LEGAL BRIEFS AND OTHER SHORTS.

SUNFUN Cross-Examines the Legal Profession.

Hello again, fellow litigants!
     Doing Funnies every week, I get a pretty good record of how
people feel on a particular subject based on the amount of
material available.  Looking through the legal stuff on hand, it
became clear that we could use only a fraction of what's
available.  Either that or we were going to have the first book-
length weekly Funnies.  One thing is certain: people feel
strongly about the legal profession -- even humorists:
     "During the mid-1980s dairy farmers decided there was
     too much cheap milk at the supermarket.  So the
     government bought and slaughtered 1.6 million dairy
     cows.  How come the government never does anything like
     this with lawyers?"           - P. J. O'Rourke 

     Many of you might think that this feeling is just a
reflection of our cynical, modern times.  Hardly.  In
Shakespeare's "Henry VI," revolutionary Jack Cade, says "First we
kill all the lawyers."  At best, lawyers are alternately booed
and cheered depending on the exact cause they support at the
moment.  You have to admire a profession that can bend words so
effectively.  After all, who else would have the guts to call an
800 page document a "brief?"
     As much as we hate to admit it, GOOD lawyers are champions
of civilization representing so many of history's movers and
shakers.  Gandhi was a lawyer.  Mark Twain was a lawyer for a
time.  Even Aesop, the fable guy from ancient Greece, was a
lawyer.  And many American presidents were lawyers, including
both Lincoln and Nixon (Now doesn't that represent the best and
worst of the profession right there?).  And we even have some
lawyers on the Funnies subscription list -- all good ones, I
assure you.
     Not to deny that there are a number of ambulance-chasing
shysters who give the rest of the profession a bad name.  Not
just staking out unpopular positions or defending despised
clients, but representing the worst of checkbook justice.  Their
clients are innocent until proven broke.  At this level, lawyers
are just the larval form of politicians.
     Besides our legal friends, Hello and Thanks to our friends
and associates:  Dick Ginkowski, Jerry Taff, Peter Adler, Timothy
McChain, Ellen Peterson, Peter Jay Adler, Kerry Miller, Carol
Becwar, Kathleen Beckmann, Alison Becwar, Laura Hong Li, John J.
Wallner and Sylvia Libin He.  Now put on your law suits; Sunday
Funnies is in session again!
     Have a great week,


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

ASK AWAY...  BUT IT'LL COST YOU!
-------------------------------
     A man walked into a lawyer's office and asked about the
lawyer's rates. 
     "$50.00 for three questions", replied the lawyer.
     "Isn't that awfully expensive?" asked the man. 
     "Yes," the lawyer replied, "now what's your third question?"


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

A SLIGHT CASE OF TIME...
---------------------
     A young lawyer dies while on his way to court.  On his
arrival in heaven, St. Peter greets him and says, "I must say you
look quite well for someone 124 years old.
     The lawyer, seizing on the possibility of an appeal, says,
"I knew there was some mistake, I'm only 35."
     St. Peter responds, "Not according to your billable hours."


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

OF FEE AND FOLLY...
----------------

   - A lawyer in a copyright dispute billed a first-time author
     $8,000 for reading his book.  That amount was just about
     double what the author earned for writing it.

   - A lawyer in Australia charged one client $26 (Australian)
     for opening and reading the Christmas card she sent him. 
     Not only that, he billed her an additional $26 for calling
     her to say thank you.

   - An attorney in Houston, Texas billed his clients $108.8
     million out of a $170 million settlement involving defective
     construction materials.  He justified the high fee because
     he had not filed the lawsuit as a class action suit (which
     have much lower fees), but had, "treated each client as an
     individual."  Right.  All 37,000 of them.  Good trick. 
     (WSJ)

--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

UNAPPEALING PROSPECTS...
---------------------
     Through the efforts of his legal team, convicted rapist
Darron B. Anderson won an appeal for a new trial in Oklahoma. 
His first trial had ended as a disaster for the defense, with
Anderson sentenced to a total of 2,200 years in prison.  His
second trial didn't go any better, extending his sentence to
11,250 years -- 11 and 1/4 centuries.  He petitioned to the
Oklahoma State Court of Criminal Appeals last July, which decided
that there had been a technical error on one count, which they
dismissed.  That knocked a full five centuries off his sentence. 
Now, with a little luck, Anderson will get out in 12,744 A.D. 
(NOW)


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

HOW TO IMPRESS THE JURY
-----------------------
     Dallas defense lawyer Phillip Robertson certainly knows how
to make a dramatic point.  While arguing that his client should
be given probation, he picked up the 9mm pistol his client had
allegedly used in holding up a convenience store and pointed it
directly at the jury.  Though the weapon wasn't loaded, several
of the jury members ducked or threw up their hands.  "It appeared
to me that they were quite upset," observed Assistant District
Attorney Tom D'Amore. "I'm assuming that most of those people
have never had a 9mm pointed at their heads."  Probably correct:
they quickly convicted his client, who will be off the streets
for the next 13 years.  (AP)


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

WHY LEGAL LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE SO PRECISE...
-----------------------------------------
     Verbal sparring is the norm in a courtroom, but sometimes
even attorneys go beyond just using words.  Only if the law
allows, of course...

