If you ever testify in court, you might wish you could have been as
sharp as this policeman. He was being cross-examined by a defense attorney during a felony trial. The lawyer was trying to undermine the policeman’s credibility…
Q: Officer — did you see my client fleeing the scene?
A: No sir. But I subsequently observed a person matching the
description of the offender, running several blocks away.
Q: Officer — who provided this description?
A: The officer who responded to the scene.
Q: A fellow officer provided the description of this so-called offender. Do you trust your fellow officers?
A: Yes, sir. With my life.
Q: With your life? Let me ask you this then officer. Do you have a room where you change your clothes in preparation for your daily duties?
A: Yes sir, we do!
Q: And do you have a locker in the room?
A: Yes sir, I do.
Q: And do you have a lock on your locker?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Now why is it, officer, if you trust your fellow officers with your life, you find it necessary to lock your locker in a room you share with these same officers?
A: You see, sir — we share the building with the court complex, and sometimes lawyers have been known to walk through that room.
The courtroom erupted in laughter, and a prompt recess was called.
Because everybody has a stack of them
Honest debate welcome.
Personal attacks and talk-point regurgitation will not see the light of day
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Oh to have been There
Cigar Intelligence Agency has what must be the greatest response to a smug defense attorney in the history of jurisprudence:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment