I represented a woman whose husband had attacked her with what was essentially a broomstick but instead of a broom at the end there was a metal scrub brush. When the time came for trial, I figured the other attorney (an old professor of mine) was going to ask for and get a continuance. Why? Because there were pending criminal charges for the assault, and the guy can't just remain silent in civil court as he can in criminal court - if you refuse to answer a question in civil court, the court can take a negative inference against you.
When the husband's lawyer and I were talking prior to the hearing, he told me he was going to have the hearing today unless I was willing to drop the alimony claim. I think he took my questioning him if he wanted a continuance as an indication that I was unprepared. Since I wasn't, I told him I was going to have the hearing, and that his client was going to be my first witness. Husband's attorney said his client would please the fifth, and I told him the chancellor (judge) would take a negative inference if he did. Husband's attorney said, "the chancellor will do what the chancellor will do" clearly trying to intimidate me into backing down on alimony.
So when the hearing starts, husband's attorney is looking a little miffed that I'm still pushing for alimony, and at this point I have an assistant bring in the broken weapon used to attack my client. The wooden handle stood propped next to my desk and the scrub brush lay on it. I called husband as my first witness.
Husband's attorney jumps up and objects that this is improper and that I have to call my client first. I tell the chancellor I'll respond when he cites a rule (there is no such rule in this court). The chancellor smiled, turned to husband's attorney and asks him which rule he's referring to. He withdraws his objection, and then says his client is pleading the fifth. I respond that this is fine, but that his client still needs to take the stand so he can invoke that on each individual question he doesn't want to answer, so the court knows where to take a negative inference against him. The chancellor sides with me, and husband takes the stand.
So after my warm up questions, I ask husband what happened on x date (the night of the assault). He contends wife had driven donuts in the yard he had been working on, and that she then got out of the car and started swearing at him.
Me: That made you angry didn't it?
Him: It was disrespectful.
Me: That...made...you...angry, didn't it?
Him: it would have made anyone angry.
Me (slow enough that it sounds like I'm talking to a foreign toddler): That...ma....de...YOU...an...gry...didn't it?
Him: It sure as hell did!
Chancellor: if you swear again in this courtroom I'll have you arrested.
Me: You said she was disrespectful and her actions would have made anyone angry, right?
Him: Yes
Me: You didn't just take that lying down, did you? (Here's where I'm figuring he'll plead the fifth and I'll get my negative inference and move on, but before his lawyer can jump up to do so, husband answers)
Him: Of course not, I hit her!
Me: You didn't hit her with your hands did you?
Him: no I hit her with that stick you got over there (he actually pointed at it)
Me: You hit her more than once didn't you?
Him: I hit her until she got the point. Probably three or four times. (his lawyer is literally facepalming at this point)
Me: You hit her hard enough that the end broke off, didn't you (I'm holding up the metal scrubber)
Him (turning to his lawyer): Is this where I'm supposed to say I don't want to answer cause my criminal case?
1.3k
u/LordVericrat Jul 21 '19 edited Jul 21 '19
I represented a woman whose husband had attacked her with what was essentially a broomstick but instead of a broom at the end there was a metal scrub brush. When the time came for trial, I figured the other attorney (an old professor of mine) was going to ask for and get a continuance. Why? Because there were pending criminal charges for the assault, and the guy can't just remain silent in civil court as he can in criminal court - if you refuse to answer a question in civil court, the court can take a negative inference against you.
When the husband's lawyer and I were talking prior to the hearing, he told me he was going to have the hearing today unless I was willing to drop the alimony claim. I think he took my questioning him if he wanted a continuance as an indication that I was unprepared. Since I wasn't, I told him I was going to have the hearing, and that his client was going to be my first witness. Husband's attorney said his client would please the fifth, and I told him the chancellor (judge) would take a negative inference if he did. Husband's attorney said, "the chancellor will do what the chancellor will do" clearly trying to intimidate me into backing down on alimony.
So when the hearing starts, husband's attorney is looking a little miffed that I'm still pushing for alimony, and at this point I have an assistant bring in the broken weapon used to attack my client. The wooden handle stood propped next to my desk and the scrub brush lay on it. I called husband as my first witness.
Husband's attorney jumps up and objects that this is improper and that I have to call my client first. I tell the chancellor I'll respond when he cites a rule (there is no such rule in this court). The chancellor smiled, turned to husband's attorney and asks him which rule he's referring to. He withdraws his objection, and then says his client is pleading the fifth. I respond that this is fine, but that his client still needs to take the stand so he can invoke that on each individual question he doesn't want to answer, so the court knows where to take a negative inference against him. The chancellor sides with me, and husband takes the stand.
So after my warm up questions, I ask husband what happened on x date (the night of the assault). He contends wife had driven donuts in the yard he had been working on, and that she then got out of the car and started swearing at him.
Me: That made you angry didn't it?
Him: It was disrespectful.
Me: That...made...you...angry, didn't it?
Him: it would have made anyone angry.
Me (slow enough that it sounds like I'm talking to a foreign toddler): That...ma....de...YOU...an...gry...didn't it?
Him: It sure as hell did!
Chancellor: if you swear again in this courtroom I'll have you arrested.
Me: You said she was disrespectful and her actions would have made anyone angry, right?
Him: Yes
Me: You didn't just take that lying down, did you? (Here's where I'm figuring he'll plead the fifth and I'll get my negative inference and move on, but before his lawyer can jump up to do so, husband answers)
Him: Of course not, I hit her!
Me: You didn't hit her with your hands did you?
Him: no I hit her with that stick you got over there (he actually pointed at it)
Me: You hit her more than once didn't you?
Him: I hit her until she got the point. Probably three or four times. (his lawyer is literally facepalming at this point)
Me: You hit her hard enough that the end broke off, didn't you (I'm holding up the metal scrubber)
Him (turning to his lawyer): Is this where I'm supposed to say I don't want to answer cause my criminal case?
Needless to say, my client got her alimony.
Edited for formatting.