Lawyer Jokes at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court seemed in a playful mood this morning as it considered, in the case of Indiana v. Edwards, whether states can set a higher standard for allowing defendants to represent themselves than the standard for determining whether they are competent to stand trial.

When Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher suggested a test that would allow judges to bar self-representation for those who "cannot communicate coherently with the court or jury," Justice Antonin Scalia could not resist the bait. Casting his eyes toward the Court's coffered ceiling, Scalia mulled the phrase. "Cannot communicate coherently?... I sometimes think that the lawyers cannot communicate coherently." Ba da boom. Spectators laughed. How often do the justices get to tell lawyer jokes?

There was more in this vein throughout the hour. Mark Stancil of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber argued on behalf of his client Ahmad Edwards that the standard for competency to stand trial should be the same for pro se representation. At one point Stancil noted from the trial transcript that Edwards, a disagnosed schizophrenic, understood what voir dire was, and that he had 10 peremptory challenges.

At which point Justice Anthony Kenned blurted out, "There are all kinds of nuts who could get 90 percent on the bar exam." Again, there was laughter, though some of it was of the nervous variety, because of his dismissive tone and choice of words. More on the case later at LegalTimes.com.