legalese, " />

Incorrigible Dicta
Platitudes and Diatribes from the Best Defense Money Can’t Buy

“Rendite” is not a word.

I find it commonly used as a word by lawyers and legal workers who are discussing the proccess of interstate or international extradition.   “Rendition” is a legal synonym for “extradition,” and folks have apparently been back-forming the word “rendite.”

Normally I wouldn’t care.  I figure creating new words is a good thing and enriches the language, not to mention funny.  The reason I object in this case is that the new word is an awkward and incomprehensible bit of legalese that normal english-speakers are unlikely to understand.

Also “surrender” (the proper verb to match “rendition”) is not only less awkward and more fun.  See, e.g. “SURRENDER DOROTHY” (and your little dog, too!)


Posted by AndyCowan on March 25th, 2009 :: Filed under Law for the Layman
Tags :: ,

Only in Lowell

Overheard in Court yesterday:*

[The clerk calls a case; counsel and client approach]

Judge: Raise your right hand.
Counsel: Me?
Judge: Yes, you. [She complies]
Judge: Do you solemnly swear that this case will be through by two?
Counsel:  No!
Counsel: I can’t promise that!
Judge: Then I won’t tell [the Superior Court judge] that you’re here.
Judge: Sixth session for Trial.  Judge is waiting.
[Counsel stands in place, dumbfounded]

Judge: It’s Judge Smith.**  He’s new.   Good guy.

Counsel: Did you teach him everything he knows?
Judge: No
Counsel: Thank God!

[exuent]

*And by “overheard” I mean “this was all on the record.”
**Not the judge’s real name.


Posted by AndyCowan on March 24th, 2009 :: Filed under A Day in the Life, Judicial Pearls of Wisdom
Tags :: ,

Hearsay Exceptions!

It has come to Dicta’s attention this week that there are some young lawyers out there who have not yet seen the Lego(R) Hearsay Exceptions video.  Old lawyers, we don’t blame you–many of you have successfully avoided YouTube addiction, and didn’t go to law school when this video was being passed around the listserves.  Regardless of age or time in practice, you need to watch this video (below the cut, for those reading on the homepage.)

(Caveat: the video is based on Federal Rules of Evidence, not Massachusetts law.  The two are similar, but not identical.)


Posted by AndyCowan on March 13th, 2009 :: Filed under Law for the Layman
Tags :: , ,

These eyewitnesses are sure taking a beating…

What’s with the sudden attention that eyewitness testimony has been receiving lately? I mean, overall I’m not against it – the more voices we have out there saying “Human memory – particularly under stress – is shockingly fallible”, the better. It just seems a little odd to me is all.

Regardless, I add to the pile with an additional link passed around the office this morning.

The heartwarming story of a friendship born when a woman wrongfully picked out the wrong guy out of a lineup and accused him of raping her.  Ok – a little black humor there, but it’s actually a really good, interesting story.

There have been 233 people exonerated by DNA in this country, and now a stunning pattern has emerged: more than three quarters of them were sent to prison at least in part because an eyewitness pointed a finger – an eyewitness we now know was wrong.


Posted by Alex Ramos on March 9th, 2009 :: Filed under In the News
Tags :: ,