previous post next post

Mefferts: It just taint fair

May 14th, 2010

Greg Meffert and wife ask federal judge to change venue for bribery case

While pretrial questioning of potential jurors can sometimes eliminate those with prejudices against defendants, that is not possible in this case because the “taint is too extensive and too subtle,” according to the motion.

Well if the taint is interfering I would suggest you change the motion.

Here’s how I imagine the conversation in Judge Fallon’s chambers:

Randy Smith: “Your honor, the problem here is that my defendant’s taint is simply too extensive.”

Everyone grimaces.

Judge Fallon: “Well I can see where that could be a problem.”

Prosecutor: “Objection your honor, the taint is irrelevant, while noticeable, it serves no purpose.”

Judge Fallon: “Overruled. From personal experience I can tell you the taint can be a dividing factor.”

Everyone in the room nods in agreement.

Randy Smith: “Your honor, in the defendant’s case the problem is complicated. You see my client’s taint is very subtle.”

Prosecutor: “How can the defendant’s taint be extensive and subtle at the same time?”

Judge Fallon: “Good question.”

Randy Smith: “Because in this case your honor, my client’s taint is not exposed to the public, but the public knows it’s there.”

Prosecutor: “Objection…that can be said of everyone, your honor. Other people’s taint is not something people like to talk about but we all know it’s there.”

Everyone quietly shakes their head in unison.

Judge Fallon: “Is there any way to determine the actual extent of the defendant’s taint?”

Silence falls on the room as they contemplate the matter….

Randy Smith: “ Your honor, I’d like to introduce a new witness to the case…she works at Visions.”


Oh wait I just realized, that joke doesn’t work….men don’t have ‘taints do they. Oh well.

Read the original post