A growing trend in criminal defense: invoking your modest endowment as exculpatory evidence.
Back in March, we wrote about this case, in which a Florida defendant argued that his penis was too small to inflict the injuries sustained by a rape victim. Now we hear about a more extreme version of the “size matters” defense, from the Houston Chronicle:
Houston’s 14th Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a local doctor for indecent exposure.
The court rejected the argument by high-profile attorney Dick DeGuerin and his associate Neal Davis that the doctor could not have exposed himself to an undercover cop because that which is alleged to have been exposed is too small to have been seen.
Too small to be seen? Some defendants would rather serve time than rely upon this defense.
Alas, the defendant doctor got the worst of both worlds: the world now knows about his wee wee-wee, and he was convicted (with the conviction affirmed on appeal). Columnist Rick Casey sums it up:
The bottom line: This is a case that could be described as de minimis, a legal term defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “1. Trifling, minimal. 2. (Of a fact or thing) so insignificant that a court may overlook it in deciding an issue or case.”
Quips our tipster: “So much for the myth that everything is bigger in Texas.”
Accused flasher loses ‘to small to see’ defense [Houston Chronicle via Legal Blog Watch]
Earlier: From the Department of Dubious Defenses: If the Trojan Mangum Don’t Fit, You Must Acquit