Court in the Act

Trying to follow an obscure argument right after lunch is a challenge for many lawyers, but serious consequences can ensue if you give in to the urge to nod off. In the US case of State v Burdine (The New York Times, 23 January 2001), Robert McGlasson, new lawyer for Texas death row inmate Calvin Burdine, whose original counsel slept through part of his murder trial in 1983, argued in the United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) that a re-trial ought to be ordered since the prisoner was left without counsel, contrary to the constitutional guarantee.

Doing What Comes Naturally

German lawyers at a recent gathering at the German-Singapore Lawyers' Association Conference exchanged views on a variety of issues which included the current hot topic of the Life Sciences. When it was revealed that cloning of human offspring is not far off in the scientific-world's agenda, one lawyer quipped that he was not impressed and preferred the traditional way of procreation; 'For one thing, it's more enjoyable!' he said, sparking off grins all around.

For some must Watch, While some must Sleep

Then there was the case of the sleeping juror in R v Tomar [1997] Crim L Rev, who fell asleep whilst the judge was summing up the case. When this was brought to the judge's attention, he inquired whether the juror had missed much of what he had been saying. The juror said he had missed very little and the judge proceeded to the conclusion of his summing up. The accused was convicted. However, the point, that the juror ought to have been discharged, taken up on appeal was dismissed, since the return verdict had been unanimous, and there were still at least ten jurors, of whom no criticism was made, who had reached that verdict.

Court Napping

It may be of interest to litigators to know that though it may not seem to be a wise thing to do, they do have a duty to wake up a judge if he or she was observed to have fallen asleep in the course of a hearing, and not just to note this as an appeal point for later. In the Queensland case of Stathooles v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [1996] QCA 323, Chief Justice Macrossan opined as follows:

To experienced counsel there should have been no difficulty other than perhaps some slight embarrassment in being required to draw the judge's attention to the concern that was felt that he may be missing an important feature of the evidence. Experienced professional advocates may be called upon to display conduct which will need to be more robust than that in their day-to-day practice in the courts. There should have been no fear that what needed to be done could not have been handled with the customary courtesy that should, and usually does, prevail between judge and counsel in the hearing of cases.

We take it as it would not have been the thing to say 'Wakey, wakey!'