Trial Jokes / Recent Jokes

A rural Frenchman was on trial for killing his wife whenhe found her with a neighbor. Upon being asked why he shother instead of her lover, he replied,"Ah, m'sieur, is it not better to shoot a woman once than adifferent man every week?"

At the height of a political corruption trial, the prosecuting attorney attacked
a witness.“Isn't it true,” he bellowed, “that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?”The witness stared out the window as though he hadn't heard the question. “Isn't it true that you accepted five thousand dollars to compromise this case?” the lawyer repeated.The witness still did not respond.Finally, the judge leaned over and said, “Sir, please answer the question.”“Oh,” the startled witness said, “I thought he was talking to you.”

Below is an item that appeared recently in various Humor lists. It did not appear credible to me, so I wrote to the Association of Trial Lawyers of America for their comments on its veracity. Their comments (including a little propaganda for their side) follow the summary of the Stella Awards below. We may have some "goofy" legal decisions in America, but the ones below appear to be bogus.
Origin of the Stella Awards:
In 1994, a New Mexico jury awarded $2.9 million U.S. in damages to 81-year-old Stella Liebeck who suffered third-degree burns to her legs, groin and buttocks after spilling a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself.
This case inspired an annual award - The "Stella" Award - for the most frivolous lawsuit in the U.S. The ones listed below are clear candidates.
January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture more...

As the trial for vice-presidential adviser Scooter Libby gets under way, the defendant claims that he’s a scapegoat for the actions of Karl Rove. Rove denied the allegations, and then released the names of all the jurors.

A judge in a semi-small city was hearing a drunk-driving case and the defendent, who had both a record and a reputation for driving under the influence, demanded a jury trial. It was nearly 4 p.m. and getting a jury would take time, so the judge called a recess and went out in the hall looking to impanel anyone available for jury duty. He found a dozen lawyers in the main lobby and told them that they were a jury.
The lawyers thought this would be a novel experience and so followed the judge back to the courtroom. The trial was over in about 10 minutes and it was very clear that the defendent was guilty. The jury went into the jury-room, the judge started getting ready to go home, and everyone waited.
After nearly three hours, the judge was totally out of patience and sent the bailiff into the jury-room to see what was holding up the verdict. When the bailiff returned, the judge said, "Well. have they got a verdict yet?"
The bailiff shook his head and said, more...

Nearly everything has changed in the United States since the Bill of Rights was written and adopted. We still see the original words when we read those first 10 Amendments to the Constitution, yet the meaning is vastly different now.

And no wonder. We`ve gone from a country of a few million to a few hundred million. The nation`s desire to band together was replaced by revulsion of togetherness. We exchanged a birthright of justice for a magic bullet, and replaced the Pioneer Spirit with the Pioneer Stereo.

We`re not the people who founded this country and our Bill of Rights should reflect this. As we approach the 21st Century, it`s time to bring the wording up to date showing what we are and who we are.

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, but shall act as if it did; and shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, unless such speech can be construed as "commercial speech" or "irresponsible more...

A defendant was on trial for murder in a case where there was strong evidence indicating guilt, but there was no corpse.
Knowing that his client would probably be convicted, the lawyer resorted to a trick during his closing statement.
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have a surprise for all of you," he said, looking at his watch. "In approximately one minute, the person presumed dead in this case will walk into this courtroom."
He then looked towards the courtroom door. The jurors, stunned, looked on eagerly. A minute passed and nothing happened.
Finally, the lawyer said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I made up the previous statement. However, you all looked on with anticipation. Therefore, I say to you that there is reasonable doubt in this case as to whether anyone was killed and insist that you return a verdict of not guilty."
The jury, now clearly confused, retired to deliberate. Within a few minutes, they returned and pronounced a more...