happened the way he said it did. The claimant’s lawyer, an honest guy who hated it when his clients lied to him, said, “let’s do it.” The commissioner told us to go do the experiment and come back to tell him what happened.
The claimant acted scared and refused to handle any of the stuff I brought, so I opened the dry gas, started pouring some slowly into the sink, and asked the claimant to stop me when I’d poured the right amount. Then I lit up a cigarette and tried three or four times to light the dry gas with it, but the cigarette just went out every time.
“Had enough?” I asked. “How do I know that’s really dry gas?” he answered. “Oh, that’s easy,” I replied as I casually lit a match and tossed it into the sink. WHOOSH! went the dry gas in a small fireball. Of course, I knew that’s what would happen. The gas station owner had told me that he didn’t think you could light dry gas with a cigarette. I tried the experiment ahead of time and confirmed that he was right.
I offered the $500 because some of the more liberal commissioners in my state might’ve ruled for the claimant anyway, and I wanted to make the offer more attractive to the commissioner and the other side. I was confident enough that I drew up the settlement documents ahead of time and brought them to the hearing. The claimant sheepishly signed them, the commissioner approved the settlement, and that was the end of the case.
Username: CWCLnoob

My one and only "Perry Mason" moment: I was defending this guy against a bullshit order of protection petition. It was a first setting so i made what I thought was a tactically good decision to force the hearing, thinking the other attorney wouldn't be ready to go on the first setting with witnesses. Well, my tactical decision turned out to be a potential mistake when he had his client, her boyfriend and a farmhand, who supposedly witnessed the incident, ready to testify.

My client's wife was a complete psychopath. My guy was a really good dude. So I strongly suspected it was all fiction. Their story: boyfriend and wife were near the front porch of this house when a sniper shot lodged itself into the wall beside the boyfriend's head. The shot supposedly came from about 500 yards away. They supposedly saw my guy and his truck drive off.... From 500 yards away. Whatever.

The order of their witnesses was the wife, the boyfriend and then the farmhand. The wife's story was obvious bullshit from the get-go. But then the boyfriend took the stand and his story was very similar to wife's, lending it some credibility. I made the decision at that point, knowing that they had a third witness, to have the boyfriend draw a map of exactly what happened and where the shot came from.

I had thought the farmhand would be in on the deception and maybe I might be able to trip him up on the details of a fabricated story (the third party witnesses were not in the courtroom when the others testified).

When the farmhand took the stand I found his testimony to be extremely credible. Obviously whatever they had done to construct the fiction they had done so to also fool the farmhand so he could eventually be a witness. so I had him draw a map as well.

His map completely contradicted the wife and boyfriend. It was obvious the gunshot came from the other side of the house. The only person that could have fired the gun would have been somebody directly on the property right beside where the boyfriend and the wife claimed they were sitting.

After the farmhand testified, I asked for an involuntary dismissal of the petition. This meant my client would not even have to testify. Basically you never get involuntary dismissals unless the case is just utter nonsense.

The judge gave it to me immediately. She was fuming. I thought she was going to throw the wife and boyfriend in jail. But unfortunately she didn't have enough evidence to find anyone in contempt. But I did get my attorneys fees and I walked away feeling I might actually be a competent attorney.

Username: [deleted]

Not the lawyer but I hired the lawyer to represent me in getting full custody of my daughter who was 9 months old at the time. Baby momma was a drug addict who would leave my daughter in a room to scream while she goes back in the other room to party it up.

Wouldn't find out the partying business until after the hearings. I was only allowed every other weekend and 2 days a week. But in reality, she would call or text me out of no where and ask me to take my daughter. I would always agree, even when I was at work. This got to a point were I had my daughter every day for 3 months. Anyway, baby momma is a real piece of work.

Filed for full custody since that is what was really happening anyway and she couldnt just come and take her when she felt like which happened before. Also, the filing would take care of me having to pay child support which I was forced to do even though I had my daughter more than her.

Sorry for rambling. This was a very annoying time were I filed and spoke before a judge more than once and denied legally having more time and not paying child support when I have my daughter all the time.

Back to it. I give my lawyer 52 pages of screenshot text messages with each page having 4 screenshots of multiple messages. My lawyer notices a conversation were I'm giving baby momma crap about giving my daughter cheetos and Capt Crunch instead of baby food and other healthy items.

Hearing begins and the judge is sidding with baby momma the whole way. That is until we get to the text messages and how she takes care of my daughter. Her lawyer tries to say the text messages could have been from anyone since I had her in my phone by her name and it didnt show her number.

Good point. Except when my lawyer asks baby momma if she has my daughter on a diet of cheetos and Capt Crunch she responds with, "Yeah, if that's what she wants that's what she gets. A baby shouldn't be on a diet".

I bust up laughing and the judge firsts asks me to refrain from laughing then asks her if that was her in the text messages. She says yes and the judge asks for a moment to go through them. There is stuff in there about not being able to take care of my daughter because of anxiety attacks or being hungover.

