The Case of the Stinky Juror:
A report on a recent Massachusetts appellate decision from Legal Blog Watch (Robert Ambrogi). Read the whole thing (which also points to the opinion), but let me quote the closing line: "The moral of the case: Justice may be blind, but it retains a healthy sense of smell."
Thanks to Victor Steinbok for the pointer.
1. You can dismiss a juror for smelling bad, but not for being fat; and
2. If you don't want jury duty, don't shower. :)
How 'bout loading up on BEANS the night before voir dire?
Chamber-music to the ear of the court?
By the way, the opinion notes, "John P. Zanini, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth, was present but did not argue." I do not practice in Massachusetts, so I am curious as to why an attorney involved in a case would show up for the oral argument and then not participate. Any ideas?
He was barred from argument as a sanction. He was obliged to file the Commonwealth's brief no later than 5/30/2008 (after moving already for one enlargement of filing time of almost three months). He nonetheless had filed nothing as of 9/23/2008. He then moved for leave to argue anyway, and the court denied the motion. It ruled that it would accept the Commonwealth's brief if he filed it by 9/26/2008, and he filed it on that date. So the court took the brief, but barred him from arguing.
Look up the docket here:
http://ma-appellatecourts.org/search_number.php
(This site won't allow a direct link due to the length of the URL)
Your #2 had also occurred to me. But I'm not sure what I could do to make myself that pungent. I wonder if one has to have certain genes (or "jeans"?) to be that odoriferous.
Serious question for trial lawyers: Are there any parallels that come to mind when reading this? Other factors not related to the background of the potential juror that can or does cause a juror to be dismissed?
I'm not trolling for "gross-out stories." Like this one. I simply have never made it through voir-dire [I presume because I have young children: defense attorneys don't seem to like that], and so I don't have a good idea of what can get one booted.
What sort of latitude does a trial judge have?
(So "do cause due cause," I guess.)
This was the drug dog, traffic stop case. He kept arguing there was no consent, the judges kept explaining that consent was not needed, per the Supreme Court.
Then the attorney for the prosecution was ready to argue. The judge said to him, before he could say anything else, "I suppose you aren't going to ask us to overrule the Supreme Court, are you?" He said, "No your honor. As we see it [trailed off] ... Thank you for your time, your honor."
There was no point in saying anything. It was already obvious the court was going to rule in his favor.
You funny!
For your own "#2", try this recipe, courtesy of the Mobile Riverine Association:
PINTO BEANS AND HAM HOCKS W/ CORNBREAD
3 to 5 heavily smoked ham hocks
2 lbs. dry pinto beans, washed &cleaned
1 lg. onion, chopped
3 lg. cloves garlic
Place ham hocks, onion and garlic into a large cooking pot. Add enough water to fill the pot about 3/4 full. Boil 1 to 2 hours or until the hocks are tender. Add pinto beans and water as necessary and continue cooking 1 to 2 hours more until the beans are done. If you soaked the beans before hand, the time required for this part may be reduced. If you like them zesty, a couple of Jalapeno peppers may be added here. Taste is important here. cook until the beans begin to fall apart and the broth begins to look like thick bean soup, this greatly enhances the flavor. You may also want to
Chop up a onion and put on top of your beans and ham hocks.
Serves 6-8.
That explanation makes sense (and doesn't make the prosecutor look particularly competent). Thanks for sharing.
Without Federal Dog's post, David Schwartz's explanation would have made sense.
How does this differ from any other handicapped person seeking to perform his/her civic duty through jury duty?
Even if not biological in cause, BO can certainly be considered expression. Or the result of misfiring in the CNS.
Peggy Seeger gave an amusing recipe in her song "It's a Free World" (which chronicles her battle against a smoker befouling her favorite restaurant). I'd quote the lyrics, but they don't seem to be available online anywhere. From what I can recall, she recommended a combination of beans, corn, and cabbage for maximum odor strength, duration, and penetration.
RICHARD R. KREIMER v. BUREAU OF POLICE FOR THE TOWN OF MORRISTOWN
That case is in my collection of hilarious oral arguments. It's my second favorite. My favorite is a Federal diversity jurisdiction case.
One lawyer is trying to get the Circuit Court's ruling upheld, despite the fact that nobody understands it and he can't explain it. The CC simply said something like "Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, per Younger" but abstention only makes sense if you have jurisdiction. When asked if he wanted to argue that Younger is, or should be, a jurisdictional doctrine somehow, he passed.
There were three litigants, and only the pro se litigant even discussed jurisdiction (which is required of all of them, per circuit rules). In oral argument it came out there was no diversity jurisdiction for three independent reasons:
1) There was no diversity. (Oops!)
2) The amount in controversy was insufficient. (The amount was sufficient, but not all of them amount was in controversy.)
3) There is no Federal diversity jurisdiction when the original State jurisdiction is in rem.
So, needless to say, it was a total train wreck of an oral argument.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.