In America's courtooms, the verdict is laughter. Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy. A: You mumbled on the first part of that and I couldn't understand what you were saying. Could you repeat the question? Q: I mumbled, did I? Well, we'll just ask the court reporter to read back what I said. She didn't indicate any problem understanding what I said, so obviously she understood every word. We'll just have her read my question back and find out if there was any mumbling going on. Madam reporter, would you be so kind? Court Reporter: Mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble.

The quotes contained in this book are things real people actually said, word for word, under oath in legal court proceedings and are forever immortalized in the public record. This fully illustrated, cartoon panel book brings these humorous quotes to life! It is true that lawyers and witnesses say the darndest things! Please enjoy a good laugh at their expense.

NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2021: POLITICS BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL "A must-read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court."—MIKE LEE, Republican senator from Utah Politics have always intruded on Supreme Court appointments. But although the Framers would recognize the way justices are nominated and confirmed today, something is different. Why have appointments to the high court become one of the most explosive features of our system of government? As Ilya Shapiro makes clear in Supreme Disorder, this problem is part of a larger phenomenon. As government has grown, its laws reaching even further into our lives, the courts that interpret those laws have become enormously powerful. If we fight over each new appointment as though everything were at stake, it’s because it is. When decades of constitutional corruption have left us subject to an all-powerful tribunal, passions are sure to flare on the infrequent occasions when the political system has an opportunity to shape it. And so we find the process of judicial appointments verging on dysfunction. Shapiro weighs the many proposals for reform, from the modest (term limits) to the radical (court-packing), but shows that there can be no quick fix for a judicial system suffering a crisis of legitimacy. And in the end, the only measure of the Court’s legitimacy that matters is the extent to which it maintains, or rebalances, our constitutional order.

At the turn of the century, a spate of sensational trials kept French and English readers spellbound and ignited bitter tugs of war over marriage and divorce laws, women's rights, temperance, gay prostitution, and lesbian literature. The chapters in Disorder in the Court each focus on a specific high-profile trial, and the public debates surrounding it, in order to address the role of the state in regulating sexual morality. The authors draw on police archives, records of coroners' inquests, magistrates' courts, and news coverage to bring to life social conflicts sparked by differing ideologies of class, gender, and sexuality. Also explored is the role of the police and 'scientific' methods of criminology in an era when working class marital conflicts were resolved by an axe blow, unwanted middle class spouses were dispatched with an arsenic diet, and government agents scanned sensational novels or loitered in Paris urinals in search of vice.

It was a day that started out so differently for so many. Shame for some. Anticipation for others. Conflict for still others. They all arrived at the small court house for different reasons, but in the end, all they wanted to do was make it out alive. The characters must balance their fears against their humanity in order to survive. Experience the chaos as escaped convict Brian Baird returns to Apple Lake to settle a score.

Both expert and lay audiences have struggled to understand and apply commonplace definitions of sanity, and the portrayal of the insanity defense in popular culture has only served to further frustrate such understandings. Andrea L. Alden argues that the problems with understanding the insanity defense are, at their foundation, rhetorical. The legal concept of what constitutes insanity and, therefore, an abdication of responsibility for one's actions does not map neatly onto the mental health professions' understandings of mental illness and how that affects an individual's ability to understand or control his or her actions. Additionally, there are multiple layers of persuasion involved in any effort to convince a judge, jury--or a public, for that matter--that a defendant is or is not responsible for his or her actions at a particular moment in time. Alden examines landmark court cases such as the trial of Daniel McNaughtan, Durham v.

More hilarious, unbelievable-but-true stories from our nation’s courts, from the author of Disorder in the Court and Disorderly Conduct. Charles M. Sevilla finds comic gems in court transcripts—and now brings readers a delightful, all-new collection. Starting with a chapter on the defendants (one of whom, when asked his marital status, replies after a long pause, "Adequate") and following with sections on lawyers, experts, witnesses, evidence, and even one called "Malaprops" (DA: The status of the boat has no relevance to this case at all. This is a total fishing expedition). Stories from Sevilla's previous books have become viral Internet sensations, priming readers for more legal disorder, such as: Clerk: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to given in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Witness: Yes, I swear. I’ll say anything but the truth, nothing but the truth.