The Case: Uncle Rico has been charged with the crime of theft. Specifically, Uncle Rico stands accused of stealing a handful of tater tots from his nephew, Napoleon. The first witness for the prosecution is Pedro, student body president. The following is a transcript from the direct examination by the prosecutor at trial:
Q (Prosecutor): Tell me everything you remember about October 20.
A (Pedro): Well, a lot of stuff. That’s the day Napoleon’s tater tots were stolen, you know.
Q: Now, the school served tater tots for lunch day, right?
A: Now that you mention it, I think they did. Hot, steamy tater tots. Mmmmm.
Q: And isn’t it true that you saw Uncle Rico with a handful of tater tots later that afternoon?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: (Showing the witness a small fried item) I am showing you one of the tater tots recovered from Uncle Rico’s house. Is this one of Napoleon’s tots?
A: I guess. It looks like it to me.
Q: I know there was a lot of confusion that day. Did you talk with anyone about what had happened?
A: Well yeah, you see, I was giving my election speech at the time, so I didn’t see anything. But Deb told me the next day that Uncle Rico had reached into Napoleon’s pocket and taken some of the tots.
Q: What did Napoleon say at the time, if anything?
A: Well, I was there when Napoleon discovered that his pocket was empty. He cried, man. He yelled out, "Omigosh, my tots are gone!" And then he cried.
Q: Now, in your experience, has Uncle Rico done this sort of stuff in the past?
A: Yeah. Once, he shot a llama with a BB gun. He’s a pretty bad dude. Stealing tots, that’s nothing for Rico. He’s done a lot worse, I tell you.
Q: To your knowledge, has Uncle Rico ever been convicted of a crime?
A: Yeah. He spent time in jail for theft about 12 years ago. French fries, I think it was. Yeah. He stole some french fries. Got caught.
Question: You are Uncle Rico’s defense attorney. With respect to the evidentiary issues presented in the above line of questioning, please identify each objection that should be raised and explain in detail your legal arguments in support of each such objection.
Americans, on a whole, are a rather paranoid bunch. At least, that is the case if the television is to be believed.* Marketing campaigns and advertisements warn of the dangers of a multiplicity of ills, dangers, diseases, syndromes, and phenomenons. But if you think about it, the most dangerous thing you do is get in your car and drive somewhere. Sharing the road with your fellow drivers is by far more dangerous than terrorist attacks, serial murderers, global warming, or any other thing people usually afraid of. When you are on the road, you are only as safe as the skill level of the drivers around you. And I think you’ll agree with me that it isn’t a very comforting thought.


One question I often see in those email surveys that get passed around is this:
Excuses, excuses
Whenever someone says something happened or didn’t happen "due to unforeseen circumstances," it is almost invariably a lie. The circumstances surrounding the error or omission were almost always foreseeable, usually long before the deadline. The "unforeseen circumstances" is just a cover, a verbal shield to obscure the fact that someone (often the speaker) screwed up.
Case in point: the grades for my last semester of law school are past due, but we still haven’t received them. By my memory, this is the third time grades have been late in the last two years. I got an email today from the registrar telling everyone that grades would be late. We all knew this, of course, because they were due to be released two days ago. The registrar cited "unforeseen circumstances" for the delay. This is, of course, utter nonsense. Not only were the circumstances foreseeable, they were almost probable. Certain professors are notorious in their failure to comply with a deadline. In fact, if you asked the students, they would probably give you a list of the professors who were most likely to deliver grades late, and that list would probably be fairly accurate.
Additionally, the registrar’s office has never been known for its superb organization or punctuality. There was a spat a year ago when the then-registrar failed to end a exam on time. This can be a big deal, since most law school essay exams are structured so that you have less time than you want to write. An extra ten minutes can make a significant difference. The registrar’s office also has a long history of schedule conflicts, registration errors, and various other administrative errors.
Given the serial tardiness of some professors and the track record of the registrar, it was almost inevitable that the grades would be released late. That whole "unforeseen circumstances" bit is bollocks. What I’d really like to see is an up-front admission of responsibility, followed by specific identification of the offending parties. Something like, "We didn’t really get around to telling you this until after the deadline because we’re disorganized, but we though you should know that Professors Doe, Wossname, and Fulano turned in grades late. For your convenience, their email addresses, office numbers, and home addresses have been attached below."
Technorati Tags blog