What a trial is this trial. With stress of case being adjourned until new jury sworn in ( see post of May 7: Trial begins), find myself wandering round flat muttering riddles, adages. Keen to get on with my life. Relieved to receive letter informing me trial reopening on June 5. At court, watched jury being sworn in: 8 humans and 7 animals. Delay had been due to finding jurors who hadn't already heard something and could therefore be impartial. New judge also appointed: a giraffe, which made me hopeful that case would be ruled fairly.
Case began with opening speech from prosecution.
'The prosecution will prove that regularly throughout the first year, the accused committed libel by writing defamatory comments in his publicly available letters that the lecturer had an obsession with the highly-esteemed French philosopher, JacquesDerrida. This has caused the lecturer distress and interfered with her ability to deliver the creative writing programme in the way it should.'
My advocate then followed with his speech. This is what he said:
'Members of the Jury, on a point of law, the Scottish legal system, does not distinguish between libel and slander, and all cases are simply defamation. Our case is straightforward, so straightforward, in fact, that it should never have been brought to court. My client, Bakhtin, a gifted writer, if ever there was one, such genius being displayed in his regular letters, never, in any of these letter, identified the lecturer by name. Moreover, I have read each of those quite brilliant letters and the language used is mild and should not have caused offence or distress. Lastly, and I quote the definition of defamation: publication must be a statement which claims to be fact. My client was merely expressing an opinion, something to which we are all entitled.'
Justice Chatterton then sat down and conferred with the two lawyers seated behind him. I tried not to smile too much, but it was hard. Hadn't realised until now how eloquent my advocate is.
Could see there was consternation in the prosecution side: raised voices, wild flapping of arms.
'Is there a problem?' the judge asked.
'Yes, My Lord, there is,' the prosecution advocate said.
'Do share it with us,' the Judge said, struggling to conceal his yawns. (The yawning also made me feel better - suggesting he, too, thought the case was a joke).
'It's a matter of.... some sensitivity,' the prosecution advocate continued.
'I'm intrigued,' the Judge said, yawning again.
My client has objected to... to'
At this point the lecturer called out: 'I object to having a giraffe as a judge. This will prevent the trial from being impartial.'
The Judge replied: 'Why did your advocate not announce this at the start of this morning.'
The lecturer replied: 'He has problems with erm, aphasia, my Lord.'
The Judge said: 'An advocate who struggles from aphasia? Most original. But addressing your concern, if the Judge were human, then the defence could legitimately make the same complaint. And as, to my knowledge, there are no practising judges who are half human/half animal, we have reached an impasse. Unless, of course, we appoint a second judge who is human. I will have to consult for judicial precedence. I will therefore adjourn this case for two weeks.'
The Clerk then announced: 'All rise for the judge.'
We did, and the giraffe hobbled out of court.
Of course, the press, waiting outside in their hundreds, had a field day.
Purrs
Bakhtin
