Oh man, this reminds me of State of Georgia v. Denver Fenton Allen. Some dude was in a court hearing to see if he could get new counsel for a trial, and he gets into a ten-minute shouting match with a judge who lost his cool. Bonus points for Rick & Morty fans: someone made a fan animation of Justin Roiland re-enacting it (word for word!) with Rick as Allen and Morty as Judge Durham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrnp29NeuJ0
I was a juror on a trial where the defendant represented himself. It was a little bit hilarious but mostly horrifying. Hilarious for the moment when he asked if he could get a "black light" used on some of the evidence -- apparently he thought some CSI wizardry would somehow save him. Horrifying because the defendant was accused of attempted murder, torture, kidnapping and a variety of other unpleasant charges against a victim who he then was able to torment some more by directly questioning on the witness stand. I suspect this opportunity to question her was a large part of why he wanted to represent himself at trial.
But his questioning of her didn't really go very well for him. He asked her a question, I don't remember exactly what it was, and her answer was a firm and forceful "You know it happened like that -- you were there." Just a devastating moment for him. The thing is, this guy was a real violent control freak. The things he did were truly disturbing. I don't really hold with trigger warnings much but I feel it would need one if I were to describe some of this shit.
The big twist in the case is that shortly after his examination of the victim he got a lawyer. What I heard later is that his mother, who was watching the trial in the courtroom, was so alarmed by how poorly the trial was going that she begged him to let her hire a lawyer and he finally relented. The judge said he had never encountered anything like this, and apparently he went through a lot of research to see how to handle it, but it was allowed.
The defendant's lawyer was really good. I sometimes wonder how deliberations would have gone if this lawyer had been present from the beginning. I remember that the lawyer was annoyed that he wasn't allowed to give an opening statement, which he obliquely referenced in his closing. As it was there was one juror who was pretty wobbly, but the evidence was so overwhelming that he was convicted of everything but attempted murder in the end. I think if the defendant had represented himself all the way through deliberations would have take an hour or so only.
My sister was interpreting for a federal defendant and his answer to a question was:
There are three things important to every man:
1. Fucking
2. Shitting.
He just stopped after naming two things. The judge apologized to my sister for having to deal with such language while my sister tried to not bust out laughing.
Absolutely classic stuff. As an attorney for a public entity, I see a lot of the civil pro se stuff. The sovereign citizen claims are particularly, err...eye-opening. Did you see much of that on the criminal side?
I don't have as much experience viewing pro se criminal actions, but I have seen a number of pro se civil litigants and Randall reminded me of them. Pro se civil litigants are The Worst. It iss usually someone with no job but enough time and money to be a vexatious litigant. The courts bend over backward for them procedurally in the chance they are someone with a meritorious claim/defense that was unable to find an attorney (at least in my jurisdiction). A lot of these cases get really annoying when it is clear that an attorney is ghost writing a pro se litigant's papers.
This is hilarious but believable. I have a law degree and wouldn't go near making my own defense in a court. (Did Randall want jail just for the toughness points?)
No one should think that I am a fan or defender of Michael Avenatti. However, he had a very real case against Nike. Nike was hardly innocent. It is also true that Avenatti so screwed up the case against Nike that he ended up in jail for it. If he had done a better (and more legal) job of pursuing his case against Nike he would have made millions quite legally.
I subscribed for Jesse’s spectacular reporting but I stay for Yassine’s storytelling and style.
Great payoff. Nicely played.
Oh man, this reminds me of State of Georgia v. Denver Fenton Allen. Some dude was in a court hearing to see if he could get new counsel for a trial, and he gets into a ten-minute shouting match with a judge who lost his cool. Bonus points for Rick & Morty fans: someone made a fan animation of Justin Roiland re-enacting it (word for word!) with Rick as Allen and Morty as Judge Durham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrnp29NeuJ0
Really interesting piece. I look forward to more.
I was a juror on a trial where the defendant represented himself. It was a little bit hilarious but mostly horrifying. Hilarious for the moment when he asked if he could get a "black light" used on some of the evidence -- apparently he thought some CSI wizardry would somehow save him. Horrifying because the defendant was accused of attempted murder, torture, kidnapping and a variety of other unpleasant charges against a victim who he then was able to torment some more by directly questioning on the witness stand. I suspect this opportunity to question her was a large part of why he wanted to represent himself at trial.
But his questioning of her didn't really go very well for him. He asked her a question, I don't remember exactly what it was, and her answer was a firm and forceful "You know it happened like that -- you were there." Just a devastating moment for him. The thing is, this guy was a real violent control freak. The things he did were truly disturbing. I don't really hold with trigger warnings much but I feel it would need one if I were to describe some of this shit.
The big twist in the case is that shortly after his examination of the victim he got a lawyer. What I heard later is that his mother, who was watching the trial in the courtroom, was so alarmed by how poorly the trial was going that she begged him to let her hire a lawyer and he finally relented. The judge said he had never encountered anything like this, and apparently he went through a lot of research to see how to handle it, but it was allowed.
The defendant's lawyer was really good. I sometimes wonder how deliberations would have gone if this lawyer had been present from the beginning. I remember that the lawyer was annoyed that he wasn't allowed to give an opening statement, which he obliquely referenced in his closing. As it was there was one juror who was pretty wobbly, but the evidence was so overwhelming that he was convicted of everything but attempted murder in the end. I think if the defendant had represented himself all the way through deliberations would have take an hour or so only.
My sister was interpreting for a federal defendant and his answer to a question was:
There are three things important to every man:
1. Fucking
2. Shitting.
He just stopped after naming two things. The judge apologized to my sister for having to deal with such language while my sister tried to not bust out laughing.
Absolutely classic stuff. As an attorney for a public entity, I see a lot of the civil pro se stuff. The sovereign citizen claims are particularly, err...eye-opening. Did you see much of that on the criminal side?
That was so much fun to read, dude I love your writing style.
As for Randall, I wanna party with that guy!
This honestly made my day.
I laughed really hard reading this.
This was a blast and informative in equal measure. Thank you, Yassine.
This was a great read!
I don't have as much experience viewing pro se criminal actions, but I have seen a number of pro se civil litigants and Randall reminded me of them. Pro se civil litigants are The Worst. It iss usually someone with no job but enough time and money to be a vexatious litigant. The courts bend over backward for them procedurally in the chance they are someone with a meritorious claim/defense that was unable to find an attorney (at least in my jurisdiction). A lot of these cases get really annoying when it is clear that an attorney is ghost writing a pro se litigant's papers.
Couldn't stop laughing at "JUDGE, JUROR AND EXECUTIONER"
This is hilarious but believable. I have a law degree and wouldn't go near making my own defense in a court. (Did Randall want jail just for the toughness points?)
No one should think that I am a fan or defender of Michael Avenatti. However, he had a very real case against Nike. Nike was hardly innocent. It is also true that Avenatti so screwed up the case against Nike that he ended up in jail for it. If he had done a better (and more legal) job of pursuing his case against Nike he would have made millions quite legally.
Wow it is amazing what you can do to someone else and with our legal system basically get away with it in the end.