Sexperts in court: Part 2

Palmistry in courtCriminal defense is nerve-racking enough, what with having to prove your client’s innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Even worse if your client is a “sex offender” where you have to prove he’s innocent of crimes that haven’t happened yet.

Of course people aren’t punished for future crimes – that would be wrong. They’re treated. Supervised. Managed. In “secure” facilities. Forever. Based on the testimony of highly qualified experts.

A recent sex offender hearing went like this:

DA: Dr.  Armpit, what are your professional qualifications?

Dr. A: I have a Ph.D.  from Dog Obedience School and completed a post-doctoral fellowship at the Hokey Pokey Academy of Forensic Dry Cleaning. I’m a member in good standing of the International Association of International Associations . 

DA: Have you published in your field?

Dr. A: Yes, indeed, my publications are attached to numerous lampposts. I’m also the person who scratches “PRAY” on subway seats.

Defense Counsel: Objection! Dr. Armpit has no relevant qualifications. 

Court: Never have I seen such impressive credentials! Please continue, Doctor.

DA: What tests did you perform to evaluate the defendant?  

Dr. A.:  I had him thrown into a lake.  As a result, I diagnosed him as a maximum risk sex offender.

DA: Did he sink or float?

Dr. A.: I don’t recall offhand. I know it was one of the two.

DA: But you determined that he was a dangerous sex offender?

Defense counsel: Objection! No foundation for the reliability of this test.

DA: Goes to weight, not admissibilty.

Court: Doctor, is this test reliable?

Dr. A.: Yes, it is. It’s been used since the Middle Ages.

Court: That settles it.  You may continue.

DA: Does the test determine to a reasonable degree of aqueous certainty whether the person will commit a sex offense in the future?

Dr. A: Yes, it’s absolutely infallible.  Floating is plainly diagnostic of the risk of reoffending. Sinking is also highly correlated with future risk unless the subject drowns. Those are considered outliers.

Court: I find Dr. Armpit entirely credible, knowledgeable and just marvelous. No child is safe if defendant is at large. Next case.

About Appellate Squawk

A satirical blog for criminal defense lawyers and their friends who won't give up without a squawk.
This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, Law & Parody, SORA and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.