At least blogging would give me an opportunity to bitch and whine about attorneys and judges who mumble, and interpreter cases (where an interpreter has to translate from English to Spanish {usually} and back), and stupid attorneys and witnesses who can't keep their facts straight for longer than 2.684 minutes.
Maybe I should start blogging. If I could figure out how. And what to say.
Do y'all think there would be many people interested in the travails of someone who sits and listens to boring trials and hearings all day?
Maybe I should start blogging. If I could figure out how. And what to say.
Do y'all think there would be many people interested in the travails of someone who sits and listens to boring trials and hearings all day?
Heh. I dunno about the "interesting stories" thing. Most cases are boring, repetitive and, after a few years of doing this, the same things that were said in a few dozen other cases in the past. You'd be surprised how many macros I have for phrases and complete sentences that go word for word for word the same in almost every opening/closing statement, especially in jury trials. For the most part, unlike TV and the movies, trials are only interesting to the people involved... and not always to them. I had one case where the judge asked the defense attorney to wake up her client
and several where attorneys complained that veniremen (candidates for jury) were sleeping during voir dire (questioning to determine if they'd be good jury members).
