I had the case Tonya writes about above...the one where the D tried everything to allieviate his erectile dysfunction. His wife told me that his erections were perfectly adequate but he was "obsessed" with making them better, stronger and longer lasting. When he testified at trial, he had a real hard (no pun) time explaining the recorded phone call between him and the victim. It went like this, in pertinent part:

Vic: "Why did you like do sex on me? Was it to teach me or what?"

Def: "Yes, that's the only reason."

The Galveston murder case goes to argument today, and the crazy defense is going for broke, asking for murder or nothing.

Unlawful carrying of a weapon case, Brass Knuckles.

The Defense attorney told me the day before trial that their defense was simple. The knuckles were an 'heirloom' as they were once owned by the defendant's grandmother. As such, they were 'ladies' knuckles' and the defendant couldn't fit his fingers in to the rings sufficiently to 'make a fist'. (This of course doesn't explain why he had them in his front pocket.)

He was practicing his straight face to tell the jury, if the knuckles don't fit, you must acquit.

So, the morning of the trial, I brought our weapon over to the courtroom and showed the defense attorney. (standard size knuckles) The Attorney laughed and said he should have looked at them instead of believing his client's story. The defendant didn't show that morning. He's still at large. (Likely with his Great Aunt's Switchblade.)

[This message was edited by Philip D Ray on 11-04-03 at .]

Prosecuted an offender who appealed his lengthy assault-causing sentence; he represented himself at the appeal hearing. Made his point, loud and clear, and I quote: "The judge put me away like I'd committed an armed robbery. I haven't done that yet."

We tried a defendant for ind. w/ a child and attempted agg. sex asslt. His atty questioned the mother of the victim, the defendant's wife, about the tatoo the d had on his penis. One of the allegations was that he tried to force the victim's mouth onto his penis. The defense, of course, if she didn't see it, it didn't happen. Mom described the ink as a swastika and the word godzilla. She described it in such a way as I thought it (the ink) was going to be the size of those names you see on cowboy type belts. Sooooo, we took a picture of the offending penis and ink at lunch. Needless to say, everything was much smaller than described, he was convicted but it left me wondering...WHY CHOOSE A THREE SYLLABLE WORD?

A great now deceased Lubbock Lawyer actually beat me in punishment with the truth. 18 year old cat burglar was caught by a dozen cops cutting through a pawn shop roof and stealing over a dozen guns. He was on probation for-suprise, suprise-dope.

Sentence from the Court. Deferred. Why? Read on.

The silent alam went off the responding officer testified. He and a partner entered the Pawn Shop guns drawn. They saw the empty gun cases and told the unseen defendant to present himself or suffer numerous gun wounds. They noticed a missing ceiling tile and then spotted the ninja clad defendant hanging upside down in the false ceiling. More threats insued. The defendant weeping profusely complained he was stuck and could neither come down nor throw down his numerous weapons. Dispite his full ninja suit with the toe things, numerous pockets and a full face mask, he had tangled his laden pockets in the structural supports and was hopelessly inverted. And had been for a couple of hours. He obviously was needing a potty and the officer's threats caused him to forgo waiting. His fully inverted position and heavy cloth facial mask worsened this accident. So did the three hour wait while they cut him out of the ceiling.

I wish I had a happy ending. Did this dire situation scare him straight? Not so, I revoked him 3 months later for burglarizing vehicles (no ninja suit).

Why does it take three hours for a defense attorney to explain a self-defense/accident theory?

How long can it take to say, "OK, I did cut him up and throw him in the bay (except for his head), but I didn't intentionally kill him. It was self-defense or an accident. I can't be sure until you vote."

Doc Weaver was a 69 year old man who breathed through a tube at the base of his throat and use a electronic device to talk. A 15 year old girl ran out of his house one day and dropped dead in the street having been shot once in the side with a .22 caliber bullet.

Doc testified that he was trying to help her out by letting her clean his house. One day she came on to him and demanded sex. When he said no she attacked him and as he fought off her attempts to take what she wanted that she opened the drawer where he kept his pistol and started to point it at him. He was able to pull the pistol away from her but as he did so he fell back onto his back with the double action revolver laying flat in the palm of his hand. She grabbed a window sash, about a 18" long piece of wood, and threw it at him. As luck would have it the window sash tumbled through the air and a corner on one end entered the trigger guard and caused the gun to discharged. He reported she smiled, shrugged and walked out of his house.

Less than 30 seconds for guilty and about 5 minutes for life. I asked the foreman what took so long on punishment and he defensively stated, "Steve, one of the ladies had to go to the restroom".

It was a real soap opera.

Here is one where the defense attorney got caught singing the defense.

A former partner of mine, now practicing in greener but darker pastures, once prosecuted a member of the US Navy for DWI. He began his argument with a rousing chorus of "What Shall We do with the Drunken Sailor?" Five minute guilty.

A year ago, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, a defense attorney "rapped" his argument at a bail hearing in front of a U.S. magistrate judge. It was a very elaborate rap, trying to argue that his client (a prostitute) should not be held in custody. Needless to say the AUSA, court reporter, defendant, and magistrate were in shock!

My craziest case involved Ole' Scratch himself.