  The Court:  Next witness.

  Ms. Olschner:  Your honor, at this time, I would like to swat
     Mr. Buck in the head with his client's deposition.

  The Court:   You mean read it?

  Ms. Olschner:  No sir, I mean swat him in the head with it. 
     Pursuant to Rule 32, I may use this deposition for any
     purpose, and that is the purpose for which I want to use it.

  The Court:   Well, it does say that. (pause) There being no
     objection, you may proceed.

  Ms. Olschner:  Thank you, Judge Hanes. (whereupon Ms. Olschner
     swatted Mr. Buck in the head with the deposition.)

  Mr. Buck:   But, Judge.

  The Court:  Next witness.

  Mr. Buck:   We object.

  The Court:  Sustained.  Next witness.

                  - Court transcript from Texas Bar Journal 1995

--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

YOU GOTTA QUESTION?
------------------
     These are taken from various court transcripts found around
the Web.  Many of them are the result of inattention by the
attorneys involved, but a few are just the result of breaking
lawyer rule Number 1; asking a question to which you don't know
the answer.  Names have been changed to protect all parties (You
didn't really think everyone was named Smith and Jones, did
you?).

  -----

 Q:  How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the
     collision?

  -----

 Q:  Have you lived in this town all your life?

 A:  Not yet.

  -----

 Q:  Do you have any reason to believe that the decision to have
     Mr. Jones, Mr. Brown and yourself work on Foobar products to
     the exclusion of the EMS products listed in group 3 and 4 of
     Exhibit -- of the December 5 chart was made or ...
          Can you read that back, and maybe I can try and figure
     out what I wanted to ask?

  -----

 Q:  What is your relationship with the plaintiff?

 A:  She is my daughter.

 Q:  Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?

  -----

 Q:  Is the south boundary of the north half of the southeast
     quarter of the northwest quarter the same line as the north
     boundary of the south half of the southeast quarter of the
     northwest quarter?

  -----

 Q:  Oh, okay.  So you had a conversation with Mr. Smith about
     the SeaTower at some point?

 A:  Yes.

 Q:  Prior to his death?

  -----

 Q:  What is your name?

 A:  Ernestine Jones.

 Q:  And what is your marital status?

 A:  Fair.

  -----

 Q:  ...And what did he do then?

 A:  He came home, and next morning he was dead.

 Q:  So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?

  -----

 Q:  Could you see him from where you were standing?

 A:  I could see his head.

 Q:  And where was his head?

 A:  Just above his shoulders.

  -----

 Q:  The truth of the matter is that you were not an unbiased,
     objective witness, isn't it?  You too were shot in the
     fracas.

 A:  No, sir. I was shot midway between the fracas and the navel.

  -----

 Q:  You don't know what it was, and you didn't know what it
     looked like, but can you describe it?

  -----

 Q:  You were there until the time you left, is that true?

  -----

 Q:  Mr. Smith, you went on a rather elaborate honeymoon, didn't
     you?

 A:  I went to Europe, Sir.

 Q:  And you took your new wife?

  -----

 Q:  So the first thing that you heard was the one that you     
     overheard with Mr. Jones stating that he didn't want any
     women in his department.  And then the second time when you
     were in this exact conversation would have been after the
     first time?

  -----

 ATTORNEY:  I object to that as being a question impossible to
     answer; outside this person's expertise; and I don't know
     what it means.

  -----

 Q:  Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his
     sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?

  -----

 Q:  Can you describe the individual?

 A:  He was about medium height and had a beard.

 Q:  Was this a male, or a female?

  -----

 Q:  Were you alone or by yourself?


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--

REALLY, REALLY, ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DEAD
-------------------------------------------
     In a murder trial, the defense attorney was cross-examining
a pathologist.  Here's what happened, according to the
Massachusetts State Bar Association Journal:

ATTORNEY: Before you signed the death certificate, had you taken
          the  pulse?

CORONER:  No.

ATTORNEY: Did you listen to the heart?

CORONER:  No.

ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?

CORONER:  No.

ATTORNEY: So, when you signed the death certificate you weren't
          sure the  man was dead, were you?

CORONER:  Well, let me put it this way.  The man's brain was
          sitting in a jar on my desk.  But I guess it's possible
          he could be out there practicing law somewhere.


--:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)-----:-)--