Actually Funny Lawyer Jokes

As a lawyer in San Diego for many years now, I've heard my fair share of lawyer jokes, both good and bad. The most common joke, and the one I'm sure you've heard before, is "What do you call 100 lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?" It's about the worst lawyer joke in the world. It's lazy, cold and uninspired. Sadly, it represents that vast majority of lawyer jokes in the world. They aren't even really jokes, they're unfiltered lawyer-hate. There are, however, tons of great lawyer jokes that provide insight into my profession. Here are my top  lawyer jokes in no particular order:

 

"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer."

~ Robert Frost (Not really a joke, but good nonetheless)

A doctor and a lawyer in two cars collided on a country road. The lawyer, seeing that the doctor was a little shaken up, helped him from the car and offered him a drink from his hip flask.The doctor accepted and handed the flask back to the lawyer, who closed it and put it away.

"Aren't you going to have a drink yourself?" asked the doctor.

"Sure; after the police leave," replied the lawyer.

This final one comes from an actual trial. The transcript was originally published in the book Disorder in the American Courts.

ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check
for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive,
nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and
practicing law. 

Changes in Three-Strikes Law Brings Hearings to San Diego Courts

In a previous post, I discussed the history of three-strikes laws in California and the criticism of its effects on sentencing, but I didn't go into significant detail about how the law has slowly changed over the past 20 years. In 2000, Proposition 36 gave an avenue for drug offenders to seek treatment rather than face harsh sentencing under the three-strikes laws. More recently, 2012's Proposition 36 directly amended the three-strikes law to allow life sentences only when the third conviction is for a violent or serious crime. Here is a list of the exact changes that went into effect when Prop 36 passed just a few months ago.

• Life sentence on third-strike only if offense is serious or violent. This should mean that we won't see any more life sentences imposed on defendants for stealing a pack of gum or possessing a small amount of drugs.
• Re-sentencing authorized for convicts of non-serious and non-violent offenses who are judged not to be a danger to community. This will mean that many convicts currently serving a life sentence will be able to get their sentences reduced if they meet the right criteria.
• Life sentencing remains for certain non-violent sex or offenses and crimes involving firearms possession. This was included to alleviate critics concerns that too many dangerous undesirables would be let out onto the street.
• Convicts who had previous convictions for rape, murder or child molestation will not be eligible for re-sentencing no matter what their third offense was.

As a result of these changes, many hearings are starting to take place in courts throughout California for inmates looking to rid themselves of life sentences that came from non-violent and non-serious third-strike offenses. The first hearing in San Diego will be held in front of Judge David Danielson of the San Diego Superior Court. The Union Tribune released a story on Saturday detailing some of the upcoming cases. Here is a summary of some of them.

"William Carter, 57, is set for a hearing on Thursday. He has been in prison since 1994 after being convicted of evading a police officer and causing a collision. Carter had a history of drunken driving convictions and assault, according to his court file.

In March, Danielsen will consider the case of Annette Carter, 56, who has been in prison for 17 years. She was convicted of selling a $5 bag of marijuana to an undercover police officer in 1995. She had three robbery convictions, all from a single case in 1981, according to court records. 

 Along with Carter, Danielsen will hear the case of Joel Murillo, sentenced in 1994 for possessing 2 grams of methamphetamine. He had prior convictions from 1983 for robbery and 1984 for voluntary manslaughter."

Major Drug Ring Busted in San Diego

Federal drug enforcement officials in San Diego announced on Thursday that they had brought down a large scale drug trafficking organization that delivered methamphetamine and cocaine to the streets of San Diego. Most of the alleged traffickers were arrested on February 20th, but some of the suspects remain at large. Twelve of the defendants arrested on Wednesday resided in north county San Diego, including seven in Vista, two in San Marcos and three in Oceanside.

