Judges are only human.  They can make mistakes too, you know.  And nobody knows this better than Plymouth, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Charles M. Grabau.

This small, seemingly inconsequential local story of the trial of 21 year old Joseph Nee reminds us that there is nothing funny about the sequentially-challenged.  It seems that Judge Grabau meant to give Nee a great trial.  He really did.  He just lost track of what comes before what.

Much to the surprise of Nee’s lawyers, Grabau started to issue his ruling close to 10 a.m., before closing arguments had been made. “The Commonwealth has proved this case beyond a reasonable doubt . . ., ” he began.

Dang!  Don’t you just hate it when that happens?

But when Nee’s lawyer, Thomas Drechsler, stood up and pointed out that he had not made his closing argument yet, the judge stopped short of announcing his decision and directed the lawyer to begin his closing argument.

  Picture Emily Litella saying, “Oh.  Never mind.” 

  Of course, there’s nothing that instills faith in the system more than a judge who can readily admit that he was in the process of convicting the defendant just a wee bit early.  Premature conviction is one of the first things that shouldn’t happen, according to the judges’ handbook.  “Always wait until the trial is over before convicting,” it clearly states.

Of course, the worst part about this story, and was inadvertently left out of the article, was that Judge Grabau didn’t have to craft his decision convicting Joseph Nee.  He just reused the same ruling that he uses in every other case.  Why reinvent the wheel?

H/T Kevin Underhill at Lowering the Bar.