LAW AND DISORDER.....

I consider myself an expert on the law. Why you ask? I’ve been an avid viewer of all the great law shows on television. As everyone knows television only tells the truth – just ask Bill O’Reilly. Perry Mason, Matlock, Law and Order, Boston Legal, Court TV…hell, I know as much about the law as Clarence Thomas who restricted his viewing to porno flicks. I’ll take Raymond Burr over Linda Lovelace anytime….well, maybe not………

Most people are fascinated by trials and their outcome. It’s drama at its highest. Books, plays, movies that take place in courtrooms are always successful. Who will ever forget the move, “The Bad New Bears Sue The Shit Out Of The Vatican”? All of us interested in trials are sure that we’d catch on as some smartass defense lawyer tried to pull the wool over our eyes. We’d never allow s politically ambitious and ruthless prosecutor to get away with underhanded tricks in order to convict an innocent person. Most of us would make sure that an idiot like Judge Ito never got away with his incompetence. We’d be the arbiter of seeing that everyone got a fair, unprejudiced trial. It’s in that spirit that most of us do anything to get out of serving on juries. “Hey, for 8-bucks a day who cares if they hang the innocent bum.” Justice is one thing….a reasonable pay day is another. It’s the American way.

Seriously, don’t all of us want to see that justice is honestly carried out despite a defendant’s race, gender, politics, religion, financial situation, background….and height? Most Americans want justice to be applied evenly and fairly no matter whom is on trial. All defendants should be tried before a jury of their peers – in the case of Michael Jackson that was a tad difficult since a jury of ‘his peers’ could only be found on Jupiter.

My interest has been peaked by a West Chester, Pa., trial about to begin. A defense attorney asked a judge to bar any references to his client’s nickname in his upcoming murder trial, saying juror’s might think someone called “Scuz” is, well, scuzzy. Obviously this attorney didn’t get his law degree from some phony school in Granada. He’s too sharp for that. Truth be known he found his law school on a matchbook cover.

Demetrius “Scuz” Fiorentino, 31, is charged with the April 2004 shooting death of Joel “Wellz” Taylor, 19, during a botched drug deal in a crack house. Obviously, the court is dealing with some classy people in this trail. It seems everyone has a nickname including Judge Phyllis “Boom-Boom” Streitel. The judge didn’t get her nickname because she plays the drums…if you get my point.

In his request to the judge, defense counsel Laurence “Perjury” Harmelin cited the dictionary definition of scuzzball as “an unpleasant, dirty or dangerous person; creep” and skuzzy as “dirty, shabby or foul in condition or nature.” Seems like an open and shut case. But, Assistant District Attorney Lorriane “Melons” Finnegan said it would be nearly impossible for witnesses to identify the defendant without using his nickname. “All of these witnesses are going to have to call him by the name they know,” she said. “We’re not calling him a scuzzball or skuzzy….Its ‘Scuz’ because that’s his nickname.” Pretty shaky argument if you ask me. Why can’t the witnesses call him ‘prick’ or ‘fuckface’ instead?

Harmelin also asked to have the trial moved out of Chester County, citing publicity surrounding the case. “Melons” wants the case to stay in the county. The judge did not immediately rule on the requests. Don’t know about you but I will be awaiting her ruling in “Scuz” Fiorentino’s capital murder trial. I'll be sitting in my E-Z-Boy with a brewsky in one hand and a gavel in the other watching it on Court-TV.