All kinds of crap. The judge grants me custody and tells her that she has to pay child support and back child support starting from the moment I started getting my daughter full time. Hard to get being a dad I have heard.

Username: SuperDemonKing

My client was charged with violating a Court order not to contact someone. However, the incident date was two days before any Court actually issued an Order not to contact. All of the State Attorney's discovery had copies of the Court Order issued two days after this criminal case arose.

Now, I never like to go into a trial unprepared, so I managed to find the "pre" Court Order issued by a non Judge Court official (lets keep them nameless so that this is unidentifiable. On the day in question I was representing nearly the entire Court room.

I called this case for a trial right away, and the prosecution asked for more time. They called it again and explained that their witness had to go, so I could not have more time. Both me and the Judge knew that I hadn't asked for any more time I was ready.

The State calls their first witness who begins recounting an alleged rape, which was WAY outside the what my client was charged with. Que the loud objections from me. Judge sustains my objections... lets get to the part where you sought a Court order.

Now here is when the two prosecutors finally realize they don't have the initial order that my client was charged with violating. HE HAD BEEN HELD FOR NEARLY 35 days on this charge at this point.

Prosecutor one asks the judge to take "judicial notice" of the Order. Except she doesn't have the right case number. The initial Order had a different case number. The clerk can't find the initial Order, only the one from two days later. At this point I have a shit eating smirk on my face, because I am holding a copy of the initial order. Hell if I'm disclosing the correct case number, not going to do the prosecutor's job for them.

The Court room is full of my clients and their families who are watching this entire meltdown. After floundering about for several minutes the prosecutors announced that the case was dismissed and my client was released. Doesn't give him back the 35 days he spent in jail, but sure did make for a good spectacle for the crowd. I do have more stories if this gains any traction.

Username: The_Public_Defender

I had an attempted murder case. The detective testified at the preliminary hearing that the gun used to shoot the victim was a semiautomatic pistol with a barrel length less than 16 inches. This was relevant because my client was a convicted felon and was charged with persons not to possess firearms in addition to attempted murder. Within that statute, guns are very specifically defined so the prosecution has to elicit testimony about the gun in order to proceed with that charge.

The detective never found the gun. All he found were shell casings at the scene. The shell casings were sent to the state police ballistics division for examination. Their report, which I received in discovery before trial, said all the shell casings were fired from the same “unknown firearm”. I knew if the ballistics expert could tell the type of gun or length of barrel from his analysis he would have indicated it in his report.

At trial 8+ months later, the ballistics expert testified first. I asked him if he could tell the type of gun from the analysis he performed on the shell casings. He said he could not. I asked if they could have been fired from a semiautomatic pistol.

He said yes. I said what about a revolver or rifle? He said it could have been from one of them as well. Next I asked if he could tell the length of the barrel of the gun that fired those rounds. He said no, that’s not possible to tell from the shell casings.

Some time later the detective testified. I had him confirm, through use of the transcript, that he testified at the prelim, that the gun used in the shooting was a semiautomatic pistol with a barrel length less than 16 inches. I then had him confirm that he never found the gun.

I then had him confirm he heard the ballistics expert testify that he ran all kinds of tests on the shell casings and HE couldn’t tell the type of gun or length of barrel. Finally I asked him how he, the detective, could tell the type and size from only having found shell casings when the state police expert couldn’t.

He paused, stammered, and said “I guess he knows more about guns than I do”. Gotcha. My client was ultimately found not guilty of attempted murder.

Username: xLiquidx

Just had to deal with this case just about a year ago. Purchased an old run down house on the terms that it would get rezoned to be a commercial lot. In the closing along with that term of re-zoning was agreed that the bank that had the deed to the house would pay the property tax in the spring. We got the property, demolished the house and put up a big old shed.

Two and a half years pass, one day out of the blue the garage doors are barred shut and the key wouldn’t unlock the door. I figured we had been struck by lightning or something and one of the neighbors shut and barred the garage doors and our lock was always kinda jank...

We replaced the locks, unbarred the doors and went on with our business. The next day we went back, same thing, so we picked the lock and replaced them again. Finally the next day there was a piece of paper saying that this property had been bought with a tax deed, and we had 10 days to get everything out or it was to be property of the new owner.

Outraged and confused, called the number on the sign and yelled at him and threatened to call the police if he wouldn’t stop harassing us. He went on to explain that he bought the tax deed because we didn’t pay taxes on it... Bullshit. We had taxes and land assessment sent to our home address, and paid everything we had ever gotten on time and in full.

It got dug up that the bank never paid the tax that was agreed upon in closing, and the city didn’t ever give us warning about it. They sent us over two years of taxes and other things for that property to our home address but failed to send the message with “hey we are selling your shed.” So the city was trying to screw us, and almost got away with it because we didn’t have a mailbox there.

