Chewbacca defense

Last updated

Johnnie Cochran uses the Chewbacca defense against Chef in the South Park episode "Chef Aid". 0330chewbacca.jpg
Johnnie Cochran uses the Chewbacca defense against Chef in the South Park episode "Chef Aid".

In a jury trial, the Chewbacca defense is a legal strategy in which a criminal defense lawyer tries to confuse the jury rather than refute the case of the prosecutor. It is an intentional distraction or obfuscation. As a Chewbacca defense distracts and misleads, it is an example of a red herring. It is also an example of an irrelevant conclusion, a type of informal fallacy in which one making an argument fails to address the issue in question. [1] [2] Often an opposing counsel can legally object to such arguments by declaring them irrelevant, character evidence, or argumentative.

Contents

The name "Chewbacca defense" comes from "Chef Aid", an episode of the American animated series South Park . [3] The episode, which premiered on October 7, 1998, satirizes the O. J. Simpson murder trial, particularly attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument for the defense. In the episode, a fictionalized version of Cochran bases his argument on a false premise about the 1983 film Return of the Jedi . He asks the jury why a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when "it does not make sense". He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must acquit.

Origin

In the episode, the character of Chef contacts a "major record company" executive, seeking to have his name credited as the composer of a fictional Alanis Morissette hit called "Stinky Britches". Chef's claim is substantiated by a 20‑year-old recording of Chef performing the song. The record company refuses and hires Johnnie Cochran, who files a lawsuit against Chef for harassment. In court, Cochran resorts to his "famous" Chewbacca defense, which he "used during the Simpson trial", according to Chef's lawyer, Gerald Broflovski. Although Broflovski uses logic, reasoning, and the fact that Chef properly copyrighted his work, Cochran counters with the following:

Cochran
I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense!
Gerald Broflovski
Damn it! ... He's using the Chewbacca defense!
Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests. [4]

This statement is a parody of Cochran's closing arguments in the O. J. Simpson murder case, where he said to the jury, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit", in reference to a courtroom demonstration in which Simpson appeared unable to fit a pair of bloody leather gloves found at the murder scene over the medical gloves he was wearing. [5] [6]

In a June 28, 1995, memo to Cochran, Gerald Uelmen came up with, and Cochran later repeated, a quip he used in his closing arguments, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." In his memo to Cochran, Uelmen noted that the phrase not only applied to the gloves, but to the evidence presented by the prosecutors: [7]

What the memo really tries to do is play off the jury instructions... I thought that instruction on circumstantial evidence [CALJIC 2.01] was just incredibly good for us, so when we knew that instruction was going to be given, it just popped out at me. It says if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. What I was trying to do is not just remind the jury of that moment in the trial of trying on the glove, but the whole concept of did the evidence really fit the story that the prosecution was trying to present.

In the episode, Cochran's defense is successful. The jury finds Chef guilty of "harassing a major record label", after which the judge sets his punishment as either a $2 million fine to be paid within 24 hours or, failing that, four years in prison (the judge initially sentences him to eight million years before being corrected by a court officer). Ultimately, a "Chef Aid" benefit concert is organized to raise money for Chef to hire Cochran for his own lawsuit against the record company. At the concert, Cochran has a change of heart and offers to represent Chef pro bono. He again successfully uses the Chewbacca defense, this time to defeat the record company and force them to acknowledge Chef's authorship of their song. In the second use of the Chewbacca defense, he ends by taking out a monkey puppet and shouting, "Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!" causing a juror's head to explode.

Use

The Associated Press obituary for Cochran mentioned the Chewbacca defense parody as one of the ways in which the attorney had entered pop culture. [8] Criminologist Thomas O'Connor says that when DNA evidence shows "inclusion", that is, does not exonerate a client by exclusion from the DNA sample provided, "About the only thing you can do is attack the lab for its (lack of) quality assurance and proficiency testing, or use a 'Chewbacca defense' … and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are." [9] Forensic scientist Erin Kenneally has argued that court challenges to digital evidence frequently use the Chewbacca defense by presenting multiple alternative explanations of forensic evidence obtained from computers and Internet providers to confuse the jury into reasonable doubt. Kenneally also provides methods that can be used to rebut a Chewbacca defense. [10] [11] Kenneally and colleague Anjali Swienton have presented this topic before the Florida State Court System and at the 2005 American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting. [12]

The term has seen use in political commentary. Ellis Weiner wrote in The Huffington Post in January 2007 that right-wing commentator Dinesh D'Souza was using the Chewbacca defense in criticism of then new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, defining it as when "someone asserts his claim by saying something so patently nonsensical that the listener's brain shuts down completely". [13] Jay Heinrichs' book Thank You for Arguing states that the term "Chewbacca defense" is "sneaking into the lexicon" as another name for the red herring fallacy. [14] The term was used by Paul Krugman, who wrote in The New York Times that John Taylor uses the Chewbacca defense as a seemingly last option for defending his hawkish monetary policy position, after years of publicly stating that "quantitative easing would lead to a major acceleration of inflation." [15]

