Gideon is  running a poll on The Most Evil Legal Principles.  If you haven’t already, go there and vote for your fav.  But this seems to be a good time to tell you about this absolutely true story of how appeals court post-argument conferences go.  The reason I know this to be true is that my friends brother-in-law, who know a guy who’s a bagman for a mobster who has his a deadbeat clerk who listens in, says so.  How much more reliable could it get?

PJ:     So what are we gonna do with this one?

AJ1:   Can you believe this schmuck (trial judge) let the prosecutor get away with this crap?  Again?

AJ3:   Didn’t you tell him at the last judge party to shut that punk down?

AJ2:   He was so busy complimenting the fit of my robe that he wasn’t listening.

AJ4:   Focus, focus.  The defense lawyer didn’t preserve so we’re safe.

AJ2:   He objected, what are you talking about?

AJ4:   You call that an objection?  He just yelled out objection and hearsay.  He didn’t mention a single law review article or Supreme Court decision.

AJ3:   Aw please.  Like the schmuck has ever read a law review.  I wonder if he was awake when it happened.

AJ1:   Who cares?  It’s not the judge’s job to know the law.  He’s not appealing. 

AJ2:   Hey, even the schmuck knew it what the objection was.  It’s not like we haven’t smacked him 3 times for the same thing already this year.

AJ4:   But the defendant is a complete skel.  If he didn’t do this, you know he did something else to deserve it. 

AJ3:   So what it they couldn’t find the gun and the eyewitness is some low-life rat who’s paid with a daily fix and would name his momma if it would buy him a high. 

AJ1:   True, Are we gonna let this guy walk the streets?

AJ3:   So we just pretend the evidence was overwhelming no matter how bad it stunk.  Circumstantial evidence is just as good as any other.

All in unison:  HARMLESS ERROR!

pj:      Next case…