It's 7:00 A.M. Christmas Eve, 2001, in the great city of Irving, TX. All is quiet and calm this morning, and Officer Fisher of the Irving Police Department is sitting in the parking lot of the Pay-N-Spray car wash, enjoying his morning coffee, keeping a keen eye for speeders when someone approaches his vehicle.

"Somebody naked is passed out in his truck in one of the stalls," this kind, dutiful citizen states.

So, our intrepid upholder of the law pulls his vehicle around back, and lo, there is a Ford Pickup parked in one of the car washes. Officer Fisher can see into the cab, and in fact, there is a brown headed man with his head tilted against the head-rest, as if he is sleeping.

So, our good Officer Fisher approaches the vehicle, calling in the license plate and make, as any good officer should. But alas, he is caught surprised on seeing the slumbering driver, who is in point of fact not-completely-naked, in that he does still have on his black fish-net stockings and his make-up.

Our Officer Fisher, in the due and just exercise of his community caretaking function, softly raps his Mag-Lite flashlight against the driver window, waking our fair defendant.

Upon waking, and perhaps realizing his predicament, our defendant starts his truck, and proceeds to flee from good Officer Fisher.

And this is where we join our regularly scheduled program already in progress.

Officer Fisher, whose then state-of-the-art patrol vehicle was equipped with an in-car video system, makes chase, which we, the humble prosecutors, watch in our due preparation of this case for trial.

Our defendant, now fully awake it seems, leads Officer Fisher on a high speed chase down Hwy 114 in Irving. Shortly, the car both slows down and starts swerving wildly. Next, two black objects fly out of the window and out of view of the camera. A few seconds pass, and then a large red object also flies past.

Our chase continues, and eventually moves to the access road, where in an O.J. like manuever, the defendant proceeds at 20 MPH.

Almost a minute passes, and finally our defendant pulls over. Upon order by Officer Fisher, the defendant slowly gets out of his vehicle. Imagine our shock when we see that not only has the defendant managed to drive, take off, and dispose of his stockings, but the fella has actually managed to put on his pants, shirt, shoes, and a jacket!

Flash forward a few months, and now we're in trial. After the state has concluded its portion of voir dire, the defense attorney makes a motion for a competency hearing. It appears that the defendant has told his lawyer that he (the defendant) had in fact been doing the Lord's work. You see, the defendant's girlfriend was unfortunately possessed by the devil himself. And the only way the defendant could get close enough to her to perform the exorcism was to confuse the devil by wearing women's clothing (apparently the devil has very, very poor eyesight). So, he was so exhausted by the exorcism, that he passed out in the truck on his way home.

The last I saw of him, he was being taken to Terrell State Hospital to, um, sort out these issues.

I believe we have some aspiring authors among our prosecutor brethren.

For a summary of the final arguments in the Galveston murder trial, check out the Houston Chronicle.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 11-06-03 at .]

But they are focusing on whether the defendant hid a loaded gun. But the answer will have to wait until after the weekend.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 11-07-03 at .]

In Grimes County, Texas the district attorney and I tried a murder case which resulted in a hung jury of 6-6. The defendant, who confessed to killing a man, but claimed the murder victim's son forced the defendant to kill the victim by pointing a gun to the defendant's head. The defendant claimed the victim's son threatened to kill him if the defendant didn't kill his father. The defendant claimed the murder victim's son talked to him about killing the victim, paid him about $7500.00 to do so, but he though the murder victim's son wasn't serious. He claimed the murder victim's son picked him up the night of the murder, complete with a mask & gloves to do the killing, but the defendant told the victim's son he could not kill the victim. The defendant claimed the victim's son told the defendant he was going out of town & he needed to pick up some clothing from his house, and he was just joking about killing his father. The defendant claimed he believed the victim's son when he said he was joking about killing his father.
Of course, our victim's son reacted on the night of the murder in some very strange ways. Also, his trial testimony did not help, as he came across badly to the jury.
It was the craziest defense I have ever heard in a courtroom as a prosecutor. Unfortunately, we had 6 crazy people in the jury box. It was the worst jury I have ever had as a prosecutor. We had one lady who had 3 previous nervous breakdowns (unknown to us during jury selection), who began bleeding rectally throughout the trial, and whom the judge found to be incoherent when he discussed her ability to continue as a juror. Then we ladies, who were Yankees (I can say that as a transplanted Yankee), who stated the second day into trial to all the rest of the jurors that they didn't believe in the Texas system and couldn't convict. This, despite, having told us several times in jury selection they could follow the law. Plus, we had one juror who wanted to get home to check her bids on Ebay. We had another juror who said he couldn't go back and live in the his community if he found this guy guilty, despite claiming in voir dire, this would not be a factor in his decision making as a juror!!!!

Still no verdict on the Galveston case, but the jury is doing some smoking out the window.

Dateline: Tuesday Morning 10:30 a.m.

That would be a verdict of "not guilty"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25918-2003Nov11.html

I'm guessing charges of tampering with evidence and bail jumping are forthcoming.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 11-11-03 at .]

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 11-11-03 at .]

Like everything else, the jury trial system is only as strong as it's weakest link, and that includes the quality of jurors. You can have the greatest case in the world, but if you have 12 fools on the jury you are, to quote an old cowboy saying (cleaned up for mixed company), "just urinating in the wind."