It was obviously maintained, I cut the grass every damn week. Yet the city claimed it was “abandoned.” Easy enough case, had to sue the city and the bank and settled for the property back and lawyer fees. Moral of the story put a mailbox on all your properties.

Username: akaJace

Years ago I represented an "alien" in deportation proceedings (this was before D.H.S. existed and I.N.S. was still around). I determined after the first master (preliminary) hearing that my client was, in fact, a U.S. citizen. My recollection was that my client derived it thru a parent.

At the next master hearing I denied all charges of deportability and requested the case be terminated on the grounds that my client was a U.S. citizen. After submitting the pleadings to the court, the judge and the attorney for I.N.S. demanded evidence supporting my argument.

Their attitude was so condescending and rude I could not help but thoroughly enjoy opening my file and pulling out a brand new sparkling United States passport. The courtroom was packed with other immigrants waiting for their cases to be called.

As I held up the passport in view of the judge and opposing counsel the courtroom went quiet and I informed the judge that neither he nor I.N.S. had jurisdiction over my client's liberty. The judge, temporarily emasculated, mumbled that he needed to see the passport...

Moments later proceedings were terminated and my client walked out of the court with a big "fuck you" smile on his face. That was immensely satisfying.

Another case involved a client coming into my office asking if there was some way they he could become legal. He had been living in the U.S. for 10 years after sneaking across the Mexican border. Since he had no work permit he had difficulty finding employment and was desperate to fix his situation.

After going through his immigration and family history I told him that I believed he was a U.S. citizen. To prove it we requested a U.S. passport. A couple weeks later his passport application was approved. We then applied for a certificate of citizenship that was also approved.

The client couldn't believe he had spent 10 years of his life living as an "illegal alien" when, all along, he had been a U.S. citizen his entire life.

Username: bluwinx

I was an intern in a Law firm, we a got a regionally big case. 23 arrested for drug trafficking, one guy and his daughter were our clients. Turns out the bulk of the evidence was collected through wire taps. Seemed pretty solid at first.

So there I am, looking through the files for some way to at least get an Habeas Corpus for our clients to wait for trial out of prison. I'm reading the wire taps transcripts, while thinking "holy shit, there's a ton of conversation here, how much time these people spent on the phone".

Then I checked the dates on the transcripts and found out that the taps had been going on for way too long. One year, to be more precise. That caught my eye. I thought "there's no way police could get authorization for such a long time".

I proceeded then to look for the appropriate warrant that the police needed to initiate such an operation. I found it. But it allowed for only 30 days of wires, with the possibility of extending for another 30 days, if needed, but only after another warrant was issued. After the 30 days of transcripts, I find the deputy's request for another warrant, but not the warrant itself.

Turns out the police had tapped a bunch of people for an indefinite amount of time, and this went on for an entire year after the warrant had expired. Instead of renewing the warrant, they simply filed an unanswered request within the investigation and left it at that. Obviously illegal.

To solidify my argument, I found an obscure Law from 1996 (this happened in 2014) referring to the appropriate proceedings that authorities had to go through to gather evidence through wire taps. There was a limited amount of time and, as stated above, the police decided to literally ignore it.

So I filed the Habeas Corpus, my clients were released, the evidence collected through the wires became useless, the investigation was compromised, and the police chief responsible got in big trouble.

Username: throwawayventing2018

Although I would like to chalk this up to my superior legal skills, its sort of had to do so. This douche of a Plaintiff was claiming that he had been assaulted by security guards and had sustained a traumatic brain injury. He was seeking damages in excess of $2,000.000, and his sub-par attorney had incurred substantial fees and costs vis-a-vis experts in order to support the TBI claim and the $2,000,000 in damages.

During the Douche Plaintiff's deposition I subtly asked about any trips or vacations after the incident. He acknowledge going on a church trip for bible study. I asked him what he had done on this trip, and he essentially responded that he had gone to bible study and mostly rested in his hotel room because he was still experiencing the effects of the TBI.

I asked him a fairly thorough list of questions as to whether he had done A, B, C, etc during this trip. He denied engaging in any such activities and reiterated that he had mostly rested in his hotel room, and indicated that he was unable to engage in any such physical activities.

I also questioned him about his ability to engage in various activities including driving. While he admitted he could drive, he noted that he was often distracted and his reflexes were quite what they were, and that he was concerned about his ability to drive.

Prior to the deposition I did a little basic social media searches on the Douche Plaintiff and discovered that about a year after the incident he had gone on a vacation where he went jet-skiing among other activities. The douche had even posted vacation photos to his social media account.

After setting him up with the questions re his activities, I sprung the jet-skiing photos on him. The Douche Plaintiff had also posted post-incident photos of his speedometer while driving in excess of 100 mph. Needless to say the case resolved shortly thereafter. What a moron.

Username: MolonLabeMFer