Defendant has filed a motion seeking to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Pangloss, a highly respected scientist and a lovely lady, proffered by the People. Defendant further seeks to bamboozle the jury with the testimony of some snakeoil salesman from California. For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is DENIED.
Defendant stands charged with murder, rape, arson, terrorism and spitting on the sidewalk. The People have demonstrated their good faith belief that he is guilty. Needless to say, I credit their word as officers of the court.
The People have demonstrated that without Dr. Pangloss they are unable to prove their case. Thus, her testimony is clearly relevant. As to her impeccable qualifications, Dr. Pangloss is a lecturer in Pataphysics at the Zodiac Academy of Police Science and the head of the FBI Forensic Tea Leaf Division. She has testified in approximately 5,342 cases and has never been rejected by any court who knew what was good for it.
Dr. Pangloss cogently and persuasively explained that pataphysics is the basis of most forensic science. It was founded by Alfred Jarry (1873-1907) who defined the discipline as “the science of imaginary solutions, which symbolically attributes the properties of objects, described by their virtuality, to their lineaments.”
Pataphysics is thus plainly a specialized topic beyond the ken of the average juror. Clearly, it is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community, otherwise the People would not be relying on it. Indeed, without expert pataphysicial testimony the jury might well overlook numerous imaginary solutions and fail in their duty of returning a guilty verdict.
We need not tarry over the so-called expert proffered by the defense for the purpose of confusing and inflaming the jury with a lot of rigmarole about the cause of death. The Court is mindful that a central issue in this case is whether the deceased were killed as a result of the fire, which occurred at a cemetery. Nevertheless, medicine is not an exact science and jurors are completely familiar from their own experience with why people die.
If defendant wishes to engage in futher dilatory tactics by renewing his frivolous application at the end of the People’s case, he is of course free to do so.