Analysis by lawyers

Lawyer Josh Gilliland states in his blog, "A judge likely would say, 'I have a bad feeling about this' and possibly declare a mistrial if such an argument was made in court." Gilliland continued, "A party successfully using the Chewbacca Defense to confuse the jury into engaging in jury nullification in a civil lawsuit runs the risk of the losing party winning on a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). In Chef's case, the copyright violation should have entitled him to a judgment as a matter of law." [16] Lawyer Devin Stone outlined all the things that he stated would never happen in a real case, giving the episode a "C-" for legal accuracy. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury nullification</span> Type of jury verdict in criminal trials

Jury nullification, also known in the United Kingdom as jury equity, or a perverse verdict, is when the jury in a criminal trial gives a verdict of not guilty even though they think a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses. Nullification is not an official part of criminal procedure, but is the logical consequence of two rules governing the systems in which it exists:

  1. Jurors cannot be punished for passing an incorrect verdict.
  2. In many jurisdictions, a defendant who is acquitted cannot be tried a second time for the same offense.
<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark Fuhrman</span> American former police detective (born 1952)

Mark Fuhrman is a former detective of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He is primarily known for his part in the investigation of the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in the O. J. Simpson murder case.

In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Johnnie Cochran</span> American attorney (1937–2005)

Johnnie Lee Cochran Jr. was an American attorney from California who was involved in numerous civil rights and police brutality cases throughout his 38-year career spanning from 1964 to 2002. Noted for his skill in the courtroom, he is best known for leading the so-called "Dream Team" during the murder trial of O.J. Simpson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ron Goldman</span> American murder victim (1968–1994)

Ronald Lyle Goldman was an American restaurant waiter and aspiring actor. A volunteer working with children suffering from cerebral palsy, Goldman appeared as a contestant on the short-lived game show Studs in early 1992. Goldman lived independently from his family and supported himself as an employment headhunter, tennis instructor, and waiter, and worked occasionally as a model. Not long before his death, Goldman earned an emergency medical technician license, but he decided not to pursue that as a career.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Darden</span> American lawyer (born 1956)

Christopher Allen Darden is an American lawyer, author, lecturer, and judicial candidate. He worked for 15 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, where he gained national attention as a co-prosecutor in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jackie Chiles</span> Fictional character portrayed by American actor Phil Morris in the NBC sitcom Seinfeld

Jackie Chiles is a fictional character portrayed by American actor Phil Morris in the NBC sitcom Seinfeld. A parody of Johnnie Cochran, he appears in the series' seventh through ninth seasons as Cosmo Kramer's lawyer.

Robert Baltovich is a Canadian man who was wrongly convicted in 1992 of the murder of his girlfriend, Elizabeth Bain, in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. He spent eight years in prison and nearly another decade trying to clear his name, before being found not guilty in a retrial on April 22, 2008.

"Chef Aid" is the fourteenth episode of the second season of the American animated television series South Park. The 27th episode of the series overall, it originally aired on Comedy Central in the United States on October 7, 1998. The episode was written by series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, and directed by Parker. Guest stars in this episode include Joe Strummer, Rancid, Ozzy Osbourne, Ween, Primus, Elton John, Meat Loaf and Rick James.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Barry Scheck</span> American attorney and legal scholar (born 1949)

Barry Charles Scheck is an American attorney and legal scholar. He received national media attention while serving on O. J. Simpson's defense team, collectively dubbed the "Dream Team", helping to win an acquittal in the highly publicized murder case. Scheck is the director of the Innocence Project and a professor at Yeshiva University's Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Murder trial of O. J. Simpson</span> 1995 US criminal trial

The People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson was a criminal trial in Los Angeles County Superior Court, in which former NFL player and actor O. J. Simpson was tried and acquitted for the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman, who were stabbed to death outside Brown's condominium in Los Angeles on June 12, 1994. The trial spanned eight months, from January 24 to October 3, 1995.

Gerald F. Uelmen is an American attorney, writer, civil servant, and academic. He was part of O. J. Simpson's defense team during his trial, dubbed the "Dream Team." Uelmen says he devised the memorable line used by Johnnie Cochran in the closing argument, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Scientific jury selection, often abbreviated SJS, is the use of social science techniques and expertise to choose favorable juries during a criminal or civil trial. Scientific jury selection is used during the jury selection phase of the trial, during which lawyers have the opportunity to question jurors. It almost always entails an expert's assistance in the attorney's use of peremptory challenges—the right to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason—during jury selection. The practice is currently unique to the American legal system.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jose Baez (lawyer)</span> American lawyer (born 1970)

