The Plaintiff Moves for an Erection
The Hartford Advocate had an article Wednesday entitled The Case of the Bent Penis.
Sexual abuse cases don't usually make their way on to ATL. But given the nature of the motion, we couldn't help ourselves:
It was a bizarre scene that unfolded last week in Waterbury Superior Court as New Haven attorney Rob Serafinowicz opened his civil case against former Middlebury First Selectman Edward B. St. John by asking Judge Jane S. Scholl to force St. John to submit to a photograph of his penis, fully aroused.The jaw-dropping request, made forcefully but without dramatic flourish by the 29-year-old Serafinowicz, came nearly three years after his client, Westport firefighter Neil Perrotti, filed a lawsuit against St. John for allegedly sexually assaulting him in a cottage in Charlestown, R.I. when Perrotti was 17 years old in 1987.
Serafinowicz explained that the photograph was crucial to his case because Perrotti, in a statement he gave to State Police about the alleged incident, claimed that St. John's penis bent to the left when aroused.
Not surprisingly, the defendant did not want to comment on which way he bends, nor submit to a photo session.
Veteran defense attorney Hugh Keefe of Lynch, Traub, Keefe & Errante, also in New Haven, began his response by noting that when he attended law school he never dreamed he would find himself in this position. Questioning whether Judge Scholl even had the authority to enforce such an "unbelievably preposterous motion," Keefe said things had only gotten worse in the last 10 minutes, thanks to Serafinowicz's remarks that his client could "use porn" to get aroused."There is not a single case not only in the state of Connecticut but in the world that a court has ordered a defendant to get in a state of arousal," said Keefe. The precedents Serafinowicz offered were in criminal cases, and therefore not applicable in this case, according to Keefe.
The judge agreed with the defense, saying the exam would be "overly intrusive."
Too bad. It could have offered the opportunity for a new take on "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
The Case of the Bent Penis [Hartford Advocate]
(0) 
Can you PLEASE offer a poll on this subject?
Give defendant a stiff sentence.
"If it doesn't bend (to the left), he doesn't have to spend (money owed to his accuser on a civil judgment)"
If his penis is tilty, you must find him guilty.
A post like this proves that Ms. Kash will never be the Kurt Anderson to Lat's Graydon Carter.
Low-rent/ceiling versions, bien sur.
What would be the penalty for not getting a hard on? Can you imagine the wording of the contempt order?
-- Caps Man (sans caps)
Seems like relevant material. Don't quite agree with the judge here.
If his dick doesn't slant, their evidence is scant.
If his penis turns, let him burn. Ha. I love it.
(Insert Adam 'Bulletproof' Reposa joke here)
i think the majority of us bend to the left, so it shouldnt really persuade folks - only freaks bend to the right
Counsel's arguments failed to sway anybody
In my day, we'd just file a writ of priapus.
Wonder why Lat thinks it is "too bad" that the judge didn't accede to the plaintiff's request. Now let me think...
Kash is obsessed w/cocks. Note her previous post about weiners and lawsuits. (sueeasy). Penis-envy much?
Proving once again that Kash is a dirty little girl -- seems like 75% of her posts have a sexual slant (pun intended) to them. I bet she is a handful in the sack!
Kash - "Let's see, what can I write about today. How about I Google 'bent cock'? Hmmm...this has a legal edge to it."
Guys in my high school used to bend their penises to the left all the time. It was no big deal.
I was waiting for defense counsel to ask for naked pictues of the plaintiff to assist the defendant in getting aroused.
I can firmly state that this is appropriate for judicial review.
If the porn doesn't get him arouse, he could try Kash...
Just what we needed: Another crooked politician.
2:57 is win
3:56, which 2:57 are you talking about?
Mi dispiace: 2:57(2) is pure win.
If the pecker is straight, there's no need to litigate.
That evidence would never "stand up" in court.
The plaintiff should have offered to fluff the defendant with his mouth. I would have!!
The ONLY thing I like about this new layout is looking at the pictures registered commenters chose. LULZ!