Articles Posted in Best Of

This will blow your mind. Alan Hogg, age 34, was convicted of drunk-driving – for the 13th time. He’s also had 34 convictions for driving while disqualified. You may have guessed that this didn’t happened in the United States. Dude would have been executed, at least. Mr. Hogg resides in New Zealand.

Surely the Judge wouldn’t give Hogg another chance? Especially since he was also just convicted of possession of meth and three counts of possession of drug utensils? Wrong! The dude WALKED. No jail time (just 200 hours of community service). I’m not going to get into the mitigating factors because WHO CARES! Said the Judge: “In the long term, surely the courts must be in the business of avoiding offending.” What about doling out some justice? Protecting innocent citizens? Beware, Kiwis – Hogg has now obtained a learner’s permit.

If your honor has been besmirched, or if someone has 14 items in the “10 items or less” line, and “rock, paper, scissors” just won’t do, consider challenging the offender to a duel. If you are in Rhode Island, though, try flipping a coin. DO NOT CHALLENGE YOUR OPPONENT TO A DUEL.

Merely challenging a person to a duel will get you 1-7 years in jail, as will accepting the challenge, whether the duel is fought or not! And don’t ask your friend to set it up. That offense is punishable by up to 5 years in jail.

Undeterred, you decide to have the duel anyway, netting you another 1-7 years. Go alone. Anyone who helps you, acts as your second, or comes as your “surgeon,” is looking at up to 5 years.

So you’re an attorney with a trial coming up, but are still recovering from back surgery. You want the court to continue the trial. You even have a doctor’s note! So you file a “Motion for a Continuance” with one teeny, tiny typo:

Plaintiff moves the court for a continuance of the trial for the reason that counsel for the plaintiff is recovering from dick surgery …

Now that has got to hurt! Click here – ouch! – to see the Motion and the doctor’s note (for the injured disk).

Certainly a Judge must control the courtroom. How a Judge may do this, not surprisingly, is determined by the law. One tool is the power to hold someone in contempt. [Hint: It’s a power used, a lot, below.] According to the Supreme Court, if the sentence imposed for contempt is less than 6 months, there is no right to a jury trial. Now, to our man in Maryland.

In 1990, Mr. Johnson was convicted of malicious destruction of personal property, placed on probation, and given a 3-year suspended sentence. He had to stay out of trouble for 3 years. Unfortunately, in 1991 he was convicted of burglary, and sentenced to 10 years. So Mr. Johnson is in jail for a couple years, when he is called to court for violating his 1990 probation – with just 10 days remaining on the 3-year suspended sentence.

Althought the prospect of serving an additional 3 years – on top of the 10 years he was already serving – did not sit well with him, his probation agent told him that the State would not seek to tack on the additional 3 years for violating his probation. WRONG! The Judge added on the 3 years, and a lively, lengthy, colorful conversation ensued. And just when you think it might be over …

Sometimes a little effort goes a long way. Just ask one lawyer, Mr. Puricelli (who represented a man successfully in a civil rights case), who got upbraided for repeatedly failing to fix typos in his court filings. The judge described Mr. Puricelli’s written work as “careless, to the point of disrespectful,” and agreed with the defendants that it was “vague, ambiguous, unintelligible, verbose and repetitive.” What were some of the mistakes? Per the judge:

Throughout the litigation, Mr. Puricelli identified the court as “THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTER [sic] DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA.” Considering the religious persuasion of the presiding officer, the “Passover” District would have been more appropriate.” [Judge Jacob Hart, presiding]

Mr. Puricelli, on the other hand, felt the court didn’t understand his side of the story. When the defendant asked the court to reduce Mr. Puricelli’s fees [that they were required by law to pay] due to his typos, Mr. Puricelli wrote this reply to the court:

Had the Defendants not tired [sic] to paper Plaintiff’s counsel to death, some type [sic] would not have occurred. Furthermore, there have been omissions by the Defendants, thus they should not case [sic] stones.

Do you think the judge reduced Mr. Puricelli’s fees?

Continue reading →