Jose Angel Baez is an American criminal defense lawyer and author. He is known for representing high-profile defendants such as Casey Anthony, Aaron Hernandez, Mark Nordlicht, and Harvey Weinstein.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Perry Mason moment</span> Moment during a trial that radically shifts the likely outcome

In court proceedings in the United States, a Perry Mason moment is said to have occurred whenever information is unexpectedly, and often dramatically, introduced into the record that changes the perception of the proceedings greatly and often influences the outcome. Often it takes the form of a witness's answer to a question, but it can sometimes come in the form of new evidence. It takes its name from Perry Mason, a fictional character in novels and stories written by Erle Stanley Gardner, where such dramatic reversals occurred, often in the form of witnesses confessing to crimes others were accused of in response to the sudden exposure of an inconsistency in their alibi.

The "Dream Team" refers to the team of trial lawyers that represented American athlete O. J. Simpson in his 1995 trial for the murder of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ronald Goldman. The team included Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, Carl Douglas, Shawn Chapman Holley, Gerald Uelmen, Robert Kardashian, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Robert Blasier, and William Thompson.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DNA evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder case</span> Use of DNA in the American murder trial

With no witnesses to the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, DNA evidence in the O. J. Simpson murder trial was the key physical proof used by the prosecution to link O. J. Simpson to the crime. Over nine weeks of testimony, 108 exhibits of DNA evidence, including 61 drops of blood, were presented at trial. Testing was cross-referenced and validated at three separate labs using different tests with no discrepancies found. The prosecution offered the defense access to the evidence samples to conduct their own testing, but they declined.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reaction to the verdict in the O. J. Simpson criminal trial</span> Responses to the 1995 acquittal

On Tuesday, October 3, 1995, the verdict in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson was announced and Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder. Although the nation observed the same evidence presented at trial, a division along racial lines emerged in observers' opinion of the verdict, which the media dubbed the "racial gap". Immediately following the trial, polling showed that most African Americans believed Simpson was innocent and justice had been served, while most White Americans felt he was guilty and the verdict was a racially motivated jury nullification by a mostly African-American jury. Current polling shows the gap has narrowed since the trial, with the majority of black respondents in 2016 stating they believed Simpson was guilty.

References

  1. ↑ Willing v. State, Slip Copy at n.1 (Sup. Ct. Nev. May 14, 2013).
  2. ↑ Bd. of Trustees of Galveston Wharves v. Trelleborg, CV 10-2319-GW (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)
  3. ↑ "The Chewbacca Defense is Used in Court". YouTube . South Park Studios - Comedy Central. October 7, 1998. Retrieved April 11, 2024.
  4. ↑ Video of the scene is available.
  5. ↑ "CNN Interactive: Video Almanac – 1995". CNN . Archived from the original on December 4, 2010.
  6. ↑ "O.J. Simpson Infamously Trying On Gloves At Trial". YouTube. Investigation Discovery. February 27, 2016. Archived from the original on November 18, 2021. Retrieved September 11, 2018.
  7. ↑ LaRoe, Ginny (April 5, 2016). "Lawyer Behind 'If It Doesn't Fit' Thinks O.J. Miniseries Full of S***". Law.com. Retrieved April 12, 2024.
  8. ↑ "Cochran was rare attorney turned pop culture figure". Associated Press. March 30, 2005. Archived from the original on September 15, 2012. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  9. ↑ Thomas O'Connor, Ph.D., Austin Peay State University Center at Ft. Campbell and North Carolina Wesleyan College. "DNA Typing and Identification". Archived from the original on October 9, 2006. Retrieved January 27, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ↑ Erin Kenneally, M.F.S., J.D. "Applying Admissibility, Reliability to Technology" (PDF). Florida State Courts. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 7, 2006. Retrieved January 27, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ↑ Anjali R. Swienton, M.F.S., J.D. Erin Kenneally, M.F.S., J.D. "Poking the Wookie: the Chewbacca Defense in Digital Evidence Cases" (PDF). SciLaw Forensics, Ltd. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 8, 2007. Retrieved January 27, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ↑ "Upcoming AAFS Annual Meeting". CERIAS, Purdue University. Archived from the original on January 8, 2009. Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  13. ↑ Ellis Weiner (January 24, 2007). "D is for Diabolical". The Huffington Post . Retrieved January 27, 2007.
  14. ↑ Heinrichs, Jay (2007). Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion . New York: Three Rivers Press. pp.  148–49. ISBN   978-0-307-34144-0.
  15. ↑ Paul Krugman (July 12, 2013). "The Monetary Debate: Enter Chewbacca". The New York Times . Retrieved July 12, 2013.
  16. ↑ Gilliland, Josh (May 3, 2013). "A Legal Analysis of The Chewbacca Defense". The Legal Geeks.
  17. ↑ Devin Stone, Real Lawyer Reacts to South Park Chewbacca Defense (September 4, 2019).

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.