“This organization was distributing multipound quantities of methamphetamine in our cities, and making a huge profit,” said William Sherman, acting special agent in charge of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in San Diego. Sherman

Sherman made national headlines last year when a University of California San Diego engineering student was held in a DEA cell for days without food or water. The student, 24-year-old Daniel Chong, was nearly dead when federal agents found him making noise five days after he had been handcuffed inside his cell. Chong was arrested along with eight others when DEA agents raided an apartment where Chong and his friends were smoking marijuana. Agents claimed that the apartment contained weapons, psychedelics, mushrooms and prescription medication.

After Chong was discovered severely dehydrated and malnourished, Agents took him to the hospital where he spent three days in the intensive care unit. It took more than a week and a half and the story reaching national news before the DEA finally issued a public apology. Special agent William Sherman, the official responsible for the detention facility, said he had the "deepest apologies" for the way Chong was treated.

Public reaction to the incident largely condemned the DEA in support of Chong. Barbara Boxer demanded that the Department of Justice issue a thorough investigation of the incident. Representatives Darrel Issa and Duncan Hunter demanded a congressional investigation and a complete account of the DEA's detention policies. Chong's attorneys issued a statement that they were going to sue the DEA for $20 million.

Burglary Ring Members Plead Guilty

Two men who took part in a burglary ring in San Diego plead guilty to five years in prison on Thursday in San Diego Superior Court. Police attention was brought to the duo when they stole a high-performance car worth $250,000 from a Rancho Santa Fe home. Along with the Ford GT, Gabriel Castano and George Moore stole valuable items from the residence. They have a sentencing hearing scheduled for March 11th.

The duo used a warehouse in Vista to store stolen cars and valuable goods. In addition to the theft in Rancho Santa Fe, they were accused of stealing property from residences in La Jolla and University City. The stolen items included jewelry, two Porsches and artwork valued up to a million dollars.

Despite a bad economy with high unemployment and low wages, burglaries and vehicle thefts are down throughout San Diego over the past ten years. According to San Diego police crime statistics, the raw number of crimes committed in the county is the lowest since the 1970's. Crimes, including murders, larceny, rape and violent crimes peaked in the late 1980s and early 1990s. That period of time lead to a large number of laws in California and nationwide that increased prison sentences for those convicted. The most notorious legislation was the Three Strikes law, which you can read more about here.

Giving 100% in Every Case

I was recently inspired by a post on Nathan Burney's criminal law blog about defense attorneys pouring 100 percent of their effort into a case. It's always been my and my firm's goal to always give our clients the best representation possible. Sadly, there are many attorneys out there that overload themselves with cases, and therefore are unable to give their clients the full attention or effort they deserve in a case. Many clients recognize this and try to switch ships midstream, but this often isn't possible.

In Nathan's post, he describes a client who came into his office after already being in court with his current lawyer for two days. The client was frightened about the prospects of his case because he felt his attorney wasn't doing any of the necassary work. Taking on a case that is already in court isn't always a good decision, but this particular situation was an emergency. When he called the previous lawyer on the phone to get all the necassary information, he discovered that absolutely no work had been done. No calls to the prosecutor, no interviewing of witnesses, no consultation with experts and not even a detailed interview with the defendant.

The original attorney was offended and angry. He couldn't undertstand why his client expected him to bust his ass on such an insignificant case. In my opinion, that is a bizarre and dangerous attitude to have as a defense attorney in San Diego. Every single case, no matter how small, insignificant or routine it may seem from the outside, is extremely important if you're a defendant. Even the smallest charges can have huge implications in your life both financially and in terms of your freedom. A defense attorney who is doing their job should be looking at all the evidence, interviewing witnesses, talking to prosecutors, consulting with experts and working day and night to examine every angle of the case.

It can be hard for a client to know whether they'll be getting an attorney that will put 100 percent into a case. Some people say you get what you pay for, but that isn't always the case. I'm proud to have superb AVVO ratings, accolades from various law organizations and great reviews from clients. A good defense attorney is essential for our entire legal process, and justice can't be served without knowledgeable and dedicated defense.