This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
What are the rules on who can talk, and when, in the courtroom? Or is this something that will be covered later?
No, I’m not planning on covering courtroom decorum. (I’m certainly not forcing my characters to act like they would in a real courtroom. Ain’t nobody got time for that. I’m trying to make the points as clearly as I can, so there’s a bit of dramatic license here in service of clarity.)
The rules on courtroom decorum vary from state to state and county to county, but in general they’re pretty simple: When on the record, lawyers don’t speak to each other but only to the court (the judge). The judge can speak whenever he or she wants, and when the judge starts speaking the lawyers stop. The lawyers take turns to make their statements and arguments. Who goes first depends on what’s going on. Typically, the side that’s making the application will go first. The other side will wait until the first one is completely finished before making their own statements. The only interruptions that are allowed are objections — essentially claims that what’s being said shouldn’t be allowed into the record.
Recognizing that you aren’t going for that kind of realism: is it common for lawyers to trot out the kind of argument in court that’s so obviously wrong you’d sound like you were schooling a novice when rebutting it?
Depends on the experience level of the lawyer, or how much they think they’ll get away with.
It also depends on what’s going on. With suppression motions, for example, defense lawyers often raise every argument that’s even slightly colorable, just to make sure they’ve covered all the bases. On appeal, however, a lawyer is going to pick and choose the strongest arguments, and not weaken them by association with less viable ones.
But then of course real lawyers are real people defending other real people in real cases. Hardly any of them are purely fictional literary devices for teaching a specialized concept to a general audience.
…for some reason, the only rebuttal I think that was necessary to the defense attorney’s argument was “Hahahahahahaha…oh you were serious?”
Our motorcyclist either has statements to make on old British currency or Cephalapods it would seem.
Or it could be the random string of numbers and letters the DMV gave him. It certainly wouldn’t be the most “legible” non-custom plate I’ve seen.
“Squid” is a term motorcyclists use for riders who drive like idiots.
Old? We still use quid as a term for multiple pounds, in much the same way (I imagine) as you use the term ‘bucks’. You wouldn’t say one buck like we wouldn’t say one quid, but oh man, you bought that motorbike second hand for 250 quid? That’s a bargain!
“The buck stops here.”
Possibly the most famous use of the term was in the singular.
Being a Navy veteran, I love the cyclist’s vanity plate!
Neat that we have some character development in ∏. As seen in the thought bubble, before she would have denied the defendant’s claims, but now she clearly has learned to think her responses out ahead of time. This is why I love this comic- you combine clear and concise lessons with interesting characters and gripping stories. Keep up the good work!
It seems rather strange that use of deadly force should be considered a seizure subject to the 4th amd., but I guess it has to be done that way since the writers of the constitution obviously considered “the police don’t get to shoot people without a good reason” too self-evident to put into it’s own amendment. The fact that it does apparently require a constitutional interpretation these days is somewhat disturbing. (Kind of makes you think that the opponents of the Bill of Rights were right, that listing what the state can’t do means everything not listed is fine)